Abstract
I wish to provide a description of context and practical changes in the institutions, places and tools of speech moderation before and after the internet. This description revolves around legally and institutionally relevant aspects of how excesses in speech were identified and countered in order to provide support for a normative claim about what online speech moderation should look like today and in the future. The article starts with a list of elements of content moderation up until three decades ago and the follow with a list of elements of content moderation today. The primary goal is to contrast the two scenarios in order to highlight the inconvenience of certain assumptions lawmakers, lawyers and judges make on how communication works in a networked society. I do not intend to provide alternative descriptions to the characteristics of this phenomenon in order to dispute prevailing descriptions. My point is merely to uncover certain aspect that usually remain unnoticed or underestimated in the legal debate about content moderation. The third part of the article will then propose the outline of a new procedural legal framework for moderation of online speech without dwelling too deep on considerations of substantive legal standards for balancing speech.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Computer Law & Security Review: The International Journal of Technology Law and Practice
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
