Question Description
Europe's top court said on Thursday that individual countries can order Facebook to take down posts, photographs and videos not only in their own countries but elsewhere, in a ruling that extends the reach of the region's internet-related laws beyond its own borders.The European Court of Justice said Facebook could be forced to remove a post globally by a national court in the European Union's 28-member bloc if the content was determined to be defamatory or otherwise illegal. Its decision cannot be appealed.The decision sets a new benchmark for the purview of European laws that govern the internet, giving European countries the power to apply takedown requests internationally. That foreshadows future disputes over Europe's role in setting rules on the internet, especially as other nations increasingly pass their own laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. "There is this impulse in Europe that is trying to set global regulatory standards," said Ben Wagner, director of the Privacy and Sustainable Computing Lab at Vienna University. The effort, he said, is a "pushback against the self-regulatory impulses of these platforms."Facebook said in a statement that the European court's decision "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country." It added that the judgment raised questions about freedom of expression and "the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country." The court said on Thursday that while Facebook wasn't liable for the disparaging comments posted the company had an obligation to take them down after an Austrian court found them defamatory.Facebook, the court said, "did not act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that information." The court left to national court systems in each European Union country to decide what cases merit forcing an internet company to take down content in foreign countries. That raised questions about what other laws Facebook and other internet platforms can be forced to comply with by governments in Europe.Q. Which of the following statements can be attributed to the author?a)The decision by the European court is invalidb)The decision by the European court is against the public policyc)The decision is a clear misuse of powerd)All other countries are trying to set up laws to stop hate being spread on the internetCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Europe's top court said on Thursday that individual countries can order Facebook to take down posts, photographs and videos not only in their own countries but elsewhere, in a ruling that extends the reach of the region's internet-related laws beyond its own borders.The European Court of Justice said Facebook could be forced to remove a post globally by a national court in the European Union's 28-member bloc if the content was determined to be defamatory or otherwise illegal. Its decision cannot be appealed.The decision sets a new benchmark for the purview of European laws that govern the internet, giving European countries the power to apply takedown requests internationally. That foreshadows future disputes over Europe's role in setting rules on the internet, especially as other nations increasingly pass their own laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. "There is this impulse in Europe that is trying to set global regulatory standards," said Ben Wagner, director of the Privacy and Sustainable Computing Lab at Vienna University. The effort, he said, is a "pushback against the self-regulatory impulses of these platforms."Facebook said in a statement that the European court's decision "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country." It added that the judgment raised questions about freedom of expression and "the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country." The court said on Thursday that while Facebook wasn't liable for the disparaging comments posted the company had an obligation to take them down after an Austrian court found them defamatory.Facebook, the court said, "did not act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that information." The court left to national court systems in each European Union country to decide what cases merit forcing an internet company to take down content in foreign countries. That raised questions about what other laws Facebook and other internet platforms can be forced to comply with by governments in Europe.Q. Which of the following statements can be attributed to the author?a)The decision by the European court is invalidb)The decision by the European court is against the public policyc)The decision is a clear misuse of powerd)All other countries are trying to set up laws to stop hate being spread on the internetCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Europe's top court said on Thursday that individual countries can order Facebook to take down posts, photographs and videos not only in their own countries but elsewhere, in a ruling that extends the reach of the region's internet-related laws beyond its own borders.The European Court of Justice said Facebook could be forced to remove a post globally by a national court in the European Union's 28-member bloc if the content was determined to be defamatory or otherwise illegal. Its decision cannot be appealed.The decision sets a new benchmark for the purview of European laws that govern the internet, giving European countries the power to apply takedown requests internationally. That foreshadows future disputes over Europe's role in setting rules on the internet, especially as other nations increasingly pass their own laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. "There is this impulse in Europe that is trying to set global regulatory standards," said Ben Wagner, director of the Privacy and Sustainable Computing Lab at Vienna University. The effort, he said, is a "pushback against the self-regulatory impulses of these platforms."Facebook said in a statement that the European court's decision "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country." It added that the judgment raised questions about freedom of expression and "the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country." The court said on Thursday that while Facebook wasn't liable for the disparaging comments posted the company had an obligation to take them down after an Austrian court found them defamatory.Facebook, the court said, "did not act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that information." The court left to national court systems in each European Union country to decide what cases merit forcing an internet company to take down content in foreign countries. That raised questions about what other laws Facebook and other internet platforms can be forced to comply with by governments in Europe.Q. Which of the following statements can be attributed to the author?a)The decision by the European court is invalidb)The decision by the European court is against the public policyc)The decision is a clear misuse of powerd)All other countries are trying to set up laws to stop hate being spread on the internetCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Europe's top court said on Thursday that individual countries can order Facebook to take down posts, photographs and videos not only in their own countries but elsewhere, in a ruling that extends the reach of the region's internet-related laws beyond its own borders.The European Court of Justice said Facebook could be forced to remove a post globally by a national court in the European Union's 28-member bloc if the content was determined to be defamatory or otherwise illegal. Its decision cannot be appealed.The decision sets a new benchmark for the purview of European laws that govern the internet, giving European countries the power to apply takedown requests internationally. That foreshadows future disputes over Europe's role in setting rules on the internet, especially as other nations increasingly pass their own laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. "There is this impulse in Europe that is trying to set global regulatory standards," said Ben Wagner, director of the Privacy and Sustainable Computing Lab at Vienna University. The effort, he said, is a "pushback against the self-regulatory impulses of these platforms."Facebook said in a statement that the European court's decision "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country." It added that the judgment raised questions about freedom of expression and "the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country." The court said on Thursday that while Facebook wasn't liable for the disparaging comments posted the company had an obligation to take them down after an Austrian court found them defamatory.Facebook, the court said, "did not act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that information." The court left to national court systems in each European Union country to decide what cases merit forcing an internet company to take down content in foreign countries. That raised questions about what other laws Facebook and other internet platforms can be forced to comply with by governments in Europe.Q. Which of the following statements can be attributed to the author?a)The decision by the European court is invalidb)The decision by the European court is against the public policyc)The decision is a clear misuse of powerd)All other countries are trying to set up laws to stop hate being spread on the internetCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Europe's top court said on Thursday that individual countries can order Facebook to take down posts, photographs and videos not only in their own countries but elsewhere, in a ruling that extends the reach of the region's internet-related laws beyond its own borders.The European Court of Justice said Facebook could be forced to remove a post globally by a national court in the European Union's 28-member bloc if the content was determined to be defamatory or otherwise illegal. Its decision cannot be appealed.The decision sets a new benchmark for the purview of European laws that govern the internet, giving European countries the power to apply takedown requests internationally. That foreshadows future disputes over Europe's role in setting rules on the internet, especially as other nations increasingly pass their own laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. "There is this impulse in Europe that is trying to set global regulatory standards," said Ben Wagner, director of the Privacy and Sustainable Computing Lab at Vienna University. The effort, he said, is a "pushback against the self-regulatory impulses of these platforms."Facebook said in a statement that the European court's decision "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country." It added that the judgment raised questions about freedom of expression and "the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country." The court said on Thursday that while Facebook wasn't liable for the disparaging comments posted the company had an obligation to take them down after an Austrian court found them defamatory.Facebook, the court said, "did not act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that information." The court left to national court systems in each European Union country to decide what cases merit forcing an internet company to take down content in foreign countries. That raised questions about what other laws Facebook and other internet platforms can be forced to comply with by governments in Europe.Q. Which of the following statements can be attributed to the author?a)The decision by the European court is invalidb)The decision by the European court is against the public policyc)The decision is a clear misuse of powerd)All other countries are trying to set up laws to stop hate being spread on the internetCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Europe's top court said on Thursday that individual countries can order Facebook to take down posts, photographs and videos not only in their own countries but elsewhere, in a ruling that extends the reach of the region's internet-related laws beyond its own borders.The European Court of Justice said Facebook could be forced to remove a post globally by a national court in the European Union's 28-member bloc if the content was determined to be defamatory or otherwise illegal. Its decision cannot be appealed.The decision sets a new benchmark for the purview of European laws that govern the internet, giving European countries the power to apply takedown requests internationally. That foreshadows future disputes over Europe's role in setting rules on the internet, especially as other nations increasingly pass their own laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. "There is this impulse in Europe that is trying to set global regulatory standards," said Ben Wagner, director of the Privacy and Sustainable Computing Lab at Vienna University. The effort, he said, is a "pushback against the self-regulatory impulses of these platforms."Facebook said in a statement that the European court's decision "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country." It added that the judgment raised questions about freedom of expression and "the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country." The court said on Thursday that while Facebook wasn't liable for the disparaging comments posted the company had an obligation to take them down after an Austrian court found them defamatory.Facebook, the court said, "did not act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that information." The court left to national court systems in each European Union country to decide what cases merit forcing an internet company to take down content in foreign countries. That raised questions about what other laws Facebook and other internet platforms can be forced to comply with by governments in Europe.Q. Which of the following statements can be attributed to the author?a)The decision by the European court is invalidb)The decision by the European court is against the public policyc)The decision is a clear misuse of powerd)All other countries are trying to set up laws to stop hate being spread on the internetCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Europe's top court said on Thursday that individual countries can order Facebook to take down posts, photographs and videos not only in their own countries but elsewhere, in a ruling that extends the reach of the region's internet-related laws beyond its own borders.The European Court of Justice said Facebook could be forced to remove a post globally by a national court in the European Union's 28-member bloc if the content was determined to be defamatory or otherwise illegal. Its decision cannot be appealed.The decision sets a new benchmark for the purview of European laws that govern the internet, giving European countries the power to apply takedown requests internationally. That foreshadows future disputes over Europe's role in setting rules on the internet, especially as other nations increasingly pass their own laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. "There is this impulse in Europe that is trying to set global regulatory standards," said Ben Wagner, director of the Privacy and Sustainable Computing Lab at Vienna University. The effort, he said, is a "pushback against the self-regulatory impulses of these platforms."Facebook said in a statement that the European court's decision "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country." It added that the judgment raised questions about freedom of expression and "the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country." The court said on Thursday that while Facebook wasn't liable for the disparaging comments posted the company had an obligation to take them down after an Austrian court found them defamatory.Facebook, the court said, "did not act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that information." The court left to national court systems in each European Union country to decide what cases merit forcing an internet company to take down content in foreign countries. That raised questions about what other laws Facebook and other internet platforms can be forced to comply with by governments in Europe.Q. Which of the following statements can be attributed to the author?a)The decision by the European court is invalidb)The decision by the European court is against the public policyc)The decision is a clear misuse of powerd)All other countries are trying to set up laws to stop hate being spread on the internetCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Europe's top court said on Thursday that individual countries can order Facebook to take down posts, photographs and videos not only in their own countries but elsewhere, in a ruling that extends the reach of the region's internet-related laws beyond its own borders.The European Court of Justice said Facebook could be forced to remove a post globally by a national court in the European Union's 28-member bloc if the content was determined to be defamatory or otherwise illegal. Its decision cannot be appealed.The decision sets a new benchmark for the purview of European laws that govern the internet, giving European countries the power to apply takedown requests internationally. That foreshadows future disputes over Europe's role in setting rules on the internet, especially as other nations increasingly pass their own laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. "There is this impulse in Europe that is trying to set global regulatory standards," said Ben Wagner, director of the Privacy and Sustainable Computing Lab at Vienna University. The effort, he said, is a "pushback against the self-regulatory impulses of these platforms."Facebook said in a statement that the European court's decision "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country." It added that the judgment raised questions about freedom of expression and "the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country." The court said on Thursday that while Facebook wasn't liable for the disparaging comments posted the company had an obligation to take them down after an Austrian court found them defamatory.Facebook, the court said, "did not act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that information." The court left to national court systems in each European Union country to decide what cases merit forcing an internet company to take down content in foreign countries. That raised questions about what other laws Facebook and other internet platforms can be forced to comply with by governments in Europe.Q. Which of the following statements can be attributed to the author?a)The decision by the European court is invalidb)The decision by the European court is against the public policyc)The decision is a clear misuse of powerd)All other countries are trying to set up laws to stop hate being spread on the internetCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Europe's top court said on Thursday that individual countries can order Facebook to take down posts, photographs and videos not only in their own countries but elsewhere, in a ruling that extends the reach of the region's internet-related laws beyond its own borders.The European Court of Justice said Facebook could be forced to remove a post globally by a national court in the European Union's 28-member bloc if the content was determined to be defamatory or otherwise illegal. Its decision cannot be appealed.The decision sets a new benchmark for the purview of European laws that govern the internet, giving European countries the power to apply takedown requests internationally. That foreshadows future disputes over Europe's role in setting rules on the internet, especially as other nations increasingly pass their own laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. "There is this impulse in Europe that is trying to set global regulatory standards," said Ben Wagner, director of the Privacy and Sustainable Computing Lab at Vienna University. The effort, he said, is a "pushback against the self-regulatory impulses of these platforms."Facebook said in a statement that the European court's decision "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country." It added that the judgment raised questions about freedom of expression and "the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country." The court said on Thursday that while Facebook wasn't liable for the disparaging comments posted the company had an obligation to take them down after an Austrian court found them defamatory.Facebook, the court said, "did not act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that information." The court left to national court systems in each European Union country to decide what cases merit forcing an internet company to take down content in foreign countries. That raised questions about what other laws Facebook and other internet platforms can be forced to comply with by governments in Europe.Q. Which of the following statements can be attributed to the author?a)The decision by the European court is invalidb)The decision by the European court is against the public policyc)The decision is a clear misuse of powerd)All other countries are trying to set up laws to stop hate being spread on the internetCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.