Resumen
El uso masificado de internet ha provocado que los usuarios estén expuestos a una gran cantidad de conductas ofensivas por parte de terceros, lo que suele incidir en la vulneración de los derechos y libertades de las personas. Con el objeto de promover un espacio seguro, distintas iniciativas legislativas comparadas han comenzado a regular los daños en línea, exigiendo a las plataformas ciertos deberes de moderación de dicho contenido. Sin embargo, el concepto de daño en línea es subjetivo, especialmente si se considera que incluye aquel contenido que sin ser ilegal, es considerado nocivo o perjudicial. A propósito de lo anterior, este trabajo tiene por objeto estudiar las distintas conductas que pueden subsumirse en el concepto de daño legal pero perjudicial a la luz de la taxonomía de daños ofrecida en el Libro Blanco de Daños en Línea del Reino Unido, para luego proponer una definición de daño en línea que sirva de base para una regulación orgánica y coherente de las conductas que deben ser atenidas y controlados en entornos digitales.
Referencias
Agrafiotis, I., Nurce, J., Goldsmith, M., CReese, S. y Upton, D. (2018). A taxonomy of cyberharms: Defining the impacts of cyber-attacks and understanding how they propagate. Journal of Cybersecurity 4(1), tyy006. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyy006
Barker, K. y Jurasz, O. (2019). ¿Online harms and Caroline’s Law – what’s the direction for the law reform? Scripted. https://script-ed.org/blog/online-harms-and-carolines-law/
Bunting, M. (2018). From editorial obligation to procedural accountability: policy approaches to online content in the era of information intermediaries. Journal of Cyber Policy 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2018.1519030
Cavaliere, P. (2019). Digital platforms and the rise of global regulation of hate speech. Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper (2019/29). https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3456141
Center for Democracy & Technology (2019). Nine Principles for Future EU Policymaking on Intermediary Liability. CDT. https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Nine-Principlesfor-Future-EU-Policymaking-on-Intermediary-Liability-Aug-2019.pdf
Cohen, M. (2019). Will the Online Harms White Paper make the UK the safest place in the world to go online? A look at recent approaches the UK, Germany, Australia and New Zealand have taken to regulating online harms. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 25.
Consejo de Europa y EuroISPA. (2008). Human Rights Guidelines for Internet Service Providers. COE. https://rm.coe.int/16805a39d5
Goldman, E. (2020). The U.K. Online Harms White Paper and the Internet’s Cable-ized Future’. Ohio State Tech. L.J. 16(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3438530
Haggart, R. y Tusikov N. (2019). What the UK’s Online Harms white paper teaches us about internet regulation. Inforrm. https://inforrm.org/2019/04/22/what-the-u-k-s-online-harmswhite-paper-teaches-us-about-internet-regulation-richard-haggart-and-natasha-tusikov/
Helberger, N., Pierson J. y Poell, T. (2018), Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility, The Information Society, 34(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1391913
Hoffmann, A. y Gasparotti, A. (2020). Liability for illegal content online Weaknesses of the EU legal framework and possible plans of the EU Commission to address them in a Digital Services Act. CepStudy. https://www.cep.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/hayekstiftung.de/cepStudy_Liability_for_illegal_content_online.pdf
Iglezakis, I. (2017). The Legal Regulation of Hate Speech on the Internet. En T.-E. Synodinou, P. Jougleux, P., Markou, C. y Prastitou, T. (Eds.), EU Internet Law. Regulation and Enforcement. Sringer.
Krasodomski-Jones, Alex (2019). Can the government nudge us towards a better internet? CapX. https://capx.co/can-the-government-nudge-us-closer-to-a-better-internet/
Lesh, M., Dumitriu, S. y Salter, P. (2019). Safeguarding progress: The risks of internet regulation. Adam Smith Institute. https://coilink.org/20.500.12592/ck82jd
López Díaz, P. (2022). El consumidor hipervulnerable como débil jurídico en el derecho chileno: una taxonomía y alcance de la tutela aplicable. Latin American Legal Studies 10(2), 340-415. https://doi.org/10.15691/0719-9112Vol10n2a7
Madiega, T. (2020). Reform of the EU liability regime for online intermediaries. Background on the forthcoming digital service act. European Parliament Research Service. EPRS. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2020/649404/EPRS_IDA(2020)649404_EN.pdf
McGonagle, T. (2020). Free Expression and Internet Intermediaries: The Changing Geometry of European Regulation. En G. Frosio (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.24
Montagnani, M. y Trapova A. (2019). New Obligations for Internet Intermediaries in the Digital Single Market - Safe Harbors in Turmoil? Journal of Internet Law, 22(7), 3-11. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3361073
Murray, A. (2019). Rethinking Regulation for the Digital Environment’. LSE Law - Policy Briefing Paper, (41). https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3462792
Nash, V. (2019a). Internet Regulation and the Online Harms White Paper Stakeholder Workshop. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3412790
Nash, V. (2019b). Revise and resubmit? Reviewing the ‘2019 Online Harms White Paper’ Journal of Media Law, 11(1), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2019.1666475
OfCom (2018). Addressing harmful online content: A perspective from broadcasting and on-demand standards regulation. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-andharmful-content/addressing-harmful-online-content/
Post, R. (2009). Hate Speech. En I. Hare y J. Weinstein (Eds.), Extreme speech and democracy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0008
Prince Torres, Á. C. (2020). El acceso a Internet como derecho fundamental: perspectivas internacionales. Revista Justicia & Derecho, 3(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.32457/rjyd.v3i1.45
Risso Ferrand, M. (2020). La libertad de expresión y el combate al discurso del odio. Estudios Constitucionales, 18(1), 51-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-52002020000100051
Smith, G. (2019a, 30 de abril). Users Behaving Badly: the Online Harms White Paper. Inforrm. https://inforrm.org/2019/04/30/users-behaving-badly-the-online-harms-whitepaper-graham-smith
Smith, G. (2019b, 12 de mayo). The Rule of Law and the Online Harms White Paper. Cyberleagle. https://www.cyberleagle.com/2019/05/the-rule-of-law-and-online-harmswhite.html
Smith, G. (2020, 20 de febrero). Online Harms Deconstructed: the Initial Consultation Response. Inforrm. https://inforrm.org/2020/02/20/online-harms-deconstructed-theinitial-consultation-response-graham-smith
Taddeo, M. (2020). The Civic Role of OSPs in Mature Information Societies. En G. Frosio (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3584187
Tambini, D. (2019). The differentiated duty of care: a response to the Online Harms White Paper. Journal of Media Law, 11(1), 28-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2019.1666488
The Guardian view on online harms: white paper, grey areas. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/08/the-guardian-view-on-online-harmswhite-paper-grey-areas
Theil, S. (2019). The Online Harms White Paper: comparing the UK and German approaches to regulation. Journal of Media Law, 11(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2019.1666476
Tomlinson, H. (2019). Online Harms White Paper: Two comments on harms. Inforrm. https://inforrm.org/2019/07/05/online-harms-white-paper-two-comments-on-harmshugh-tomlinson-qc/
Walker, C. y Akdeniz, Y. (1998). The governance of the Internet in Europe with special reference to illegal and harmful content. Criminal Law Review, 5-19.
Wragg, P. (2019). Tackling online harms: what good is regulation? Communications Law 24(2), 49-51.
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Derechos de autor 2024 Revista Jurídica Digital UANDES