Umeå University's logo

This article examines the growing tension between protections for political satirical expression under article ten of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and emerging European regulatory efforts to combat disinformation through content moderation in the Digital Services Act (DSA). In this study, the case law from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have provided insights into the scope and contours of protected political satire under the ECHR, showing that the Court’s jurisprudence indicates strong protection for political satire. Meanwhile, in the social media landscape today, satire is merging with disinformation, not least around elections, potentially creating a “loophole” to spread malicious disinformation disguised as satire. Both human and automated moderation systems can easily misclassify such content, and the risks for over-removal as well as under-removal are imminent. This article therefore argues that while protection of satire and parody is essential in a democratic society, the use of it for malicious purposes speaks to the need for regulatory clarifications on how to conduct efficient content moderation to avoid over-moderation and a chilling effect on political satire, while still identifying and mitigating risks under the DSA.

This article examines the European Union’s regulatory framework for addressing disinformation, with particular focus on the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the responsibilities of Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and so-called ‘lawful but awful’ disinformation – harmful yet legal content. The study highlights how the EU avoids content censorship by emphasising systemic risk assessment and mitigation. Notably, disinformation is rarely defined with precision yet is framed as especially problematic when linked to democratic processes, political advertising or crises.

A key finding is the Commission’s reliance on soft law to steer platform behaviour. By pushing for soft law instruments the EU can expand some normative influence without crossing into formal content regulation. While VLOPs face substantial responsibilities, the enforcement of these measures remains uncertain. These frameworks reflect a shift toward platform governance through risk-based regulation and soft law, with the Commission increasingly shaping the moderation of harmful online content without legislating censorship.

The European Union is making unprecedented efforts to address illegal and harmful online content through regulation, particularly targeting very large online platforms (VLOPs). This article examines how recent EU instruments–starting with the Digital Services Act (DSA)–assign responsibility for efficient and rapid content moderation while allowing for contextualised decision-making. This has implications for both automated and human moderation. The analysis shows that advanced moderation is effectively mandated, requiring a mix of automation and human oversight, though the explicit need for human contextual input israrely stated. Instead, VLOPs are primarily tasked with ensuring transparency in moderation processes and decisions. As a result, responsibility is partly shifted to users, who must take certain actions, such as requesting human review of automated decisions. The article also highlights the complex interaction between the DSA and other specialised regulations and self-regulatory measures on hate speech, terrorism-related content and disinformation–creating a dense regulatory landscape that warrants further study.

The dissemination of hate speech online necessitates forceful content moderation to protect individuals and democratic values, without undue infringement of freedom of expression and the right to access information. In Europe, recent regulatory measures like the Digital Services Act (DSA) address the amplification of harmful content on social media, and place responsibilities on Very Large Online Platforms to counter societal risks, such as hate speech. The DSA mandates that platforms balance commercial interests with protecting user rights and safety, necessitating nuanced moderation strategies. However, both automated and human moderation face challenges in accurately identifying and countering hate speech. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) provide essential guidance for navigating how to counter hate speech and also protect freedom of expression. This article aims to contribute to the understanding the emerging landscape of platform regulation and how the demands in the DSA can be better understood and operationalized regarding moderation of hate speech, in light of ECtHR case law.

Public and private organizations are increasingly implementing various algorithmic decision-making systems. Through legal and practical incentives, humans will often need to be kept in the loop of such decision-making to maintain human agency and accountability, provide legal safeguards, or perform quality control. Introducing such human oversight results in various forms of semi-automated, or hybrid decision-making – where algorithmic and human agents interact. Building on previous research we illustrate the legal dependencies forming an impetus for hybrid decision-making in the policing, social welfare, and online moderation contexts. We highlight the further need to situate hybrid decision-making in a wider legal environment of data protection, constitutional and administrative legal principles, as well as the need for contextual analysis of such principles. Finally, we outline a research agenda to capture contextual legal dependencies of hybrid decision-making, pointing to the need to go beyond legal doctrinal studies by adopting socio-technical perspectives and empirical studies.

This article takes its starting point in Sami and Roma exposure to racism by studying preconditions within the criminal law for dealing with racism against individual victims of crime. The purpose is to identify whether and how individual victims can obtain remedy and reparation when exposed to racism. In this article, that means that the racist act must be criminalized, that the criminal interest of crim- inalization is the individual victim, and that the racist nature of the crime has legal implications for classification, sentencing and pun- ishment. Methodologically, the study focuses on identifying possible challenges in the application of so-called hate crimes legislation. Two challenges to the application of individual remedies and reparations were identified. First is the difficulty in identifying and establishing (racist) motive. Second is the lack of clear statements from the courts about how assessments have been made in the use of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in sentencing, and if or how they have affected sentencing and punishment. The results of this study show that the legal conditions for individual victims to obtain criminal justice when they have been subjected to racism are insufficient. Problems are primarily due to deficiencies in the formulation of the legislation, but are also seen in its application. Despite a strong contemporary political focus on work to combat racism, no legal changes have been proposed. Based on the results of this study, we suggest the appli- cation of a holistic approach to the legislation on hate crimes. This would enable individual redress for the racism to which Sami and Roma, among others, are exposed.

This article draws on material gathered from Swedish tweets about the Roma population, in order to map different discourses. Based on this material, a legal analysis was made focusing on how the legal protection under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Swedish law for such types of expression may vary depending on the wider discursive context. This article concludes that the legal protection for hateful expressions against for instance Roma, will vary depending on the discursive context. When the expression is a direct part of a political discussion, the protection of freedom of expression will be higher. However, emphasis must also be placed on the aim, value, and accuracy of the statement, even in a political context. This will increase the possibilities to legally intervene against speech that may perhaps be triggered by an ongoing political debate, but is hateful and without value to that debate.