My point is that while both are crimes, threatening murder or rape or the like is called threatening the use of criminal force while shouting fire in a theater is NOT threatening to use criminal force.

Before I continue, I have to point out that I have not read the entire ruling and that things are far more complex than they appear at first sight. Nevertheless, we must also keep in mind that this is a ruling to a decision taken by the Estonian national legal system to which Delfi appealed to the ECHR. The biggest issue/problem in the ruling is the phrase: "to ensure a realistic prospect of the authors of such comments being held liable". Since this is something related to the Estonian rules of how websites must police users' comments, it has no direct effect on anyone else (as pointed out in the Ars Technica article).

For example, I know that news websites in Slovenia have a special system in place by which hate speech, calls for violence or intolerance can be reported and in addition to that, individuals who post such content can be prosecuted under Slovenian criminal law. I do not agree with this system, but it would appear that Member States can go above what EU legislation has to say on this issue and now fall foul of it. Moreover, Slovenian legislation would also appear to be now in full compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights (at least per the latest ruling)

So the question now is, how will this work out in the future, ie. will future national/European legislation include this ruling or not?

My apologies for sounding rude, but could you rephrase that part? I could not understand the point you were trying to make.

You came up with an example, which IMHO did not match the situation of this case. Now you are referring to criminal force, which as far as I was able to see, is not the case in the ruling.

So I still don´t get your point, sorry (No Pun intended or similar ;) )

second that ;)

In so far, that they said, as far as I understood, it is still applicable in other states, but they left it open, what is a realistic prospect. Hence also applicable in other cases. Much to vague....

This sounds reasonable. If you don´t mind me asking, why are you against it? And why shall a country not go above certain standards? If your ;) government thinks, it can better protect their populace, why not? EU is only setting the minimum requirement, nothing else (mostly ;) )

Sorry for quoting both.

First, sounding rude? Why? We are having a discussion and it is normal to ask, if either side out of whatever reason, did not understood something ;)

OK, I try it this way:

Both treaties the Council of Europe and any contract regarding the EU are done by the states.

As the Council of Europe is including states, which are NOT part of the EU, best example Russia and Turkey, are outside of the legislative and judicial reach of the EU and its court the ECJ.

So Any decision by a court here ECJ, which has no jurisdiction about things NOT included in those contract are void.

They decided, that the convention of human rights, which is NOT the EU part, but the Council of Europe, is not valid:

1.) According to the council of Europe only states can join. EU IS NOT a state.
2.) How to phrase it..... lets try it this way: Imagine your Slovenian court would try to tell a court/state in Croatia that their law is against Slovenian law. Would it matter?

It is IMHO against the treaties and as the EU is not a single state, this court cannot decide upon state contracts of individual states, which would need to be the prerequisite for the ECJ to decide upon this.

I hope now it is more understandable ;)

????
EDIT:

Double post before, even as I just used edit????

OK servers are reacting strange today

OK, now I'm confused, who exactly is in charge of policing the internet, Europe or America ? :)

hmmmmm

depends on the subject:

Espionage is shared between US, Russia and China
Nudity and sex related speech: US
Nazi-Symbols: Germany
Anything to be censored: Cuba and North Korea

so please be more precise ;)

Whoever manages to gain enough support for their change. Or whoever manages to keep their change enough under the radar that not enough people have the chance to oppose it.

We can still do it:

Why did those bloody Americans invented the internet?

That will get you arrested by the right people ;)

But see the positive, now you can CHOOSE by whom you will be beaten up and interrogated. In before it was just America, that gets boring......

Feel for more SM, then decide for Germany
Feeling more for some Cigars, choose Cuba

Ohhhh, the choice, the choice ;)

Germany it is then....I've been VERY bold! :)

Reminds me of a good old joke:

A masochist is asking a sadist: Please master, punish me:

The Sadist: No!

what the bloody hell happend here ?!
i leave this thread come back and its 6 pages !
a true sadist then

Hahahahaha :)

I am not a legal expert when it comes to the ECHR and the impact of its judgements on national legal systems, so I cannot provide a definitive answer to this question. Nevertheless, I do not remember many cases where its rulings would be felt far and wide. Perhaps with a more general issue and even then it is not set in stone. Christ, even individual states that were found guilty of violating the Convention do not always follow the ruling, which is why the pilot judgements was introduced. So yeah, even if a ruling in general applies to other states, I doubt many will go to the trouble of changing their legal systems.

As for the Electronic Commerce directive, you would need to ask a lawyer. It is likely that its contents will be changed as part of the proposals on the Digital Single Market, but there will be bigger fish to fry during negotiations on that package. We shall have to wait and see.

To answer the last part first, I do not mind going over the minimal requirements. I just wanted to point out that it would appear that Slovenia and other countries go outside what is set in the e-Commerce directive and can actually demand a certain level of liability from websites for what third-party users post there.

As for the system itself, I am a firm believer in free speech. I realise that historical experience makes us European more wary in comparison to the Americans, but I have always felt that extreme language can be countered with words. Those who are confused can be convinced by other means than brute force and those who are far too gone will not be "converted" just because they cannot post their bile on websites (as they have their own digital fora where they can spew their crap). Engaging in the open, rather than forcing into the shadows is my view.

There seems to be some miscommunication due to the usage of different terminology, so apologies if I got something wrong.

Yes, EU primary (Treaties) and secondary legislation (Regulations, Directives and other decisions) and the rulings of the ECJ are binding only on EU Member States. Nevertheless, the standards they set are sometimes picked up by other nations and those who wish to get closer to the EU (read: gain market access, visa-free travel and monies) sign up to adopting certain parts of EU legislation. But yeah, officially, the EU is self-contained.

As concerns the EU joining the European Convention on Human Rights, things are more complicated than that. Yes, it is not a state, but it is a legal entity/has been endowed with a legal personality. This means that in the eyes of international law, it can sign treaties and participate in some aspects of the international community. Do not forget that the EU is a full-fledged member of some international organisations, such as the WTO and the G20 (and others I cannot remember right now). It even tried to get Observer status in the UN General Assembly, but failed.

Furthermore, as I have already pointed out, Member States have decided for the EU as a legal entity to join the Convention as set out in Article 6.2 of the Treaty on European Union. This has caused problems of its own, both on the Council of Europe and EU sides, with experts doubtful of how this will all turn out. As of right now, it is one great experiment in international law and protection of human rights.

More reason for why I say "fuck the EU."

I really hope the more nationalist-leaning factions in Europe rise up including the ones that have been mindlessly accused (mostly by EU sympathizers and internationalists) of being "racist" or "OMG NAZIS!!!!" or "fascists."