Search

The use of the Internet for the purposes of radicalisation is well understood. The use of social media platforms to spread messages of hate and intolerance has become mainstreamed, both as a means of communication and a focus of academic attention. The purpose of this paper is to focus on the complications in addressing these radicalisation efforts where the means of communication is through Internet memes, in which humour and coded language are used as means of radicalising an audience. While existing legal frameworks provide for online platforms to tackle this problem through a combination of assuring immunity from liability for taking action when content is brought to a platforms attention, as well as engaging in voluntary proactive measures, this paper explores the difficulty of addressing content that is more borderline in nature and where arguments concerning humour and freedom of expression may be raised by those spreading these messages in a system providing for significant discretion on the part of online platforms. Considering developments under the Digital Services Act, and an increased focusing on the algorithmic control of content, this article will argue that even these new measures may find the countering of radicalising content conveyed through humour quite difficult. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The protection of cyberspace has become one of the highest security priorities of governments worldwide. The EU is not an exception in this context, given its rapidly developing cyber security policy. Since the 1990s, we could observe the creation of three broad areas of policy interest: cyber-crime, critical information infrastructures and cyber-defence. One of the main trends transversal to these areas is the importance that the private sector has come to assume within them. In particular in the area of critical information infrastructure protection, the private sector is seen as a key stakeholder, given that it currently operates most infrastructures in this area. As a result of this operative capacity, the private sector has come to be understood as the expert in network and information systems security, whose knowledge is crucial for the regulation of the field. Adopting a Regulatory Capitalism framework, complemented by insights from Network Governance, we can identify the shifting role of the private sector in this field from one of a victim in need of protection in the first phase, to a commercial actor bearing responsibility for ensuring network resilience in the second, to an active policy shaper in the third, participating in the regulation of NIS by providing technical expertise. By drawing insights from the above-mentioned frameworks, we can better understand how private actors are involved in shaping regulatory responses, as well as why they have been incorporated into these regulatory networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article evaluates the way in which copyright infringement has been gradually shifting from an area of civil liability to one of criminal penalty. Traditionally, consideration of copyright issues has been undertaken from a predominantly legal and/or economic perspectives. Whereas traditional legal analysis can explain what legal changes are occurring, and what impact these changes may have, they may not effectively explain 'how' these changes have come to occur. The authors propose an alternative inter-disciplinary approach, combining legal analysis with critical security studies, which may help to explain in greater detail how policies in this field have developed. In particular, through applied securitisation theory, this article intends to demonstrate the appropriation of this field by a security discourse, and its consequences for societal and legal developments. In order to explore how the securitisation framework may be a valid approach to a subject such as copyright law and to determine the extent to which copyright law may be said to have been securitised, this article will begin by explaining the origins and main features of securitisation theory, and its applicability to legal study. The authors will then attempt to apply this framework to the development of a criminal law approach to copyright infringement, by focusing on the security escalation it has undergone, developing from an economic issue into one of international security. The analysis of this evolution will be mainly characterised by the securitisation moves taking place at national, European and international levels. Finally, a general reflection will be carried out on whether the securitisation of copyright has indeed been successful and on what the consequences of such a success could be. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]