Activities of Christel SCHALDEMOSE 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)
Amendments (9)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s intentioncommitment to introduce a harmonised approach addressing obligations imposed on intermediarion digital services, in order to avoid fragmentation of the internal market; stresses that any measure related to fundamental rights should be cthe Digital Services Act should ensure that the internal market freedoms are fully balanced and take into account the possible impact on the functioning of the internal marketrealised in complete compliance with fundamental rights and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental rights of the EU, and calls on the Commission to avoid the ‘export’ of national regulations and instead to propose the most efficient and effective sustainable solutions for the internal market as a whole;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. States that limited liability provisions as set out in the e-Commerce Directive1 must be maintained and strengthenpreserved in the Digital Services Act, particularly in order to protect freedom of expressionundamental rights and the freedom to provide services; underlines the importance of these protections to the growth of European SMEs, protection of consumers and users' safety; _________________ 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 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. States that Digital Services Act should maintain the ban on general monitoring obligation under the Article 15 of the current e-Commerce Directive;
Amendment 26 #
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 withe Commission that these 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;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls the fact that misinformative and harmful content is not always illegal; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a well-defined notice-and-takedown processharmonised, transparent and legally enforceable notice-and-action mechanism; 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 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes the proliferation of fake news and disinformation with false or misleading content, and consumers scams by means of unsafe or counterfeit products; calls on the Commission to keep working and exploring new ways to combat fake news while preserving fundamental rights;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Highlights that tracking applications must respect privacy rights in addition to the provisions of the GDPR;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for the introduction of counter-notice tools to allow content owners to defend their rights adequately and in a timely manner when notified of any takedown; underlines its view that delegating the responsibility to set boundaries on freedom of speech to private companies is unacceptable and creates risks for both citizens and businesses, neither of which are qualified to take such decisions.that if the redress and counter-notice procedure have stablished that the notified activity or information is not illegal, the online intermediary should restore the removed content without undue delay or allow for the re-upload by the user, without prejudice to the platform's terms of service; outlines that fundamental rights should be protected more effectively by introducing more transparency reports and out-of-court dispute settlement mechanism to help resolve complaints of affected users;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Notes that the new Digital Services Act should also address the challenges algorithms present in terms of ensuring non-discrimination, transparency and explainability, as well as liability; points out the need to monitor algorithms and to asses associated risks, to use high quality and unbiased datasets, as well as to help individuals acquire access to diverse content, opinions, high quality products and services;