Critics argue this creates a "chilling effect," where sites might disable comments entirely to avoid the risk of massive legal liability. The Legacy of Delfi AS
The case began when , one of Estonia’s largest news portals, published an article about a ferry company. The article itself was neutral, but it sparked a wave of highly offensive, threatening, and defamatory comments from readers directed at the ferry company's owner.
In the early days of the web, the "safe harbor" principle was the gold standard: platforms were generally not responsible for what their users posted, provided they removed illegal content once notified. But in 2013, a judgment indexed as by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sent shockwaves through the digital world by challenging that very idea. The Case: Delfi AS v. Estonia
Critics argue this creates a "chilling effect," where sites might disable comments entirely to avoid the risk of massive legal liability. The Legacy of Delfi AS
The case began when , one of Estonia’s largest news portals, published an article about a ferry company. The article itself was neutral, but it sparked a wave of highly offensive, threatening, and defamatory comments from readers directed at the ferry company's owner. 126635
In the early days of the web, the "safe harbor" principle was the gold standard: platforms were generally not responsible for what their users posted, provided they removed illegal content once notified. But in 2013, a judgment indexed as by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sent shockwaves through the digital world by challenging that very idea. The Case: Delfi AS v. Estonia Critics argue this creates a "chilling effect," where