Delineating the reach of internet intermediaries' content blocking -"ccTLD blocking", Strict Geo-location blocking or a "country lens approach"?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

There is a prominent trend of legal actions being taken against globally active Internet intermediaries. This article discusses the extent to which Internet intermediaries should be required to block or remove third-party content, and places emphasis on the geographical limitations that reasonably may be placed on such blocking/removal.
Where an Internet intermediary is ordered to block or remove certain Internet content, global blocking/removal cannot be the default response to every such order. We need a more measured and more sophisticated approach.
This paper canvasses and analyses three such structures. One option is to delineate the reach of the blocking/removal by reference to country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) – “ccTLD-blocking”. For example, where a French court requests that Google blocks/removes content in France, Google may do so in relation to www.google.fr, while the relevant content is unmodified for the rest of the world.
Yet, it is also necessary to look beyond ccTLD-blocking. Geo-location technologies may determine an Internet user's geographical location, for example, by reference to the user's IP address. Such technologies can, of course, be used to delineate the accessibility of Internet content. Indeed, such technologies can be used in various ways to achieve such a result and I will consider both a “strict geo-location blocking” and a more nuanced “country lens” approach.
To prepare ground for that discussion, the article first starts with a few appropriate words about the role Internet intermediaries play and why litigants target Internet intermediaries in the first place.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)153-170
Number of pages18
JournalSCRIPTed: A journal of Law, Technology & Society
Volume11
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Internet
search engine
France
trend

Cite this

@article{64f74638f31045bcaf860e41ced22462,
title = "Delineating the reach of internet intermediaries' content blocking -{"}ccTLD blocking{"}, Strict Geo-location blocking or a {"}country lens approach{"}?",
abstract = "There is a prominent trend of legal actions being taken against globally active Internet intermediaries. This article discusses the extent to which Internet intermediaries should be required to block or remove third-party content, and places emphasis on the geographical limitations that reasonably may be placed on such blocking/removal.Where an Internet intermediary is ordered to block or remove certain Internet content, global blocking/removal cannot be the default response to every such order. We need a more measured and more sophisticated approach.This paper canvasses and analyses three such structures. One option is to delineate the reach of the blocking/removal by reference to country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) – “ccTLD-blocking”. For example, where a French court requests that Google blocks/removes content in France, Google may do so in relation to www.google.fr, while the relevant content is unmodified for the rest of the world.Yet, it is also necessary to look beyond ccTLD-blocking. Geo-location technologies may determine an Internet user's geographical location, for example, by reference to the user's IP address. Such technologies can, of course, be used to delineate the accessibility of Internet content. Indeed, such technologies can be used in various ways to achieve such a result and I will consider both a “strict geo-location blocking” and a more nuanced “country lens” approach.To prepare ground for that discussion, the article first starts with a few appropriate words about the role Internet intermediaries play and why litigants target Internet intermediaries in the first place.",
author = "Svantesson, {Dan Jerker B}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.2966/scrip.110214.153",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "153--170",
journal = "SCRIPTed: A journal of Law, Technology & Society",
issn = "1744-2567",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Delineating the reach of internet intermediaries' content blocking -"ccTLD blocking", Strict Geo-location blocking or a "country lens approach"?

AU - Svantesson, Dan Jerker B

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - There is a prominent trend of legal actions being taken against globally active Internet intermediaries. This article discusses the extent to which Internet intermediaries should be required to block or remove third-party content, and places emphasis on the geographical limitations that reasonably may be placed on such blocking/removal.Where an Internet intermediary is ordered to block or remove certain Internet content, global blocking/removal cannot be the default response to every such order. We need a more measured and more sophisticated approach.This paper canvasses and analyses three such structures. One option is to delineate the reach of the blocking/removal by reference to country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) – “ccTLD-blocking”. For example, where a French court requests that Google blocks/removes content in France, Google may do so in relation to www.google.fr, while the relevant content is unmodified for the rest of the world.Yet, it is also necessary to look beyond ccTLD-blocking. Geo-location technologies may determine an Internet user's geographical location, for example, by reference to the user's IP address. Such technologies can, of course, be used to delineate the accessibility of Internet content. Indeed, such technologies can be used in various ways to achieve such a result and I will consider both a “strict geo-location blocking” and a more nuanced “country lens” approach.To prepare ground for that discussion, the article first starts with a few appropriate words about the role Internet intermediaries play and why litigants target Internet intermediaries in the first place.

AB - There is a prominent trend of legal actions being taken against globally active Internet intermediaries. This article discusses the extent to which Internet intermediaries should be required to block or remove third-party content, and places emphasis on the geographical limitations that reasonably may be placed on such blocking/removal.Where an Internet intermediary is ordered to block or remove certain Internet content, global blocking/removal cannot be the default response to every such order. We need a more measured and more sophisticated approach.This paper canvasses and analyses three such structures. One option is to delineate the reach of the blocking/removal by reference to country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) – “ccTLD-blocking”. For example, where a French court requests that Google blocks/removes content in France, Google may do so in relation to www.google.fr, while the relevant content is unmodified for the rest of the world.Yet, it is also necessary to look beyond ccTLD-blocking. Geo-location technologies may determine an Internet user's geographical location, for example, by reference to the user's IP address. Such technologies can, of course, be used to delineate the accessibility of Internet content. Indeed, such technologies can be used in various ways to achieve such a result and I will consider both a “strict geo-location blocking” and a more nuanced “country lens” approach.To prepare ground for that discussion, the article first starts with a few appropriate words about the role Internet intermediaries play and why litigants target Internet intermediaries in the first place.

U2 - 10.2966/scrip.110214.153

DO - 10.2966/scrip.110214.153

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 153

EP - 170

JO - SCRIPTed: A journal of Law, Technology & Society

JF - SCRIPTed: A journal of Law, Technology & Society

SN - 1744-2567

IS - 2

ER -