Should critique on governmental policy regarding Covid-19 be tolerated on online platforms? An analysis of recent case-law in the Netherlands.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Should critique on governmental policy regarding Covid-19 be tolerated on online platforms? An analysis of recent case-law in the Netherlands. / van der Donk, Berdien B E.

In: Journal of Human Rights Practice, 02.2021.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

van der Donk, BBE 2021, 'Should critique on governmental policy regarding Covid-19 be tolerated on online platforms? An analysis of recent case-law in the Netherlands.', Journal of Human Rights Practice.

APA

van der Donk, B. B. E. (Accepted/In press). Should critique on governmental policy regarding Covid-19 be tolerated on online platforms? An analysis of recent case-law in the Netherlands. Journal of Human Rights Practice.

Vancouver

van der Donk BBE. Should critique on governmental policy regarding Covid-19 be tolerated on online platforms? An analysis of recent case-law in the Netherlands. Journal of Human Rights Practice. 2021 Feb.

Author

van der Donk, Berdien B E. / Should critique on governmental policy regarding Covid-19 be tolerated on online platforms? An analysis of recent case-law in the Netherlands. In: Journal of Human Rights Practice. 2021.

Bibtex

@article{a02caf54ccb24e87a7cfe0fdb4456d0d,
title = "Should critique on governmental policy regarding Covid-19 be tolerated on online platforms? An analysis of recent case-law in the Netherlands.",
abstract = "This policy and practice note describes and discusses two recent decisions by the District Court in Amsterdam regarding the applicability of YouTube{\textquoteright}s and Facebook{\textquoteright}s Community Guidelines on Covid-19 misinformation. The decisions (Caf{\'e} Weltschmerz/YouTube and Smart Exit/Facebook ) illustrate the tense intersection between, on the one hand, the possibility to express critique on the government{\textquoteright}s policy to fight the outbreak of Covid-19 in the Netherlands, and on the other hand, the prevention of (dis)information with the potential to harm public health. The author will point out that the two decisions, although covering merely the same subject matter, differ significantly in argumentation regarding the (scope of the) application of the freedom of expression. Analysing this divergence in argumentation will show that the root of the difference can be traced back to a different valuation of the role of the online platforms regarding the dissemination of speech. A debate on this divergence is needed to prevent inconsistency in future decisions and contributes to the broader discussion on content regulation in the European Union.",
keywords = "Faculty of Law, content regulation, covid-19, freedom of expression, online platforms, drafting of user terms",
author = "{van der Donk}, {Berdien B E}",
year = "2021",
month = feb,
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Human Rights Practice",
issn = "1757-9619",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Should critique on governmental policy regarding Covid-19 be tolerated on online platforms? An analysis of recent case-law in the Netherlands.

AU - van der Donk, Berdien B E

PY - 2021/2

Y1 - 2021/2

N2 - This policy and practice note describes and discusses two recent decisions by the District Court in Amsterdam regarding the applicability of YouTube’s and Facebook’s Community Guidelines on Covid-19 misinformation. The decisions (Café Weltschmerz/YouTube and Smart Exit/Facebook ) illustrate the tense intersection between, on the one hand, the possibility to express critique on the government’s policy to fight the outbreak of Covid-19 in the Netherlands, and on the other hand, the prevention of (dis)information with the potential to harm public health. The author will point out that the two decisions, although covering merely the same subject matter, differ significantly in argumentation regarding the (scope of the) application of the freedom of expression. Analysing this divergence in argumentation will show that the root of the difference can be traced back to a different valuation of the role of the online platforms regarding the dissemination of speech. A debate on this divergence is needed to prevent inconsistency in future decisions and contributes to the broader discussion on content regulation in the European Union.

AB - This policy and practice note describes and discusses two recent decisions by the District Court in Amsterdam regarding the applicability of YouTube’s and Facebook’s Community Guidelines on Covid-19 misinformation. The decisions (Café Weltschmerz/YouTube and Smart Exit/Facebook ) illustrate the tense intersection between, on the one hand, the possibility to express critique on the government’s policy to fight the outbreak of Covid-19 in the Netherlands, and on the other hand, the prevention of (dis)information with the potential to harm public health. The author will point out that the two decisions, although covering merely the same subject matter, differ significantly in argumentation regarding the (scope of the) application of the freedom of expression. Analysing this divergence in argumentation will show that the root of the difference can be traced back to a different valuation of the role of the online platforms regarding the dissemination of speech. A debate on this divergence is needed to prevent inconsistency in future decisions and contributes to the broader discussion on content regulation in the European Union.

KW - Faculty of Law

KW - content regulation

KW - covid-19

KW - freedom of expression

KW - online platforms

KW - drafting of user terms

M3 - Journal article

JO - Journal of Human Rights Practice

JF - Journal of Human Rights Practice

SN - 1757-9619

ER -

ID: 251635622