Activities of Edina TÓTH 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 (continuation of debate)
Amendments (4)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to introduce a harmonised approach addressing obligations imposed onfor online intermediaries, in order to avoid fragmentation of the internal market while guaranteeing users fundamental rights; stresses that any measure related to fundamental rights should be carefully balanced and take into account the possible impact on the functioning of the internal market, and calls on the Commission to avoid the ‘export’ of national regulations and instead to propose the most efficient and effective solutions for the internal market as a whole without creating new administrative burdens and keeping the digital single market open and competitive;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. States that limited liability provisions as set out in the e-Commerce Directive1 must be maintained and strengthenwhere needed, updated in the Digital Services Act to better protect users and consumers, 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 SMEscompanies, SMEs and microbusinesses in particular; _________________ 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 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recognises that online intermediaries, including microcompanies, 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;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for the introduction of appropriate safeguards, due process obligations and counter- notice toolprocedures to allow content ownuploaders 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.; Believes that the removal of content should be followed up by law enforcement where needed;