4/25/2023 0 Comments Expression media for macAt the time of the events leading to this legal action, these 330 articles produced more than 10,000 daily reader comments, which could be left anonymously and often turned quite offensive, threatening, and defamatory. Third, the court noted that imposing civil penalties on the outlet pursued the legitimate aim of “protecting the reputation and rights of others.” Finally, the court engaged in a balancing test to determine whether Estonia’s interference with the outlet’s rights was necessary in a democratic society it found that Estonia acted permissibly.ĭelfi is a high-volume Estonian online news outlet that publishes an average of 330 articles per day. ![]() Second, the court held that the award of damages was prescribed by law, and that the outlet violated Estonia’s Civil Code Act and Obligations Act. First, the ECtHR found that Estonia had interfered with the outlet’s right to free expression when it imposed civil penalties for the defamatory comments. ![]() ![]() The court conducted a three-part test in determining whether the news outlet’s rights had been violated. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Estonia did not breach Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when it held an online news outlet liable for defamation based on comments posted in the comments section of its articles.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |