MAPPING PARADIGMS OF EUROPEAN INTERNET REGULATION： THE EXAMPLE OF INTERNET CONTENT CONTROL

The article introduces three of the paradigms used to analyze intemet regulation and applies them to the history of internet content control in Europe. It builds on Thomas Kuhn＇s notion of paradigms and previous works on regulatory theory, defining regulatory paradigms as a ＂shared understanding of the purpose of regulation, of the way of thinking about how regulation works, and of the set of institutional arrangements and instruments through which regulation is conducted.＂ Building on this definition, the prevalent concepts of the paradigms of intemet regulation refer to the intention, mechanisms, and the intensity of regulation. The article discusses these concepts with regard to the regulation of interact content control in Europe and analyzes three paradigm shifts that have taken place since the early days of the intemet. These paradigm shifts concern the responsiveness, differentiation, and intensity of regulation.

SPACE AS PARADIGM OF INTERNET REGULATION

Right now internet regulation is standing at the crossroads. Its problem-driven evolution has led to a conglomerate of seemingly diverse rules, which can hardly be structured as one cohesive area of law. Nevertheless, a consolidation of these rules as one cross-sectional field of law is can be identified. The discussion about the terms ＂internet regulation＂ and ＂internet governance＂ as well as recent developments in this field indicate that a paradigm shift in internet regulation is ongoing. Whereas self-regulation has been the determining mode of internet governance for a long time, internet regulation in the sense of public regulation is currently gaining more influence. This transformation is accompanied by the rising importance of a traditional paradigm of law： the idea of space. Even though the idea of space finds itself challenged with regard to the internet, it can give substance to many different aspects of internet regulation.

Topical Issues of Regulation of Economic Relations in Internet Environment

This article examines current issues of regulation of economical relations in the lnternet environment. Complexities, created by global and virtual features of the Internet economy, are characterize＆ Problems associated with the implementation of the tax and customs policy, regulation of e-money circulation, virtual labor, intellectual property rights protection and consumer rights, as well as personal information are analyzed. Specifics of economic crimes and problems of their control in a virtual environment are commented. Also, the ways to address these problems are indicated.

Online Survivors Internet cafes must navigate strict government regulations to stay in business

After a three-year suspension, on December 13, 2005. authorities in Shenzhen again began accepting business applications for Internet cafes. The first batch of newly licensed cafes began operation in February. According to the local government's plan, 746 cafes will be opened in Shenzhen, in addition to the existing 314 licensed ones.

INTERNET INTERMEDIARIES＇ LIABILITY FOR ONLINE ILLEGAL HATE SPEECH

Considering the prevalence of online hate speech and its harm and risks to the targeted people, democratic discourse and public security, it is necessary to combat online hate speech. For this purpose, interact intermediaries play a crucial role as new governors of online speech. However, there is no universal definition of hate speech. Rules concerning this vary in different countries depending on their social, ethical, legal and religious backgrounds. The answer to the question of who can be liable for online hate speech also varies in different countries depending on the social, cultural, history, legal and political backgrounds. The First Amendment, cyberliberalism and the priority of promoting the emerging internet industry lead to the U.S. model, which offers intermediaries wide exemptions from liability for third-party illegal content. Conversely, the Chinese model of cyberpaternalism prefers to control online content on ideological, political and national security grounds through indirect methods, whereas the European Union （EU） and most European countries, including Germany, choose the middle ground to achieve balance between restricting online illegal hate speech and the freedom of speech as well as internet innovation. It is worth noting that there is a heated discussion on whether intermediary liability exemptions are still suitable for the world today, and there is a tendency in the EU to expand intermediary liability by imposing obligation on online platforms to tackle illegal hate speech. However, these reforms are again criticized as they could lead to erosion of the EU legal framework as well as privatization of law enforcement through algorithmic tools. Those critical issues relate to the central questions of whether intermediaries should be liable for user-generated illegal hate speech at all and, if so, how should they fulfill these liabilities？ Based on the analysis of the different basic standpoints of cyberliberalists and cyberpaternalists on the internet regulation as well as the arguments of proponents and opponents of the intermediary liability exemptions, especially the debates over factual impracticality and legal restraints, impact on internet innovation and the chilling effect on freedom of speech in the case that intermediaries bear liabilities for illegal third-party content, the paper argues that the arguments for intermediary liability exemptions are not any more tenable or plausible in the web 3.0 era. The outdated intermediary immunity doctrine needs to be reformed and amended.Furthermore, intermediaries are becoming the new governors of online speech and platforms now have the power to curtail online hate speech. Thus, the attention should turn to the appropriate design of legal responsibilities of intermediaries. The possible suggestions could be the following three points： Imposing liability on intermediaries for illegal hate speech requires national law and international human rights norms as the outer boundary; openness, transparency and accountability as internal constraints; balance of multi-interests and involvement of multi-stakeholders in internet governance regime.