This article conducts a comparative analysis of intermediary liability laws regarding harmful speech in nine liberal-democratic polities. Harmful speech here is defined in terms of the ability of user-generated content (“UGC”) to lead to individual physical harm (e.g., threats, incitement to violence), individual relational harm (e.g., defamation), or individual reactive harm (e.g., hate speech), as well as its potential to lead to social harm (e.g., fake news). The purpose of this comparative analysis is to distill a set of common principles upon which the concept of “platform ethics”— ethical duties that digital intermediaries owe to their users and to society—can be based. Conceptualizing platform ethics is incredibly important today as major social networks remain indispensable tools for democracy despite waning public trust stemming from recent major scandals.
Beyond Section 230: Liability, Free Speech, and Ethics on Global Social Networks
This article conducts a comparative analysis of intermediary liability laws regarding harmful speech in nine liberal-democratic polities.