Keyword: Political advertising

Transparency Rules in Online Political Advertising: Mapping Global Law and Policy external link

Menezes Cwajg, C., Ausloos, J. & Leerssen, P.
2020

Abstract

In response to the rise of online political microtargeting, governments across the globe are launching transparency initiatives. Most of these aim to shed light on who is buying targeted political ads, and how they are targeted. The present Report offers a comprehensive mapping exercise of this new field of regulation, analysing new laws, proposed or enacted, that impose transparency rules on online political microtargeting. The Report consists of two components: a global overview, and detailed case study of the United States. The first section begins with a geographical overview by showing where and what initiatives were proposed and enacted, looking in particular at Canada, France, Ireland, Singapore and the United States. It then unpacks these initiatives in greater detail by outlining what requirements they impose in terms of disclosure content, scope of application, and format. The second section of the Report then zooms into the United States, outlining the various initiatives that have been proposed and enacted at state-level.

frontpage, Informatierecht, Political advertising, transparantie

Bibtex

Report{Cwajg2020, title = {Transparency Rules in Online Political Advertising: Mapping Global Law and Policy}, author = {Menezes Cwajg, C. and Ausloos, J. and Leerssen, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/TransparencyRulesOnlinePoliticalAds2020.pdf}, year = {1013}, date = {2020-10-13}, abstract = {In response to the rise of online political microtargeting, governments across the globe are launching transparency initiatives. Most of these aim to shed light on who is buying targeted political ads, and how they are targeted. The present Report offers a comprehensive mapping exercise of this new field of regulation, analysing new laws, proposed or enacted, that impose transparency rules on online political microtargeting. The Report consists of two components: a global overview, and detailed case study of the United States. The first section begins with a geographical overview by showing where and what initiatives were proposed and enacted, looking in particular at Canada, France, Ireland, Singapore and the United States. It then unpacks these initiatives in greater detail by outlining what requirements they impose in terms of disclosure content, scope of application, and format. The second section of the Report then zooms into the United States, outlining the various initiatives that have been proposed and enacted at state-level.}, keywords = {frontpage, Informatierecht, Political advertising, transparantie}, }

Political Advertising Bans and Freedom of Expression external link

Fahy, R.
Greek Public Law Journal, pp: 226-228, 2015

Abstract

In Animal Defenders International v UK, the 17-judge Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s ban on political advertising on television, as applied to an animal rights organisation, did not violate freedom of expression. The Court divided nine votes to eight, with the majority opinion abandoning the Court’s previous ‘strict scrutiny’ review, and laying down a new doctrine for reviewing political advertising bans. This article, first, examines the role the composition of the Grand Chamber played in the outcome of the case. Second, questions the basis of the new doctrine of review. And third, criticises the majority’s treatment of precedent.

Broadcasting law, European Convention on Human Rights, Freedom of expression, Grondrechten, Parliamentary deference, Political advertising, Political speech, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Political Advertising Bans and Freedom of Expression}, author = {Fahy, R.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1534.pdf}, year = {0414}, date = {2015-04-14}, journal = {Greek Public Law Journal}, abstract = {In Animal Defenders International v UK, the 17-judge Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s ban on political advertising on television, as applied to an animal rights organisation, did not violate freedom of expression. The Court divided nine votes to eight, with the majority opinion abandoning the Court’s previous ‘strict scrutiny’ review, and laying down a new doctrine for reviewing political advertising bans. This article, first, examines the role the composition of the Grand Chamber played in the outcome of the case. Second, questions the basis of the new doctrine of review. And third, criticises the majority’s treatment of precedent.}, keywords = {Broadcasting law, European Convention on Human Rights, Freedom of expression, Grondrechten, Parliamentary deference, Political advertising, Political speech, Vrijheid van meningsuiting}, }