Activities of Dita CHARANZOVÁ related to 2020/2022(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Digital Services Act: Improving the functioning of the Single Market - Digital Services Act: adapting commercial and civil law rules for commercial entities operating online - Digital Services Act and fundamental rights issues posed - Framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies - Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence - Intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies (debate)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on Digital Services Act and fundamental rights issues posed
Amendments (9)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses that specific attention be paid to ensure that no measures adopted affect or weaken the protection of freedom of expression;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Believes that the Digital Services Act should respect the broad framework of fundamental European rights of users and consumers, such as the protection of privacy, non-discrimination, dignity, and free speech;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. States that limited liability provisions as set out in the e-Commerce Directive1 must be maintained and strengthened in the Digital Services Act, including the long-established principle prohibiting general monitoring obligations, particularly in order to protect freedom of expression and the freedom to provide services; underlines the importance of these protections to the growth of European SMEs, as well as to better protect users’ fundamental rights in the digital environment and to tackle the spread of illegal content, with the purpose of fostering the creation of an open and competitive online ecosystem; _________________ 1 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1.
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recognises that SMEs and large players have differing capabilities with regard to the moderation of content; warns that overburdening businesses with disproportionate new obligations could further hinder the growth of SMEs and require recourse to automatic filtering tools, which may often lead to the removal of legal content and may prevent them from entering the market, undermining the freedom to provide services; underlines in this regard the importance of stimulating the emergence of SMEs by lowering and removing market access barriers, accordingly;
Amendment 35 #
3a. Recalls that the e-commerce directive is the legal framework for online services in the Internal Market that regulates content management; stresses that any fragmentation of that framework, resulting from the revision of the e- commerce directive should be avoided;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls the fact that misinformative and harmful content is not always illegal and that not all types of illegal content are harmonised at EU level; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a well-defined notice-and-takedown process; supports an intensive dialogue between authorities and relevant stakeholders with the aim of deepening the soft law approach based on good practices such as the EU- wide Code of Practice on Disinformation, in order to further tackle misinformation;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses the need to distinguish between ‘illegal’, ‘harmful’, and other content; notes that while some content linked to religious belief or political positions for instance might be considered harmful without being illegal; considers that harmful legal content should not be regulated or defined in the Digital Service Act;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes the importance of adopting further rules on digital advertising and ensuring full compliance with GDPR provisions, in order to avoid intrusive business models, behavioural manipulation and discriminatory practices, which have major effects on the Single Market and users’ fundamental rights, privacy and data security;
Amendment 58 #
6a. Believes that allowing new innovative business model to flourish and strengthening the Digital Single Market by removing barriers to the free movement of digital content, barriers which creates national fragmented markets and a demand for illegal content, have been proven to work in the past, especially in relation to the infringements of Intellectual Property rights;