Facebook must delete insults against politician worldwide, Austria’s highest court rules

Former Green Party politician Eva Glawischnig wins landmark case

In a landmark case, Austria’s highest court has ruled Facebook must remove all defamatory comments worldwide made about a local politician who successfully sued the social media giant.

Eva Glawischnig took Facebook to court after if refused to take down abusive posts by a user who falsely referred to the then-Green Party representative as a “lousy traitor”, a “corrupt tramp” and a member of a “fascist party”.

In 2017 she won the initial case, forcing the company to remove the messages, but the 51-year-old continued her legal fight, demanding that similar posts about her be removed no matter which country they were published in.

After key questions were referred up to the European Court of Justice, which last year found such worldwide removals would not fall foul of EU rules, Austria’s Supreme Court this week dismissed Facebook’s appeal and ruled it must delete posts globally that mimic or carry the same essential meaning as the original posts.

Austrian newspaper Der Standard reported judges ruled that social media platforms can be required to hunt for and delete content when a court finds it is unlawful.

Currently, EU rules prevent member states from forcing online platforms to take on legal responsibility for content published there by users. But these new rulings open the door to companies being forced to monitor some speech when it is deemed illegal.

Facebook has been contacted for comment, but in reaction to last year’s EU court ruling, it said: “This judgment raises critical questions around 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.

“It undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country. It also opens the door to obligations being imposed on internet companies to proactively monitor content and then interpret if it is ‘equivalent’ to content that has been found to be illegal.”