The Bombay High Court Dismisses the Ministry of Truth
In 2023, the Indian central government established a Fact Check Unit to monitor online content related to ‘any business of the Central Government’ and order the takedown of any information that it considered ‘fake or false or misleading.’ The FCU itself was envisaged as a public body and a part of the central government. As it seems, the Indian central government wanted to depart from existing liability rules protecting platforms in all cases of online criticism of the Indian State. As the FCU would be the last arbiter of what could be said online in India about the central government, the amendment instituted what could be called a ‘Ministry of Truth’. This was struck down by the Bombay High Court.
Continue reading >>
Online Speech at the US Supreme Court in Moody v. Netchoice
The First Amendment of the US Constitution raises some of the most difficult legal hurdles for regulating the global digital public sphere today. In Moody v. Netchoice, the US Supreme Court heard appeals from two judgments, an appeal from a decision of the Fifth Circuit declaring that Texas’ social media law H.B. 20 did not violate the First Amendment, and an appeal from a decision of the Eleventh Circuit finding Florida’s social media law S.B. 7072, instead, unconstitutional. These laws are similar in that they both attempt to impose must-carry and non-discrimination obligations on social media platforms, which in practice amounts to requiring them not to discriminate against conservative users’ posts. The compatibility of these two laws with the First Amendment cuts across a plethora of crucial issues on the future of social media regulation which the court could, but didn’t fully, address.
Continue reading >>
Protecting the Freedom to Express the „Thought that we Hate“
Das Schweizer Bundesverwaltungsgericht hat in einem Urteil vom 7. Mai 2024 die Schutzgewährung für das Zeichen „Bimbo QSR“ einer mexikanischen Lebensmittelfirma verneint. Das Gericht hielt auf Grundlage des Art. 2 lit. d des Schweizer Markenschutzgesetzes (MschG) fest, dass „das mehrdeutige Wort "Bimbo" auch als rassistisches Schimpfwort verstanden“ werde und es damit den absoluten Ausschlussgrund der Sittenwidrigkeit erfülle. US Bundesgerichte gehen diese Thematik interessanterweise genau umgekehrt an und setzten die Kompatibilität einer derartigen Schutzverweigerung mit der Meinungsfreiheit ins Zentrum ihrer Analyse.
Continue reading >>
Zwischen Fluss, Meer und Strafbefehl
Macht sich strafbar, wer den Satz „from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free“ verwendet? In aller Regel nicht. Der Slogan ist vieldeutig und Gerichte müssen bei mehreren Deutungsmöglichkeiten wegen der Meinungsfreiheit genau begründen, warum allein die strafbare Interpretation plausibel sein soll. Er kennzeichnet auch nicht die Hamas, denn verschiedene Akteure verwenden ihn seit Jahrzenten bis heute.
Continue reading >>Silence is Golden, but not Mandatory
Last week, European Commissioner Breton received a slap on the wrist from the commission’s officials. After he (politically unwise) criticized the process of electing Ursula von der Leyen as the EPP’s leading candidate on X (formally Twitter), the Commission’s Secretary General did not mince his words in reminding him of his obligations under EU law and the potential sanctions for violating them. In this post, I argue that one cannot construe the duties of the Members of the Commission as a prohibition of political expressions of any kind.
Continue reading >>