Challenge by X to Irish media regulator's online safety rules set to begin this week
Elon Musk's
social network platform against the online safety code introduced by the country's media regulator is scheduled to commence on Tuesday.
Twitter International Unlimited Company, which operates
X
, alleges in High Court proceedings that
Coimisiún na Meán
engaged in 'regulatory overreach' in its approach to restrictions on certain video content.
Coimisiún na Meán is contesting the case.
The company contends that the new online safety code contradicts Irish law requirements for protecting and balancing fundamental rights, particularly freedom of expression.
READ MORE
The company wants the court to quash the commission's decision last October to adopt certain sections of the code, which applies binding rules to video-sharing platforms headquartered in Ireland. It obliges the platforms to protect people, especially children, from harmful video and associated content.
It is also seeking the court to overturn the commission's decision to apply the code to X.
Coimisiún na Meán, in a statement late last year, in advance of the court action, said that as Ireland's regulator for online safety it had developed rules and regulations rooted in Irish and EU legislation following extensive consultation.
[
Media regulator made 'big mistake' in not tackling algorithms in online safety code, Dáil hears
Opens in new window
]
'We will engage in this litigation process and will defend the online safety code and its objective of keeping people, especially children, safe online,' it said at the time.
At the launch of the code last October the then Minister for Media Catherine Martin said it represented 'a big step forward in online safety' that would 'make all of us, but particularly our children, safer online'.
She said the rules would introduce 'real accountability' for online video-sharing platforms and require them 'to take action to protect those that use their platforms, including by having robust complaints-handling procedures and introducing effective age-verification'.
The legal case brought by Twitter International takes particular issue with a section of the code that requires video-sharing platforms to preclude users from uploading or sharing video the code defines as 'restricted'.
Falling under the code's 'restricted' heading is video content that bullies or humiliates a person or that promotes eating disorder behaviour, suicide, self-harm or behaviour prejudicial to the safety of children, including dangerous challenges.
Twitter International claims the definition is 'broadly framed' and capable of encompassing a 'wide spectrum of content, including legal content'.
The company notes that the EU's audiovisual media services directive draws a clear distinction between illegal content, which includes incitement to hatred, and 'legal but harmful' content.
[
How can we keep our kids safe online? Here are some tips for parents
Opens in new window
]
Twitter was renamed as X in July 2023 following its acquisition by Mr Musk, one of the richest men in the world and a close ally and supporter of US president Donald Trump.
Over recent months the Trump administration has strongly hit out at what it sees as attempts to censor free speech on US-owned social media platforms.
Last week, US secretary of state Marco Rubio said his country would impose visa bans on foreign nationals it deemed to be censoring Americans.
He suggested the new policy could target officials regulating US tech companies.
Mr Rubio said in a statement that a new visa restriction policy would apply to foreign nationals responsible for censorship of protected expression in the US. He said it was unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants for social media posts made on US soil.
'It is similarly unacceptable for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the United States,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
Trump claims victory on trade - but EU had little choice
In many respects US President Donald Trump achieved his aims by introducing a swath of tariffs with America's main trading partners around the world. The European Union has a population of 448 million compared to the US which has 340 million. However, the US economy is larger. Many have been surprised at the way Donald Trump has appeared to be able to dictate terms to Europe. His announcement yesterday that he would commence the new tariff arrangements from 7 August appeared to be his decision with little input from the EU. President of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen has defended the deal, which will see tariffs of 15% imposed on EU goods. There are two reasons why the EU did not want a full blown trade war with Mr Trump. Firstly, European businesses were opposed to a prolonged period of tit-for-tat tariffs with enormously damaging consequences. Secondly, if relations with Mr Trump soured, he could threaten to row back on defence commitments. The EU is highly reliant on the US for arm supplies, funding for NATO and military support for Ukraine. But looking at scale of tariffs imposed on other countries the EU's 15% does not seem too damaging compared to India's 25%, Canada's 35% and Switzerland's 39%. Most of the US' main trading partners have rates of 15% or 20%. The exception is the UK's 10% tariff. However, this is not an all-inclusive rate. In other words, other rates can be added to it. Nor does Britain have a written agreement capping pharmaceutical tariffs unlike the EU. It is worth bearing in mind that while tariffs on European goods go up, Mr Trump stated the EU would be "opening up their countries at zero tariffs" for US exports. Unanswered questions From the Irish point of view there are still many unanswered questions. There is no agreement on alcohol exports to the US. That sector was expected to be covered by a zero-for-zero tariff arrangement but that has not yet been confirmed. This is critical for Ireland's whiskey industry and the EU's wine exports. It seems clear that pharmaceuticals and computer chips will face tariffs of up to 15%, but the timing is still uncertain. Both are subject of so-called Section 232 investigations because Mr Trump believes the US' use of imports is a national security issue. Tánaiste Simon Harris said the tariffs for sectors under investigation will not become clear until those processes are concluded. For pharmaceuticals that is expected to happen in two weeks. But the fact that the EU-US agreement won't exceed 15% does provide some clarity for the industry. Bank of Ireland pointed out that drugs are relatively inelastic, which means if prices go up people still buy them because they are prescribed by doctors. The new swath of tariffs come at a time when the dollar has been weakening and making EU exports to the US more expensive at the worst possible time. Then there is the question of what this all means for the Irish economy. In March, the Department of Finance and the Economic Social Research Institute published research on the impact of tariffs on the Irish economy. It looks at a range of scenarios from tariffs of 10% to 25%. Based on that analysis, officials at the Department of Finance told business leaders yesterday that the economy would continue to expand, but at a slower pace than previously expected. Employment will grow but at a slower rate. The Government will now have to decide how all this will impact the Budget in October. But while Mr Trump may believe he has achieved his aims on tariffs, in the long run his actions carry the risk of higher inflation in the US and undermining the American economy.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
There's one scenario in which tariffs won't be a disaster for Ireland
I have enough grey hairs to remember trade deals being done in the past, notably the massive Uruguay round of talks which concluded in 1994 and was – though we didn't know it at the time – the high point of a long postwar drive to free world trade and reduce tariffs. The media spent many hours outside meeting rooms as negotiators from more than 120 countries went through complex line-by-line negotiations to cut tariffs and trade barriers. For Ireland, it was always a case of trading off the potential gains for industry with the threat to farmers. But over time, the State was a huge winner. The world had already started to move away from the relentless globalisation drive which had lasted well into this century. And now we have Trump's new world order and trade 'deals' which are a mix of reality, spin and fudge. We still do not know the full details of the deal between the United States and the European Union – before we even start to worry about how Trump might try to rewrite it. Ibec chief economist Gerard Brady calculates that exporters accounting for about 10 per cent of our export value to the US now know their tariff and another 10-15 per cent await news on exemptions from tariffs being negotiated between the US and the EU. The remaining 75 per cent or so of pharma and semiconductor exporters will have to wait for separate investigations now under way in the Trump administration. READ MORE There is a potential outcome from all this which, while damaging, would not be disastrous for Ireland in the short term. There will be problems, but the economy could adjust and adapt. While the Department of Finance estimates that the tariffs could lead to employment being 70,000 lower in five years' time and the economy 1.5 per cent smaller are, at best, a rough guesstimate, they do look to be in the right direction. On current trends, this would mean growth continuing, just not as quickly as it would have. We can assess the potential damage for Ireland only when we know the full details. The spirits and whiskey sectors look exposed, for example, as the US says it is a target for the 15 per cent tariffs. As this is a big issue in France, there will be an EU push in the week ahead, before final details of the deal with the US are published, to try to lower the burden here. As well as the impact on Ireland, this is one to watch at political level in the EU, as France puts pressure on Ursula von der Leyen 's European Commission , which negotiates on behalf of the EU. As butter, another vital Irish export, was already subject to a tariff of about 16-17 per cent (which will remain), things will at least not get any worse here. If we want to identify problem areas, smaller companies reliant on the US in a range of sectors is one. Small may no longer be beautiful in a complex and politically-driven world market. And it is also worth focusing on the risks to parts of rural Ireland – as highlighted by Chambers Ireland chief executive Ian Talbot – particularly those reliant on sectors such as food and also pharma and medical products. Towns such as Westport and Kinsale will anxiously await details on the pharma tariffs. [ EU-US trade deal analysis: Tariffs have a price for both sides. Trump was willing to pay it Opens in new window ] And here things remain a bit woolly, largely because the US president is undertaking study of this sector under a so-called section 232 process – referring to a section of a 1960s US act. This is separate from the big so-called reciprocal tariffs announced on Friday. The EU view is that its deal caps tariffs on pharma at 15 per cent – including any outcome from this separate process. If this holds, the sector at least knows its maximum charge. A big report – due shortly – has been drawn up for Trump under section 232, which looks at national security issues from trade and how more of the supply chain of key products can be brought back to the US from countries such as Ireland. Let's hope Trump does not revisit the 15 per cent maximum tariff figure as part of this. Tariffs are only one of Trump's policies options. On Thursday, he issued a letter to 17 of the big pharma companies demanding they cut prices in the US to the lowest level applying elsewhere. As a big buyer of pharma, the US state machinery has a lot of power here. Imposing high tariffs appears to run counter to the drive for lower prices. So the interaction between Trump and big pharma is another key thing to watch in the weeks ahead. What we do know is that the US president is determined to return pharma investment to the US and get better prices for American consumers. For Ireland, the initial impact may be slow enough to emerge. But this is likely to mean somewhat lower investment by pharma here in the years ahead and a sector which may be more focused on EU and other markets rather than exporting back to the US. Changes in the pricing and accounting practices of the multinationals – now designed to report massive profits in low-tax Ireland – are also likely to cut corporate tax revenue here. Like the rest of the economy, the Irish pharma sector will adjust. But there will be a cost, the scale of which depends on the extent of US policy action. The longer-term strategic questions will take time to clarify themselves. A major issue is whether Trump's policy direction will stick. If you are, say, a big pharma company, do you base your investments on an expectation that this is now the new world, or that Trump's policies will, in time, be rolled back either by him or by his successor? US court challenges to his powers to impose wide-scale tariffs are only now playing out. US consumer prices are surely set to rise – the only question is how much and whether there will be a cost in jobs. And the financial market calm could be upset at any time, given the crazy and risky course on which Trump has embarked. On Friday, they were already looking jumpy. So the uncertainty will roll on. Ireland should get through the first wave of this, albeit with some collateral damage. But the big question is our place in a world which seems to be breaking up into new trading blocs and alliances. And whether the valuable certainty which a final, agreed trade deal might bring can last - Ireland and Europe now needs Trump to direct his attention elsewhere.
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Ireland has too many quangos and too many lawyers feeding off its clientelist politics
If government is the group of people who run a state and the formal rules and institutions by which they do so, governance is how they go about that through networks, processes, interests, ideologies and political actors at different levels. The Republic of Ireland has a well-defined and clearly identifiable government structure, formally accountable through elections and the Oireachtas and amply covered by media . In contrast its governance is much more opaque, less visible to its citizens and its media coverage is patchy and uneven. This matters because the Republic currently suffers from a series of problems – in housing, energy, water, climate, health and care infrastructure and in its economic model – that arise from suboptimal governance just as much as from short-sighted or incompetent governments. These problems are often made more visible by comparisons with similar states in Europe and elsewhere. This State is one of the most centralised in Europe , whether defined by the functional and geographical concentration of executive and political power in Dublin or the comparatively puny powers of both parliamentary and local government. Such centralisation puts an onus on political leaders and executive managers to get things right through coherent, integrated policymaking. READ MORE The abiding localism of Irish life is channelled to the capital by networks of TDs, private lobbying and clientelism that dominate the distribution of resources. That perfectly matches the retail, consumerist and reactive side of everyday Irish politics – and provides much of the media agenda. Less often discussed are the resulting poor outcomes across a range of public services because more local and regional structures of governance are unavailable to policymakers. [ Fintan O'Toole: The three pillars of Ireland's political system are crumbling Opens in new window ] Instead policymaking is often outsourced to quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations). An OECD report identified 800 of them and said they clog up Irish governance and inhibit local government . Notorious examples of poor practice and opaque structures in health and educational bodies provide daily headline news. If we are over-quangoed we are also over-lawyered in planning and insurance per head of comparable European populations. These issues show up plainly in how Irish governments responded to the growing population over the past decade during the economic recovery and expansion after the financial crisis. Immigration of skilled labour through work permits has increased the population by 16 per cent, or more if refugees are also factored in. Imperatives of economic growth drove the expansion; but it was not accompanied by plans to increase housing and infrastructure to provide for a growing and more complex society demanding greater public services. Instead market forces prevailed, but they failed to meet that demand. [ Chronic inability to build anything big in the State is baked into the system Opens in new window ] These widening gaps were identified by some analysts and commentators, and they then became part of the political and election agenda. But they have dominated public debate only since being put there squarely by big economic players and international organisations over the past year. Infrastructure deficits inhibit new investments, they say – and that coincides with wider concerns about how vulnerable the Irish economic model has become to international shocks, particularly from Donald Trump. Hence the level of interest in the National Development Plan and its methodology. Rather than base it on an analysis of changing demographics, economic trends and social needs which generate development priorities, its method is more ad hoc in response to the uncertain international backdrop. Detailed project plans await definition, as the scale of the Trump tariff shock is assessed. In the meantime, different Government departments are allocated capital expenditure envelopes based on their bargaining power. How will the updated National Development Plan shape Ireland in years to come? Listen | 35:59 It's a far cry from the strategic foresight approach to governing increasingly advocated by analysts, companies, the EU and international organisations. That involves gathering information about relevant trends and potentially disruptive risks, developing scenarios about plausible futures and integrating such insights into anticipatory planning. The OECD has advocated such an approach for Ireland and there are several initiatives in government and academia to apply them. Had they been deployed over the past decade we could have been better prepared to tackle these development gaps – not to mention linking them to the equally plausible prospect of a united Ireland. Notwithstanding the highly centralised nature of Irish government, it has lacked the capacity to aggregate governance coherently and to resist particular interests. The consequences of changing demographics and economic growth should have been more effectively foreseen, but were not. For that politicians and executive managers should share the blame. [ Tariff 'uncertainties' could 'weigh heavily' on Irish economic growth Opens in new window ] The problems are exacerbated by the narrow base of Irish taxation, in which 10 US corporations provide 40 per cent of corporate tax revenue, along with the glaring six-fold contrast between the multinational sector's high productivity and that of indigenous industry. Tackling these problems requires structural change in the Republic's governance to decentralise and redemocratise power, by prioritising and co-ordinating development gaps more effectively with better analysis. That would help repair the seriously widening distributional and political gaps between older and younger generations.
