Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I had hoped to submit this earlier
The Slate source is basically an Op-Ed, but it is used only for the quotes of the defamation and a quote from the author. She seems to be a qualified expert.
I relied as much as I could on the ECJ for the background paragraphs and obviously the big quote box is from there. Sometimes I include primaries as a redundancy, but not in this
There was an exceedingly murky point of law here, which led me to a rather extensive edit near the end of my review. It seemed a likely interpretation of what I'm seeing here, that ECJ was not actually ruling on the case of EGP v FB. It appears to me that the Austrian court asked the ECJ to rule on interpretation of EU law, against the backdrop of that specific case. I don't see that ECJ actually made any specific ruling about EGP-v-FB; their ruling appears to be statements of general principles. This seems rather counter-intuitive to me in that I've been given to understand courts don't like to make general rulings if they can avoid it, however I'm not very familiar with the functioning of the ECJ in relation to the supreme courts of members states, which may be quite different from most courts. I therefore went through to defuse things throughout the article that appeared to assert that the ECJ was making a ruling on the specific case. (I wasn't looking to add any assertion that they didn't do so, of course.)
This is a highly unusual situation where it is, indeed, appropriate for us to quote verbatim from an article on another news site, because (as remarked above) we're quoting Daskal's opinion as an expert, and the place that expert opinion happened to appear was Slate.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
There was an exceedingly murky point of law here, which led me to a rather extensive edit near the end of my review. It seemed a likely interpretation of what I'm seeing here, that ECJ was not actually ruling on the case of EGP v FB. It appears to me that the Austrian court asked the ECJ to rule on interpretation of EU law, against the backdrop of that specific case. I don't see that ECJ actually made any specific ruling about EGP-v-FB; their ruling appears to be statements of general principles. This seems rather counter-intuitive to me in that I've been given to understand courts don't like to make general rulings if they can avoid it, however I'm not very familiar with the functioning of the ECJ in relation to the supreme courts of members states, which may be quite different from most courts. I therefore went through to defuse things throughout the article that appeared to assert that the ECJ was making a ruling on the specific case. (I wasn't looking to add any assertion that they didn't do so, of course.)
This is a highly unusual situation where it is, indeed, appropriate for us to quote verbatim from an article on another news site, because (as remarked above) we're quoting Daskal's opinion as an expert, and the place that expert opinion happened to appear was Slate.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
