Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T21:25:20.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Questions of Excluding Participants from Internet Discussion Groups: On the Guaranteeing of Freedom of Communication through ‘Network- Adapted' Private Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Karl-Heinz Ladeur

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The development of media law in recent years is – following a brief stage of calm in the course of establishing the ‘dual broadcasting system' – being affected by new dynamism sparked particularly by the rise of the Internet. The increasing multiplicity of forms and possibilities of communication, in particular of ‘hybrid' coupling of elements of individual and mass communication (e.g. individual exchange of pieces of music by a generally accessible procedure such as Napster and Gnutella, Internet discussion groups among people who do not know each other, Video-on-Demand etc.) has brought broadcasting regulation within a ‘positive order' oriented towards ‘pluralism' under pressure. New hybrid services can no longer be sharply distinguished from broadcasting, nor simply classified with traditional individual communication. The content too may be disseminated in various contexts: for instance, the same film may be disseminated as a full programme, a side programme or part of a media service. Can the difference in context then justify, say, differentiation of legal requirements relating to advertising?

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 8 , 01 August 2008 , pp. 965 - 981
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See further BVerfGE (Reports of the Federal Constitutional Court) 57, 295, 320 ss.; 73, 118, 153.Google Scholar

2 On the consequences for broadcasting in the narrower sense, see Hoffmann-Riem et al., Konvergenz und Regulierung (2000); Jarren/Donges, Medienregulierung durch die Gesellschaft (2000).Google Scholar

3 See further BVerfGE 57, 295, 320 ss.; 73, 118, 153.Google Scholar

4 On media private law, see further Paschke, Medienrecht (2ND ed., 2001), p. 213.Google Scholar

5 See further W. Schulz & Kühlers, Konzepte der Zugangsregulierung für digitales Fernsehen (2000).Google Scholar

6 See further Osthaus, Die Renaissance des Privatrecht im Cyberspace, Archiv für Presserecht (AfP) (2001), 13.Google Scholar

7 See in general Determann, Kommunikationsfreiheit im Internet (1999).Google Scholar

8 See further BVerfGE 57, 295, 320; 73, 118, 153.Google Scholar

9 See in general Schoch & Trute, Öffentlich-rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen einer Informationsordnung, Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer (VVDStRL) 57 (1998), 158; 216; See also Hoffmann-Riem, in Öffentliches Recht und Privatrecht als wechselseitige Auffangordnungen (Hoffmann-Riem & Schmidt-Aßmann eds., 1996), 261, 263.Google Scholar

10 See further BVerfGE 57, 295, 319; 74, 297, 323; 87, 181.Google Scholar

11 See further HAIN, Rundfunkfreiheit und Rundfunkordnung (1993) 138; Degenhart, in: Bonner Kommentar, Art.5, margin note 643; See also Starck, in: von Mangoldt/Klein/idem, Grundgesetz, Vol. 1, Art. 5, Abs. 1, 2, margin note 70.Google Scholar

12 See further Zumbansen, Ordnungsmuster im modernen Wohlfahrtsstaat (2000) p 261; Teubner, Ein Fall von struktureller Korruption? Die Familienbürgschaft in der Kollision unverträglicher Handlungsoptionen, Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft (KritV) 2000, 385, 400; there one also finds a discussion of traditional civil-law conceptions, citing Nörr, Die Leiden des Privatrechts (1994).Google Scholar

13 See, supra, note 12, Zumbansen 269.Google Scholar

14 See, supra, note 12, Nörr, 225.Google Scholar

15 See Oechsler, Gerechtigkeit im modernen Austauschvertrag (1997), 141.Google Scholar

16 See, supra, note 12, Zumbansen, 269; with reference to the internet see also Karavas & Teubner, http://www.CompanyNameSucks.com: The Horizontal Effect of Fundamental Rights on ‘Private Parties’ within Autonomous Internet Law, 4 German Law Journal (2003).; KARAVAS, DIGITALE GRUNDRECHTE (2007), p. 50–72; for the American discussion on problems of “Drittwirkung” see further Berman, Cyberspace and the State Action Debate: The Cultural Value of Applying Constitutional Norms to ‘Private’ Regulation, 71 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW 2000, 1263Google Scholar

17 On the Federal Constitutional Court's case law on private law in general, see Oeter, “Drittwirkung” der Grundrechte und die Autonomie des Privatrechts, 119 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts (AöR) 529 (1994); Ladeur, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht als “Bürgergericht”?, RECHTSTHEORIE 67 (2000)Google Scholar

18 See further F.A. v. Hayek, New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas (1978), 179Google Scholar

19 See further Hesse, Verfassungsrecht und Privatrecht (1988), 30.Google Scholar

20 Multimedia und Recht (MMR) 2000, 109.Google Scholar

21 See Christensen, Taschenkontrolle im Supermarkt und Hausverbot, Juristische Schulung (JuS) 873 (1996).Google Scholar

22 See Oberlandesgericht (OLG - Higher Regional Court) Köln, Multimedia & Recht (MMR) 52 (2001).Google Scholar

23 The MDStV (Mediendienstestaatsvertrag) was a treaty among the Länder which regulated the content related problems of electronic communications, whereas the TDG (Teledienstegesetz) was a federal law which regulates commercial electronic communication; on liability in general see, Sieber, Verantwortlichkeit im Internet (1999); Freytag, Haftung im Netz (1999); see also Spindler, in Recht der Multimediadienste (Roßnagel, ed.), § 5 TDG margin note 91, who evidently regards the problem of clashes between freedom of speech and liability as secondary – the TDG has been replaced by the new Telemediengesetz in 2007, whereas the content related regulations of the Mediendienstestaatsvertrag has been integrated into the Treaty of the Länder on Broadcasting (§§ 54ss. RfStV of 2007).Google Scholar

24 See Bunker, Trespassing Speakers and Commodified Speech, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 713, 716 (2000); Bick, Trespass Theory Poses a Threat to Internet, New York Law Journal 7 (2000).Google Scholar

25 See also Landgericht (LG – Regional Court) Potsdam, on the State's Liability for Utterances in Chat Groups, MMR 1999, 739, published also in Computer und Recht (CR) 2000, 13, with a case note by Schmitz.Google Scholar

26 On consent generally see Bassenge, in Palandt-Heinrichs, BGB (67th Ed. 2008), § 1004 margin note 32; Bundesgerichtshof (BGH – Federal Court of Justice), published in: Wertpapier-Mitteilungen (WM) 1971, 179.Google Scholar

27 See Heinrichs, in Palandt-Heinrichs, BGB (67th Ed. 2008), § 242, margin note 55.Google Scholar

28 See Heinrichs, supra, note 27, arguing that, while no fault is required, the conduct must be relatively unambiguous as the basis for the formation of expectations by others.Google Scholar

29 See in general Sieber, supra note 23.Google Scholar

30 On this see Teubner, , Nach der Privatisierung?, Diskurskonflikte im Privatrecht, Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie (ZRSoz) 8 (1998), at 31; Teubner, , Vertragswelten: Das Recht in der Fragmentierung von private governance regimes, Rechtshistorisches Journal 234 (1998); Teubner, Im blinden Fleck der Systeme: Die Hybridisierung des Vertrages, Soziale Systeme 313 (1997); Teubner, Globale Zivilverfassungen: Alternativen zur staatszentrierten Verfassungstheorie, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches und Völkerrecht (ZaöVR) 1 (2003) [english version in Joerges/Sand/Teubner eds., Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism, 3 (2004)); see also Froomkin, : Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 749 (2003).Google Scholar

31 See further Rohe, Netzverträge (1997); Teubner, Die vielköpfige Hydra: Netzwerke als kollektive Akteure höherer Ordnung, in: Organisation und Netzwerk 535 (Kenis/Schneider eds., 1996).Google Scholar

32 See Deakin & Michie, The Theory and Practice of Contracting, in Contract, Cooperation and Competition, 1, (Deakin & Michie eds., 1997); see further Vékás, Contract in a rapidly changing International Environment, 152 JITE 40 (1996).Google Scholar

33 See Zumbansen, supra note 12, at 283; see also Zumbansen, Die engen Wände der Internetwelt – Autonomie und Kontrolle jenseits staatlicher Steuerung und gesellschaftlicher Eigenorganisation, in Innovationsoffene Regulierung des Internet – Neues Recht für Kommunikationsnetzwerke, 273 (Ladeur ed., 2003).Google Scholar

34 See further Köndgen, Selbstbindung ohne Vertrag (1981).Google Scholar

35 See, Zumbansen, supra, note 12, 266.Google Scholar

36 See Teubner, , Neo-spontanes Recht und duale Sozialverfassungen in der Weltgesellschaft?, in Festschrift Simitis, 437 (2000).Google Scholar

37 See Grothe, , Kommunikative Selbstbestimmung im Internet und Grundrechtsordnung, KritV 27 (1999).Google Scholar

38 Regarding competition problems with portals, see Hoeren, Suchmaschinen, Navigationssysteme und das Wettbewerbsrecht, MMR 1999, 649.Google Scholar

39 On the importance of procedural rules for upholding the transparency of markets in general, see Ebke, Accounting, Auditing and Global Capital Market, Festschrift Buxbaum, 113 (2000).Google Scholar

40 On this see Ladeur, “Die objektiv-rechtliche Dimension der Rundfunkfreiheit” unter Bedingungen von Multimedia, Festschrift Ekkehard Stein, 67 (2002).Google Scholar

41 See BVerfGE 53, 30, 60; Jarass/Pieroth, Grundgesetz (9th ed. 2007), Vorb., 10, 30, 33.Google Scholar

42 On the debate on taking freedom of speech into account and private law, see Bethge, in Sachs, Grundgesetz (3rd ed. 2002), Art. 5, margin note 30; see also Hoffmann-Riem, in AlternativKommentar zum Grundgesetz, (3rd ed. 2001), Art. 5, margin notes 45, 139; BVerfGE 7, 198, 214; 42, 163,168. On the entitlement to ‘participation in information’ against a sports club (exclusion of a reporter), see further OLG Köln, AfP 2001, 218.Google Scholar

43 See BVerfGE 61,260,275; 49, 89,126; Jarass/Pieroth, Grundgesetz (9thed., 2007), Art. 20, margin note 46Google Scholar

44 See BVerf GE 47, 46, 79.Google Scholar

45 See Palandt-Heinrichs, BGB, (67th ed., 2008), § 305, margin note 8ss.Google Scholar

46 For an approach to a “transnational expansion” of “drittwirkung” of constitutional liberties, see Ladeur & Viellechner, Die Transnationale Expansion staatlicher Grundrechte, 46 ARCHIV DES VÖLKERRECHTS (2008), 42.Google Scholar