Network Enforcement Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic data
Title: Law to improve law enforcement on social networks
Short title: Network Enforcement Act
Abbreviation: NetzDG
Type: Federal law
Scope: Federal Republic of Germany
Legal matter: Internet law
References : 772-8
Issued on: September 1, 2017
( Federal Law Gazette I p. 3352 )
Entry into force on: October 1, 2017
Last change by: Art. 274 VO from 19 June 2020
( Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1328, 1360 )
Effective date of the
last change: 		June 27, 2020
(Art. 361 of June 19, 2020)
Weblink: Text of the NetzDG
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

The Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), also known colloquially as the Facebook Act , is a German law that introduces compliance rules with fines for providers of social networks regarding the handling of user complaints about hate crime and other criminal content on the Internet as well as quarterly reporting obligations for providers. In addition, victims of personality violations on the Internet are entitled to information about the infringer's inventory data on the basis of a court order.

The law responds to the increasing spread of hate crime and other criminal content, especially on social networks such as Facebook , YouTube and Twitter . For example, providers of social networks are imposed some obligations in the scope of the NetzDG: reporting obligations, setting up a complaint management system and the obligation to designate authorized recipients and authorized recipients. In the context of complaint management, it is essentially about the fact that providers of social networks are obliged to remove illegal content within the meaning of the NetzDG after knowledge and examination or to block access to them. The NetzDG was promulgated as Art. 1 of the shell law of the same name . Art. 2 contains an amendment to the Telemedia Act .

The law came into force on October 1, 2017. The transition period within which companies had to implement the requirements of the NetzDG expired on January 1, 2018.

background

In 2015, the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection set up a working group to deal with criminal content in social networks, which consisted of representatives from internet providers and civil society organizations. Concrete measures to combat hateful content on the Internet were agreed. Some networks made voluntary commitments, which the ministry felt were insufficient.

The then Justice Minister Heiko Maas argued that an evaluation of the legal practice in the deletion of criminal content in social networks by "jugendschutz.net" at the beginning of 2017 had shown that hate comments were only inadequately deleted and called for the pressure to be increased further. Legal regulations are needed to make companies more accountable. 90 percent of the criminal content would be deleted on YouTube , but only 39 percent on Facebook and only one percent on Twitter . In addition, they had bad experiences with false reports (" fake news ") in the 2016 US election campaign.

The study was criticized by the Munich professor for media law Marc Liesching, as part of the study is based on the assessment of legal laypersons.

Content of the law

Bill

In spring 2017 Maas presented the draft for a Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG-E). According to the Federal Government, the social networks are to be forced to remove hate speech more consistently.

The draft law referred to commercial social networks on the Internet with at least 2 million members, not to journalistic-editorial offers (§ 1 NetzDG-E). Providers are obliged to set up a transparent procedure for dealing with complaints about illegal content (Section 3 NetzDG-E) and are subject to reporting and documentation requirements (Section 2 NetzDG-E). You must investigate complaints immediately, delete "obviously illegal" content within 24 hours, after checking any illegal content within 7 days or block access to it. Complainants and users are to be informed immediately about the decisions made. The deleted content must be stored for evidence purposes for at least ten weeks. Infringements are considered administrative offenses, for which sensitive fines of up to 5 million euros are intended (§ 4 NetzDG-E). In addition, providers must specify a delivery agent in Germany, both for authorities and for civil law proceedings (Section 5 NetzDG-E). The social networks are still expected to provide a semi-annual report on complaints received and how they have dealt with them.

The draft also contained an amendment to Section 14 of the Telemedia Act (TMG), which affects the release of user master data. The draft law no longer provided for the release of data only for the "enforcement of intellectual property rights", but also for "other absolutely protected rights". The Telemedia Act applies to far more services than just social networks.

The law is intended to make it easier and faster to enforce personal and property rights on online platforms . Everyone who wants to assert legal claims against a user should be able to request the release of master data from which the identity of the opponent can be derived. If, for example, a person or company feels insulted or inappropriately criticized by a comment in an Internet forum, they could not only request the forum operator to delete the comment in future, but also to hand over master data in order to warn the author and request a cease and desist statement to be able to ”.

Law passed

scope of application

Reporting requirement

Providers of social networks who receive more than 100 complaints about illegal content in a calendar year are obliged to prepare a German-language report on how these complaints are dealt with on their platforms and to publish it in the Federal Gazette and on their own website ( Section 2 (1) NetzDG ). The report must include certain minimum content ( Section 2 (2) No. 1–9 NetzDG).

Dealing with complaints about illegal content

  • Operators of social networks such as Facebook , Twitter and YouTube must delete or block “obviously illegal content within 24 hours” of receiving a complaint ( Section 3 (2) No. 2 NetzDG). In more complex cases, a seven-day period should generally apply in order to decide on deletion or blocking ( Section 3 (2) No. 3 NetzDG). The weekly deadline can be exceeded in two cases: 1.) If, in addition to the objective criminal offense, possible grounds for justification are also to be taken into account and / or 2.) If an examination is to take place within the framework of the so-called regulated self-regulation. In addition to the objective criminal offense, possible justifications should also be taken into account and the context of a statement should be included in the review. In concrete terms, this means: “If the assessment depends on the context, the user should be given the opportunity to comment. This is a broad area of ​​application, because the legal assessment of criminal content mostly depends on the context. ”Providers of social networks can also hand over the decision on content that is not obviously illegal to a kind of voluntary self-regulation. Such a “recognized body for regulated self-regulation” must be approved by the state and monitored by the Federal Office of Justice, but it is founded, equipped and operated by the company. It should be possible to establish this principle of regulated self-regulation based on the model of youth media protection. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung mentions the voluntary self-regulation multimedia service provider FSM as an example . According to Eva Högl , the deputy chairman of the SPD parliamentary group in the Bundestag , the way of regulated self-regulation is an important contribution to protection against over- blocking and also excludes the possibility of law enforcement being privatized. Patrick Beuth from ZEIT Online, on the other hand, argues critically: “ Ultimately, self-regulation always means that the state cannot or does not want to use the necessary funds to regulate itself. In the case of the NetzDG, it means that listed companies have a task that, in an ideal world, would be one of justice. “If a company takes the path of regulated self-regulation, although the illegality was“ obvious ”, there is a risk of a fine. According to the Federal Office of Justice, however, a fine does not apply in cases in which the regulated self-regulation has established the legality of a content, because "The decision by the Federal Office of Justice does not include content whose legality has been determined by the recognized institution of regulated self-regulation . "
  • Persons who, for example, have been the victims of insults or defamation on social media are given a way in Section 14 Paragraph 3–5 of the Telemedia Act (TMG) new version to take action against the authors of such content. In individual cases, the provider of the social network may provide information about the author's existing inventory data , insofar as this is necessary to enforce civil law claims due to the violation of absolutely protected rights due to illegal content in accordance with. Section 1 (3) NetzDG is required. In order to provide the information, a previous court order is required, which the injured party must apply to the responsible regional court. The judicial procedure is based on the law on the procedure in family matters and in matters of voluntary jurisdiction .

Fine regulations

Violations of the law can result in a fine of up to 5 million euros ( Section 4 (2) NetzDG). According to the reference to Section 30 (2) sentence 3 of the Administrative Offenses Act (OWiG), the fine can be increased tenfold.

Domestic authorized recipient

Affected companies must acc. 5 NetzDG designate a contact person in Germany for the judiciary, criminal prosecutors and fine authorities as well as citizens, whom the named institutions and persons can turn to. The authorized recipient must respond to inquiries and complaints within 48 hours. The Federal Office of Justice will monitor compliance with these new requirements and initiate administrative fines in the event of violations. The arrangement with the domestic authorized recipient took place against the background that most of the large online companies are based abroad. According to the Federal Ministry of Justice, users of social networks whose complaints are not sufficiently taken into account by the networks or not properly processed should be able to contact the Federal Office of Justice and report the matter. If there are indications of deficiencies in complaint management, the Federal Office of Justice will examine whether a fine procedure should be initiated against the provider of the network concerned. This is the case when a systemically incorrect decision-making practice on the part of the social network can be identified.

Changes to the draft law

The adopted law contains various clarifications compared to the federal government's draft law.

  • During the legislative process, deletions and additions were made to the catalog of criminal offenses in Section 1 (3) NetzDG. For example, the fact that the Federal President was denigrated was removed . In addition to the catalog of criminal offenses, there is, for example, “violation of the highly personal area of ​​life by taking pictures” according to Section 201a of the Criminal Code . In this context, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung points to serious legal uncertainty: " This regulation, which Heiko Maas made significantly stricter two years ago, comprised“ exposing ”photography in the ministry version, until the Legal Committee added exceptions for artists (e.g. street photographers) and the media. Now the rubber paragraph forbids making a photo available to a third party that “is likely to damage the reputation of the person depicted.” The law thus creates legal uncertainty in another point: Does the photo of a gasping marathon runner damage his reputation? Isn't it more of an award? How about the beer helmet photo from Ballermann? With every question mark, the pressure on Internet providers increases to delete a little more than is legally necessary to be on the safe side. "
  • The originally envisaged requirement to also delete all copies of the illegal content and to prevent a new upload by installing filters to a large extent no longer applies.
  • There is no clearing house for complaints about hastily deleted legal content as originally requested by the Federal Council. According to the newspaper Die Zeit, the “law” lacks a mechanism that should be a matter of course in the rule of law: Anyone who wants to take action against the deletion or blocking of their content or their account does not have the option of defending against the NetzDG. What remains would be a lawsuit against a company like Facebook. "
  • The imposition of a fine is not possible, as in the original draft law, from the first breach of the obligation to delete and block, but only if a company persistently refuses to introduce effective complaint management or if the rules are systematically disregarded.

Advice and adoption

On May 16, 2017, the government factions of the CDU / CSU and SPD introduced the bill to the Bundestag . At the first reading on May 19, it became clear that the draft was also controversial within the CDU / CSU and SPD. Petra Sitte (Left Party) warned of serious collateral damage to freedom of expression. Konstantin von Notz (The Greens) warned against pushing the large network providers into a judge's role. The scientific services of the German Bundestag expressed concerns in an expert opinion that the draft law violates the constitution and European law.

At a hearing on the draft law in the German Bundestag , eight out of ten invited experts expressed serious concerns. Most saw a threat to freedom of expression. The head of the Institute for Information, Telecommunications and Media Law at the University of Münster, Bernd Holznagel , said that in order to avoid high fines, the networks could also tend to delete legal contributions. The draft is unconstitutional and would not withstand a review by the Federal Constitutional Court . The managing director of Reporters Without Borders Christian Mihr warned that the methods are reminiscent of autocratic states and that the law creates the risk of abuse. Totalitarian governments are also currently following the debate in Germany with interest in order to orientate themselves on the draft. One should not set a precedent for censorship . In the meantime, according to a report by the Augsburger Allgemeine , the Belarusian President Aljaksandr Lukashenka had already invoked Justice Minister Heiko Maas to restrict freedom of expression in the fight against the opposition and justified his own measures with Maas' draft law.

Representatives of the CDU / CSU and SPD parliamentary groups then made changes to the draft. According to this, the authorized delivery agent in Germany to be named by the network operator must provide information within 48 hours if the authorities contact him about illegal content. In addition, a possibility was provided to leave decisions in difficult cases to an “independent body” that is subordinate to the Federal Office of Justice. However, details of the structure and composition of this body remained unclear. The controversial deletion periods of 24 hours or seven days and the threat of fines of up to 50 million euros remained.

The Bundestag passed the amended draft on June 30, 2017 with a majority of votes from the government parliamentary groups against the votes of the left and Iris Eberl from the CSU, with the abstention from Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen .

Litigation

A preventive declaratory action by the FDP members of the Bundestag Manuel Höferlin and Jimmy Schulz against the Network Enforcement Act was rejected by the Cologne Administrative Court as inadmissible on February 14, 2019. Höferlin had previously criticized the law as "censorship in its worst form - self-censorship in the head and external censorship by private companies".

controversy

The Network Enforcement Act was and is controversial. On the one hand, there is a need for action in view of the massively increasing numbers of hate speech on the German-speaking Internet. On the other hand, the danger is seen that the law restricts freedom of expression.

Federal government

According to the Federal Ministry of Justice, the yardstick for what needs to be deleted or blocked is not set by social networks. “ Only the German criminal laws are decisive. The Network Enforcement Act does not create any new deletion obligations. Rather, it is intended to ensure that existing law is observed and enforced. “The aim of deleting criminal posts through social networks is to ensure a free, open and democratic culture of communication and to protect the groups and people affected by hate crimes. The Federal Office of Justice adds: “ Regardless of the regulations of the Network Enforcement Act, it remains that whoever distributes criminal content on the Internet will also be prosecuted. The law enforcement authorities (police / public prosecutor's office) are still responsible for this. “These assessments and other aspects of the law have been criticized from various quarters:

Experts and journalists

IT experts close to the SPD described the planned regulations as "censorship infrastructure". Matthias Spielkamp from Reporters Without Borders called the draft "shameful". Harald Martenstein described it in the Tagesspiegel as “Erdoganismus in pure culture”, he reads as “it comes from the novel 1984 ” and is an “attack on the principle of the separation of powers”. Burkhard Müller-Ullrich wrote: "Minister Maas is clearly not about hatred and agitation in general, but rather about silencing his political opponents."

Experts expected that the short and rigid deletion deadlines and the high threat of fines would lead to the networks preferring to remove posts in case of doubt, even if the freedom of expression guaranteed by constitutional rights would require a context-related consideration, for example when distinguishing between prohibited insults and permitted satire. In April 2017, an alliance of business associations, network politicians, civil rights activists, scientists and lawyers came together to protest against the law. In a manifesto , they warned of “catastrophic consequences for freedom of expression”.

After the Bundestag passed the law, the German Association of Journalists , among others, urged Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier not to sign the law , as freedom of expression was not adequately protected. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung cited the deletion of socio-political posts by an artist through Facebook as an example of censorship as a result of the NetzDG.

Reporters Without Borders and other critics spoke of a “snap shot” that “ could massively damage the fundamental right to freedom of the press and freedom of expression .” Decisions about the legality of contributions would be privatized. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression criticized the proposed law as endangering human rights . At a hearing in the Bundestag, the majority of experts considered the draft to be unconstitutional .

In the opinion of the critics, the bill would also affect platforms such as Amazon and Ebay in addition to social networks . According to IT attorney Joerg Heidrich, anyone who gives a bad rating there must "expect expensive legal letters". According to network activists, the draft would de facto lead to "the end of anonymity on the Internet". Critics saw “consistently a censorship instrument that is unconstitutional and contrary to European law”, which would lead to a “veritable deletion orgy” among providers.

Stefan Niggemeier, on the other hand, saw in the collected criticism a "senseless agitation", which "holds the law and the Minister of Justice responsible for almost everything bad in the digital world". This is not a constructive contribution to the necessary regulation of digital networks.

The No-Hate Speech Campaign Germany sees the topic in a differentiated way, but welcomes the fact that hate on the Internet is now being taken seriously from a legal point of view: “We welcome the fact that the NetzDG obliges providers to appoint a responsible person To name a contact person in Germany and to decide how to deal with hate speech in accordance with German law. ”The Forum Privatheit expert committee made a similar statement:“ The NetzDG is considerably better than the criticism approves. Even if details can be discussed, it is on the right track to ensure that large social networks accept their social responsibility ”.

Social networks

Facebook considers the NetzDG draft to be incompatible with the German Basic Law . In a statement sent to the German Bundestag at the end of May 2017, the company stated: “The rule of law must not shift its own failures and responsibility onto private companies. Preventing and combating hate speech and false reports is a public task that the state must not evade. ”In its statement, Facebook called for a European solution and warns against“ going it alone nationally ”. The statement said: "The amount of the fines is disproportionate to the sanctioned behavior". In a study, the industry association Bitkom calculated costs of around 530 million euros per year that Facebook and other social networks would have to bear. Facebook considers these numbers to be "realistic".

United Nations

The United Nations Special Representative for the Protection of Freedom of Expression David Kaye sharply criticized the planned regulations in a statement to the German government in June 2017. They would overshoot the mark and load platform operators with great responsibilities. Furthermore, they are incompatible with international human rights declarations such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights .

Online providers would have to delete information partly due to "vague and ambiguous" criteria. Much information can only be understood from the context, which platforms cannot evaluate themselves. Due to high threats of fines and short inspection periods, operators would be forced to delete potentially lawful content, which would lead to inappropriate interference with freedom of expression and privacy, which would at least have to be decided by courts or independent institutions. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right of free access to information and the right to share information. The restriction of these rights on the basis of vaguely defined terms such as "insult" or "defamation" is not compatible with this.

Kaye also expressed concerns about the regulation that controversial criminal content and the associated user information would have to be stored and documented for an indefinite period of time, which would make it easier for the state to monitor those affected, and the civil law right to the disclosure of inventory data on IP addresses without a court order. The commissioner asked the federal government for a statement within 60 days.

EU commission

The European Commission has basically welcomed the Federal Government's decisive action against hatred and agitation on the Internet. Hate and radical propaganda have no place in our society either online or offline, a commission spokesman announced in June 2017 in Brussels.

In November 2017 it became known that the Commission is keeping documents on the Network Enforcement Act under lock and key, which confirm the compatibility of the Act with EU law with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European legal requirements in the field of "Information Society Services" (E-Commerce Directive) to verify. A request from the business magazine Wirtschaftswoche was rejected on the grounds that "the publication of the documents ... would impair the climate of mutual trust between the member state and the Commission". According to a regulation from 2001, the EU Commission is obliged to make internal documents accessible on request. Wirtschaftswoche wrote: "This confirms the suspicion that the law violates EU law, but that Brussels does not want to snub Germany."

Ultimately, the commission let the law pass unconditionally and said through a spokesman that hatred and radical propaganda had no place in our society.

EU Justice Commissioner Věra Jourová initially criticized the Network Enforcement Act. The federal government was surprised at the lack of information provided by the commission, because, contrary to Jourova's claim, the law does not require that 100 percent of the content complained of be deleted, but merely sets certain deletion deadlines for "obviously illegal" content such as sedition. Jourova expressed understanding for the German approach: "Federal Justice Minister Heiko Maas has shown us shocking figures how much the hatred on the net in Germany is increasing." According to her statement, he also emphasized that a large part of German society expects the government to do something about it.

implementation

In Berlin and Essen, there are more than 1000 content moderators who control and, if necessary, delete entries that violate the Network Enforcement Act.

According to the first published reports from Facebook, YouTube and Google, most of the user complaints are rejected. According to another opinion, the state-mandated pressure to erase has meant that the operators do not use the criminal law, but their own community standards, in order to remove legal content in case of doubt.

On July 2, 2019, for the first time after the law came into force on October 1, 2017, a fine was imposed for violations of this law. Facebook is said to have only informed about a fraction of the number of complaints it received about illegal content such as insults and false reports. "The published information does not provide a conclusive, transparent picture of the organization and the processes involved in dealing with complaints about illegal content," said the Federal Office of Justice and therefore demands a fine of 2 million from the US company's European headquarters in Ireland Euro. However, the decision is not yet legally binding (as of July 2019).

At the beginning of June 2020, the business magazine Capital assessed the Network Enforcement Act after it was passed in 2017. The magazine recognized the necessity of the law due to various obligations for providers of social networks, such as the consistent deletion of obviously criminal content, the provision of simple complaint procedures for users for this purpose or the Appointment of an authorized recipient in Germany in order to be available in the event of administrative fines and civil proceedings. The magazine also positively emphasized the fact that there has not yet been any systematic censorship, known as over- blocking . However, Capital criticized three aspects of the law. First, the law was the template for authoritarian regimes to restrict freedom of expression. Second, users cannot object to deletions to the providers. Thirdly, due to right-wing extremist acts in recent German history, such as the murder of Walter Lübcke , the attack in Halle and the attack in Hanau, the law has so far not put a stop to agitation and hate crime on the Internet. The business magazine Capital rated the Network Enforcement Act as satisfactory based on the overall view of these aspects.

2020 amendments to the Network Enforcement Act

In October 2019, the responsible minister Christine Lambrecht presented key points on her agenda. One project on their agenda is a tightening of the Network Enforcement Act. Lambrecht also wants to introduce mandatory reporting. The operators should report official crimes to the police. She cited death threats , sedition, and insults as examples . This means what is known as " hate crime ". As part of her agenda, the Minister of Justice wants to adapt the offense of insulting to the specifics of the internet so that insults on the internet can be punished more quickly and more efficiently according to the will of the federal government. On the other hand, Lambrecht rejected a real name requirement on the Internet , because an obligation to only post under real names does not help. "There are so many Heinz Müller's in Germany," she said, "is it Heinz Müller from Hamburg or Heinz Müller from Berlin?"

Law to Combat Right-Wing Extremism and Hate Crime

On February 19, 2020, the federal government passed the draft law to combat right-wing extremism and hate crime. Part of the draft law is also an amendment to the Network Enforcement Act. In the area of ​​the Network Enforcement Act, the following is planned:

In the future, social networks should no longer just delete criminal postings, but should also report them to the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) in certain serious cases so that criminal prosecution is possible. In order to be able to identify offenders quickly, social networks must also inform the BKA of the last IP address and port number that was last assigned to the user profile. The reporting obligation should include the following criminal offenses:

  • Dissemination of propaganda material and use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations (Sections 86, 86a of the Criminal Code (StGB))
  • Preparation of a serious act of violence endangering the state (§§ 89a, 91 StGB) as well as formation and support of criminal and terrorist organizations (§§ 129 to 129b StGB)
  • Incitement of the people and depictions of violence (§§ 130, 131 StGB) as well as disturbance of the public peace by threat of criminal offenses (§ 126 StGB)
  • Rewarding and approving criminal offenses (§ 140 StGB)
  • Threats with crimes against life, sexual self-determination, physical integrity or personal freedom (§ 241 StGB)
  • Distribution of child pornography recordings (Section 184b StGB)

Insults, defamation and defamation are not covered by the reporting requirement. Social networks are, however, continue to inform users about how and where to criminal charges and, if necessary criminal complaint can make.

Act amending the Network Enforcement Act

In mid-December 2019, the Federal Ministry of Justice presented the "Bill amending the Network Enforcement Act", which is intended to strengthen the rights of users of social networks. The ministerial draft, which met with criticism, as well as the government draft approved by the federal government on April 1, 2020 contain the following new regulations:

  • Facilitated submission of complaints: In future, reporting channels must be easy to find and easy to use for everyone - directly from the post that is to be reported to the social network as illegal. A reporting channel that can only be found via the imprint or where the manual insertion of the URL is requested after a long click is not compatible with the NetzDG.
  • Introduction of a counter-presentation procedure: "If a post by a user has been deleted from the social network, the user can in future request the network provider to review this decision. Conversely, anyone who has reported a post as unlawful but has not been deleted by the provider can request it that this decision will be reviewed. "
  • Introduction of private and impartial arbitration boards for the out-of-court settlement of conflicts between users and social networks
  • Additional requirements for the transparency reports: Providing information on the extent to which automated procedures are used to find illegal content, which groups of people are particularly frequently affected by hate speech, and how the networks deal with the new counter-presentation procedure. The new transparency requirement with regard to the automated procedures for finding illegal content includes both content, the distribution of which may violate criminal norms or other laws, as well as content that, from the perspective of the provider, violates the contractual relationships with the users. In the future, transparency reports must show whether and to what extent the social networks grant independent research institutions access to anonymised data for scientific purposes. Scientists should be able to carry out systematic analyzes and gain in-depth knowledge about which groups of people - and in relation to which properties - are particularly often the target of illegal content on the Internet and to what extent there are coordinated and coordinated behaviors of authors of illegal content. The legal changes are intended to increase the information content and comparability of the transparency reports.
  • The Federal Office of Justice, which oversees the NetzDG, is also supposed to remedy deficits in the implementation of the law directly by issuing orders.
  • Right to surrender of data: Anyone who wants to defend themselves against threats or insults in court should in future be able to request the necessary data much more easily than before. The networks are required to disclose the identity of an offender if a court gives permission to do so. In practice, service providers often refuse to disclose data, even after a court decision, on the grounds that the permission, but not the obligation to disclose, has been established by a court. On the part of those affected, a further judicial procedure, which is often complicated and lengthy, is then necessary in order to establish the provider's obligation to provide data. In the future, the enforcement of information claims is to be made more efficient, as the court dealing with the admissibility of data disclosure can also order the social network's obligation to disclose data.
  • Improvement for authorized recipients: "So far, some networks have named authorized recipients in Germany, which is very important for the accessibility of networks for the German courts and authorities. However, the networks then pointed out that these authorized recipients had only a very narrow range of tasks and The Ministry of Justice has now made it clear that the authorized recipient is responsible for all relevant questions about illegal content on platforms - especially if someone wants to have deleted content reactivated. This is a very important step in order to reach platforms in legal proceedings in the future. " Against this background, there is a legal clarification, according to which documents can also be served on the authorized recipient in the event of restoration suits. This improves the protection against unauthorized deletions and account lockouts, which were justified by the social network with the distribution of illegal content. Letters of action to initiate legal proceedings with the aim of deleting illegal content can also be served on authorized recipients.

literature

  • Nikolas Guggenberger: The Network Enforcement Act in use. In: NJW 2017, 2577
  • Thomas Hoeren : Lockdown chaos. In: NJW-aktuell issue 4/2018, p. 15
  • Helmut Redeker, Das NetzDG - Privatization of State Core Tasks , Anwaltsblatt 2018, 273
  • Joachim Steinhöfel : The Network Enforcement Act in Practice - First Experiences and Possible Countermeasures , IP Legal Advisor 2018, p. 212 ff
  • Martin Eifert / Tobias Gostomzyk (Eds.), Network Law. The future of the NetzDG and its consequences for network communication. Baden-Baden 2018, ISBN 978-3-8487-5115-0 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Network Enforcement Act . Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. April 6, 2020. Archived from the original on May 8, 2020. Retrieved on May 8, 2020.
  2. ↑ Hendrik Wieduwilt: In the freedom vacuum . Law against hate speech on the Internet. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . July 1, 2017, accessed July 17, 2019 .
  3. ↑ Act to improve law enforcement in social networks (Network Enforcement Act - NetzDG). In: Documentation and Information System for Parliamentary Processes (DIP). German Bundestag, September 1, 2017, accessed on July 17, 2019 .
  4. ↑ Friedhelm Greis: Network Enforcement Act: The great deletion can begin. In: golem.de. January 1, 2018, accessed January 1, 2018 .
  5. ↑ Falk Steiner: "Facebook Law": NetzDG turns social networks into judges on "Hate Speech". In: heise online. January 1, 2018, accessed January 1, 2018 .
  6. ↑ Topic portal: The Initiative against Hate Crime on the Internet Website of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection , accessed on September 30, 2018
  7. ↑ bill NetzDG. BMJV (PDF)
  8. ↑ Press releases | Deletion of criminal hate comments through social networks is still not sufficient. Retrieved May 30, 2017 .
  9. ^ Doubts about the study on the Network Enforcement Act: "Assessments by laypeople". In: heise online. Retrieved May 30, 2017 .
  10. ↑ Germany approves plans to fine social media firms up to € 50m. In: The Guardian. June 30, 2017. Retrieved June 30, 2017 .
  11. ^ LG Frankfurt am Main, decision of April 30, 2018 - 2-03 O 430/17
  12. ↑ a b c d e f Stefan Krempl: Deletion orgy threatens: Bundestag passes network enforcement law. In: heise online. June 30, 2017, archived from the original on August 9, 2017 ; accessed on August 9, 2017 .
  13. ↑ Network policy - After the attack in Halle: Interior ministers put together surveillance package (Computerbase.de [accessed on October 20, 2019 )]
  14. ↑ a b c d e f g h i Hate comments: Just outsource the rule of law. In: Zeit Online. June 30, 2017, archived from the original on August 9, 2017 ; accessed on August 9, 2017 .
  15. ↑ a b c d e f Hendrik Wieduwilt: Law against Internet networks : Maas is enforced. June 28, 2017, archived from the original on June 29, 2017 ; accessed on August 9, 2017 .
  16. ↑ a b c d Andreas Wilkens: Network enforcement law: coalition politicians agree on law against hatred on the Internet. heiseonline, June 23, 2017, archived from the original on August 9, 2017 ; accessed on August 9, 2017 .
  17. ↑ Law enforcement in social networks - complaints procedure. Federal Office of Justice, archived from the original on November 2, 2017 ; accessed on November 2, 2017 .
  18. ↑ a b c NetzDG: Bundestag passes controversial law against hate on the Internet. In: t3n.de. yeebase media GmbH, June 30, 2017, archived from the original on August 9, 2017 ; accessed on August 9, 2017 .
  19. ↑ a b c d Fair on the Net: Starting signal for law enforcement in social networks. Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, September 18, 2017, archived from the original on November 2, 2017 ; accessed on November 2, 2017 .
  20. ↑ Stefan Krempl: Federal Council wants to make the Network Enforcement Act worse. In: heise online. June 2, 2017, archived from the original on August 20, 2017 ; accessed on August 20, 2017 .
  21. ↑ #Network Enforcement Act: What You Need to Know About Internet Hate Law. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. June 30, 2017, archived from the original on August 9, 2017 ; accessed on August 9, 2017 .
  22. ↑ Printed matter 18/12356, draft law to improve law enforcement in social networks. (PDF) German Bundestag, June 16, 2017, accessed on October 2, 2017 .
  23. ↑ Network Enforcement Act : Criticism and readiness to correct in the Bundestag. In: Heise.de , May 19, 2017
  24. ↑ Scientific service has doubts about NetzDG. In: Legal Tribune Online , June 6, 2017
  25. ↑ Scientific Services of the German Bundestag: Draft of a Network Enforcement Act : Compatibility with Freedom of Expression (PDF file), WD 10 - 3000 - 037/17, June 12, 2017. Archived via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine
  26. ^ Henning Rasche: All against Heiko Maas. In: Rheinische Post online , June 19, 2017.
  27. ↑ Fabian Reinbold: Maas' Facebook law has to shrink. In: Spiegel online , June 19, 2017.
  28. ↑ Martin Ferber: Facebook Law: Does Maas overshoot the mark? In: Augsburger Allgemeine , June 20, 2017.
  29. ↑ Bundestag passes controversial Facebook law. In: Spiegel online , June 30, 2017.
  30. ↑ Peter Stützle: Bundestag passes law against criminal content on the Internet. German Bundestag, June 30, 2017, archived from the original on August 9, 2017 ; accessed on August 9, 2017 .
  31. ↑ Minutes of the plenary session 18/244. (PDF; 1.8 MB) German Bundestag, June 30, 2017, p. 25127 C , accessed on March 16, 2018 : "... with the votes of the coalition against the votes of the left and the vote of a colleague from the CDU / CSU parliamentary group and, if the Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen parliamentary group abstains, the bill has thus been adopted. "
  32. ↑ Minutes of the plenary session 18/244. (PDF; 1.8 MB) German Bundestag, June 30, 2017, p. 25250 B , accessed on March 16, 2018 : "Iris Eberl (CDU / CSU): I hereby announce that I will be on Friday, June 30 2017, against the draft of the Network Enforcement Act, printed matter 18/12356 and printed matter 18/12727, will vote. "
  33. ↑ Cologne Administrative Court, 6 K 4318/18. Retrieved March 12, 2019 .
  34. ↑ Internet censorship : FDP is suing the Network Enforcement Act . In: ZEIT ONLINE . ( zeit.de [accessed on June 10, 2018]).
  35. ↑ Reinhard Müller: FAZ exclusive: FDP politicians complain against network enforcement law . In: FAZ.NET . ISSN  0174-4909 ( faz.net [accessed June 10, 2018]).
  36. ↑ Fair in the net - questions and answers on the topic: Network Enforcement Act. Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, archived from the original on November 2, 2017 ; accessed on November 2, 2017 .
  37. ↑ Law enforcement in social networks. Federal Office of Justice, archived from the original on November 2, 2017 ; accessed on November 2, 2017 .
  38. ↑ Second German Television (ZDF): Fears censorship: SPD-affiliated association tears up Maas' Facebook law - today news. In: Heute.de. Archived from the original on March 31, 2017 ; accessed on June 23, 2018 .
  39. ↑ Markus Reuter: Hate Speech Law: Expanded before it comes into force. In: netzpolitik.org. March 28, 2017. Retrieved January 14, 2018 .
  40. ↑ Harald Martenstein: Erdoganismus in pure culture. In: Tagesspiegel. March 19, 2017. Retrieved January 14, 2018 .
  41. ↑ Burkhard Müller-Ullrich: Minister visit in the censorship sweat shop. In: Axis of the Good , June 15, 2017.
  42. ↑ What would the law against hate postings do? In: Tagesschau.de , May 19, 2017
  43. ^ Hate on the net: Business and activists ally against the Maas law. In: Spiegel Online. April 11, 2017. Retrieved January 14, 2018 .
  44. ^ "Declaration for freedom of expression" against law by Heiko Maas. In: Tagesspiegel. April 11, 2017. Retrieved January 14, 2018 .
  45. ↑ Patrick Beuth: Heiko Maas: Broad alliance against the Facebook law. In: The time. April 11, 2017. Retrieved January 14, 2018 .
  46. ↑ Stefan Krempl: Critic: Federal President must stop network enforcement law. In: heise online. July 1, 2017, accessed January 14, 2018 .
  47. ↑ Germany's most famous street artist is censored by Facebook. In: faz.net. January 14, 2018, accessed January 14, 2018 .
  48. ↑ Warning against rushing action - Reporters without borders for freedom of information. In: Reporters Without Borders for Freedom of Information. May 19, 2017. Retrieved May 19, 2017 .
  49. ↑ Government draft law to improve enforcement in social networks (NetzDG). (PDF) Reporters Without Borders, May 19, 2017, accessed May 19, 2017 .
  50. ↑ UN Special Rapporteur: Network Enforcement Act violates human rights. In: netzpolitik.org. June 9, 2017. Retrieved June 16, 2017 .
  51. ↑ Planned law enforcement in social networks rated very contrary. In: bundestag.de. German Bundestag, June 19, 2017, archived from the original on November 6, 2017 ; accessed on November 6, 2017 .
  52. ↑ Markus Reuter: Hearing on the NetzDG: The majority of the experts consider the bill to be unconstitutional. In: netzpolitik.org . June 19, 2017, archived from the original on November 6, 2017 ; accessed on November 6, 2017 .
  53. ^ Friedhelm Greis: Heiko Maas worsens his draft law. In: Die Zeit , March 29, 2017.
  54. ^ Joerg Heidrich: New draft of the "Network Enforcement Act": Frontal attack on trust in the Internet. In: heise online. March 29, 2017. Retrieved January 14, 2018 .
  55. ↑ Stefan Krempl: "End of anonymity in the net": Maas tightens draft law against hate speech. In: heise online. March 28, 2017. Retrieved January 14, 2018 .
  56. ↑ The Exaggerated Hatred of the Anti-Hate Law
  57. ↑ Network Enforcement Act - for and against
  58. ↑ Alexander Roßnagel, Tamer Bile, Michael Friedewald, Christian Geminn, Jessica Heesen , Murat Karaboga, Nicole Krämer, Michael Kreutzer, Lena Isabell Löber, Nicholas Martin, Maxi Nebel, Carsten Ochs: Policy Paper DAS NETWERKDURCHSETZUNGSGESETZ. Forum Privatheit, January 2018, accessed on November 9, 2018 .
  59. ^ Marc Etzold: Facebook law: Facebook attacks Heiko Maas. In: wiwo.de. May 28, 2017. Retrieved January 14, 2018 .
  60. ^ Stefan Krempl : Network Enforcement Act: UN commissioner sees anonymity at risk. In: heise online , June 9, 2017.
  61. ↑ Network Enforcement Act violates human rights. In: Golem.de
  62. ↑ The SPD needs a success for Maas. In: FAZ.net , June 10, 2017
  63. ↑ Netz-DG: EU Commission welcomes German action against hate speech
  64. ↑ Silke Wettach: Facebook law: EU commission withholds documents "Publication would affect the climate of mutual trust". In: WirtschaftsWoche , November 10, 2017.
  65. ↑ Markus Reuter: EU Commission withholds documents on the Facebook law. In: Netzpolitik.org , November 10, 2017.
  66. ↑ EU Commission does not want to stop the hate speech law
  67. ↑ Dispute with EU about 100 percent deletion quota in Germany
  68. ↑ Vera Jourova: Federal government angry about NetzDG criticism from EU Commissioner. In: handelsblatt.com. Retrieved January 20, 2018 .
  69. ↑ Federal government angry about NetzDG criticism from EU Commissioner
  70. ↑ Dispute with EU about 100 percent deletion quota in Germany
  71. ↑ Burcu Gültekin Punsmann: I had to delete violence and agitation for Facebook. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin. January 5, 2018, accessed September 28, 2018 .
  72. ↑ Alexander Becker: Facebook Police: Bertelsmann subsidiary Arvato continues to search for prohibited content for the US platform February 15, 2018
  73. ↑ NetzDG transparency report July 2018 . Federal Gazette, various announcements / reports from providers of social networks, July 31, 2018
  74. ↑ Removal of content according to the Network Enforcement Act January 1, 2018 - June 30, 2018 . Federal Gazette, various announcements / reports from providers of social networks, July 31, 2018
  75. ↑ Removal of content according to the Network Enforcement Act January 1, 2018 - June 30, 2018 . Federal Gazette, various announcements / reports from providers of social networks, July 31, 2018
  76. ↑ Patrick Beuth: Network Enforcement Act: Many complain about hatred, but hardly anything is blocked Der Spiegel , July 27, 2018
  77. ↑ Stefan Krempl: First deletion reports confirm the risk of overblocking July 31, 2018
  78. ↑ Hate comments - German authority imposes a million-dollar fine on Facebook. In: ZEIT ONLINE. July 2, 2019, accessed June 1, 2019 .
  79. ^ Laws under test: Network Enforcement Act . Capital . June 7, 2020. Archived from the original on June 14, 2020. Retrieved June 14, 2020.
  80. ↑ Christian Rath: Punishment of hate crimes on the net: delete and prosecute. taz , October 16, 2019, archived from the original on November 15, 2019 ; accessed on February 23, 2020 .
  81. ^ Christian Rath: Tightening of the Criminal Code: Insults are becoming more expensive. taz , October 30, 2019, archived from the original on February 12, 2020 ; accessed on February 23, 2020 .
  82. ↑ Dr. Christian Rath: Lambrecht in Karlsruhe: "Not just Sunday speeches". Legal Tribune Online October 10, 2019, archived from the original on October 15, 2019 ; accessed on February 23, 2020 .
  83. ↑ Tomas Rudl: Federal government decides to issue passwords. In: Netzpolitik. February 19, 2020, accessed July 21, 2020 .
  84. ^ Federal Ministry of Justice: Justice: Package of laws against right-wing extremism and hate crime. Federal Ministry of Justice, February 19, 2020, archived from the original on February 23, 2020 ; accessed on February 23, 2020 .
  85. ↑ a b c d e f Robert Roßmann: Facebook, Twitter and Co .: Minister of Justice wants to improve NetzDG . Southgerman newspaper. January 16, 2020.
  86. ↑ a b c Sandra Stalinski: Against hatred on the net: Right to delete and to object - Interview with network expert Ulf Buermeyer . tagesschau.de. 17th January 2020.
  87. ↑ a b c d e f Chris Köver: Ministry of Justice improves NetzDG: More contradiction and more expressiveness . Netzpolitik.org. January 30, 2020.
  88. ↑ Daniel Kretschmar: Criticism of the Network Enforcement Act: Anti-hate novella without love . taz . 19th January 2020.
  89. ↑ FAZ: Federal government changes NetzDG. In: FAZ.net. April 1, 2020, accessed July 21, 2020 .
  90. ↑ a b c d Cabinet adopts new rules: More protection for users of social networks . tagesschau.de. April 1, 2020.
  91. ^ A b c Tomas Rudl: Hate crime: Federal government wants to improve the network enforcement law . Netzpolitik.org. April 1, 2020.
  92. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j NetzDG: Further development of the Network Enforcement Act . Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. April 1, 2020. Archived from the original on May 8, 2020. Retrieved on May 8, 2020.