English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In 2013 and 2015 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) by its judgements in the famous case Delfi AS v. Estonia admitted the possibility of liability of the Internet news portal operator for unlawful comments of users. However, just half a year later, the ECHR in MTE &amp;amp; Index v. Hungary case, which was, at first sight, similar, took a different decision, i.e. that the website operator could not be held liable. Finally, in 2017 the ECHR in Pihl v. Sweden case resolved a dispute over a comment posted in a blog. Thus, this article analyses, by applying the comparative method, the primary pre-sumptions for website operator’s liability established in the above mentioned cases. The authors de-fine the criteria for assessment of the context of comments and models of conduct of website opera-tors and set certain general waymarks, which could be applied in similar cases.

PRIMARY PRESUMPTIONS FOR WEBSITE OPERATOR’S LIABIILTY FOR OFFENSIVE COMMENTS