it law cases

Question 1

Calder v. Jones, effect test

Answer 1

The test refers to those cases where there is reasonable expectation for the defendants to be sued in the forum state, where effects are felt

Question 2

Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo dot com

Answer 2

The defendants are susceptible to jurisdiction in those places they deliberately affected
The zippo test followed a one-size-fits-all approach, for all Internet disputes: but Internet disputes come in many different sizes and shapes

Question 3

Dow Jones & Company v Gutnik

Answer 3

Existing principles of defamation law are that legal proceedings should be undertaken in the place where the communication is received, not where the communication is sent from. This applies to Internet communications as well

Question 4

Lewis v. King

Answer 4

Both US citizens and residents, case in Britain as the hosting websites could be viewed in GB, forum shopping

Question 5

Case C-68/93 Shevill

Answer 5

Mosaic approach
Defamation lawsuit can be brought in one MS for all, or in all for themselves

Question 6

eDate Advertising

Answer 6

same as Shevill just for personality rights

Question 7

Boldsupplysningen

Answer 7

eDate applicable in cases where the action is brought by legal persons, centre of interests MS can do rectification of incorrect information, failure to remove comment

Question 8

Yahoo! v. Licra

Answer 8

A website hosted auctions for the sale of Nazi memorabilia, prohibited under French criminal law, the Paris Tribunal de Grande /instance ordered Yahoo! to prevent access to the website for people within the French territory

Question 9

Abrams v. United States

Answer 9

Court upheld the prosecution of an anarchist for his anti war views under the Espionage Act 1917

Question 10

Police dept. of Chicago v. Mosley

Answer 10

the essence of this forbidden censorship is content control, reinforced first amendment rights

Question 11

Handyside v. UK

Answer 11

Information or ideas that are favourably or infavourably regarded are subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10

Question 12

Jersild v. Denmark

Answer 12

press freedom, also applies to audiovisual media

Question 13

Reno v. ACLU

Answer 13

Communication Decency Act criminalised the distribution of indecent materials to anyone underage US Supreme Court held that restrictions were too vague and limited free speech without precision

Question 14

Ashcroft v. ACLU

Answer 14

The Child Online Protection Act, unconstitutional because it failed to meet the standards required to circumscribe free speech limitations

Question 15

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

Answer 15

The Child pornography Act was deemed unconstitutional, disproportionate and over broad restrictions

Question 16

Elonis v. United States

Answer 16

convicted for posting threats, “true threats”, importance of social networks, direct vs indirect

Question 17

K.U. v. finland

Answer 17

minor fake dating website profile, Finland had no law to disclose that information, ECtHR Finland failed

Question 18

Delfi v. Estonia

Answer 18

abusive comments by users “hate speech”, Delfi did not remove, damages were correct

Question 19

Scarlet & Netlog

Answer 19

Belgian courts ISP copyright filters, Privacy and data protection, freedom to carry out business

Question 20

Glawischnig-Pieszek v. Facebook

Answer 20

defamatory abuse, member states’ courts can order an ISP to remove at global level

Question 21

MTE and Index.hu zrt

Answer 21

critiquing two real-estate websites, vulgar comments, content, efforts made to promptly remove, no hate speech

Question 22

Packingham v. North Carolina

Answer 22

Sex offender, convicted for complaining about traduce ticket on Facebook, Supreme Court unconstitutional

Question 23

Knight first Amendment institute v. Trump

Answer 23

public official social media accounts count as forum to exclude people (blocking)

Question 24

Casapound ITALIA

Answer 24

A private subject will not be able to exercise the freedom of expression of thought and association

Question 25

Forza Nuova

Answer 25

Facebook subject to obligation to remove illegal content

Question 26

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Answer 26

KKK, hate speech protected, unless imminent lawless action

Question 27

Virginia v. Black

Answer 27

true threats serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence, fear of violence

Question 28

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Answer 28

Exclusion of fighting words from first Amendment, progressive narrowing

Question 29

R.A.V. v. city of St. Paul

Answer 29

viewpoint discrimination because it addressed specifically fighting words expressing a specific position

Question 30

Metal v. Tam

Answer 30

The proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hat

Question 31

Erbakan v. Turkeu

Answer 31

he applicant, a politician had been charged with incitement to violence and hatred as a result of a pre-election speech where he made disparaging remarks about other religions, races and regions

Question 32

Poland v. EP & Council

Answer 32

best effort basis, wording of eu law is open to more than one interpretation, interpretation consistent with primary law

Question 33

Sabam v. Scarlet

Answer 33

active interference, which would be general monitoring, undermining of freedom of information

Question 34

Tolerabel Wien v. Constantin Film

Answer 34

measures must not impeded on freedom information, discouraging internet users to get unlawful content

Question 35

Youtube and Cyando

Answer 35

operator of VSP, blocking access to it fast, appropriate technological measures, is not counted as sharing

Question 36

The queen v. Smith

Answer 36

Restriction on Internet connection must be proportionate, reasonable, and in accordance with purposes

Question 37

Olmstead 1928

Answer 37

Fourth Amendment only covers searches of material things, the person, the house, his papers or his effects

Question 38

Katz

Answer 38

Fourth Amendment protects people not places, reasonable expectation for privacy

Question 39

Carpenter

Answer 39

mosaic theory, government cannot use cell site records without warrant,

Question 40

S and Harper v. United Kingdom

Answer 40

DNA Database violation of right to privacy, if individuals acquitted or charges dropped

Question 41

SIACCA v. Italy

Answer 41

interference with right for private life

Question 42

Big Brother Watcher v. UK

Answer 42

Null interception violation of Article 8,communications data violation but sharing not

Question 43

Lindqvist

Answer 43

act of referring . identifying a person a website constitutes to a processing of personal data,

Question 44

Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04

Answer 44

processing of personal data in question is out of scope, no competence for the EC to conclude the agreement with the US Article 25 of Directive 95/46 does not constitute a legal basis

Question 45

Promusicae, C-275/06

Answer 45

EU Member States are not obliged to require disclosure in the context of civil proceeding for the purpose of copyright protection

Question 46

Google Spain

Answer 46

Google data processor, bears obligations provided by Directive 95/46, right to deindex

Question 47

GLAWISCHNIG-PIESCZEK V. FACEBOOK

Answer 47

worldwide orders to remove or block content with lawful information

Question 48

Joint Cases C-293/12 & C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland

Answer 48

Directive of data retention exceeds the limits imposed by proportionality, mass surveillance

Question 49

Joined Cases C-203/15 & C-698/15: Tele 2 Sverige

Answer 49

read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 must be interpreted as preculiding national legislation which provides for general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of subscribers

Question 50

Prokuratuur

Answer 50

Estonian data rentention law does not comply with article 15(1) of the e-Privacy Directive

Question 51

Schrems I

Answer 51

Decision 2000/520, not adequate protection, generalised basis of access against fundamental right to respect for private life, not enough legal protections

Question 52

Schrems II

Answer 52

SCCs as a data transfer mechanism, declared privacy shield invalid