(Re)Constructions of Social Networks in Slovenian Case Law

Keywords: Slovenian legal system, case law, social networks, freedom of expression, contested speech


The article explores the disruptions and puzzles that Slovenian courts encounter when dealing with contested speech on social networks. In recent years, social networks have thoroughly transformed the ways in which we communicate, relate to ourselves and others, disseminate and perceive information, as well as our understanding of privacy and limits of freedom of expression. Social networks are commercial products of private companies, which are more or less autonomous regarding the regulation and moderation of user-generated content they host. However, legal remedies may be activated when such content conflicts with legal norms. An overview of the Slovenian legislative framework and case law involving expression on social networks exposes the ways in which courts (re)construct social networks, as well as the impact and meaning of a disputed online expression. While the case law on the subject cannot be considered established, the overview reveals the strategies that Slovenian courts employ when dealing with the particularities of expression on social networks. The courts, by and large, assume that social networks are special communicative spaces where freedom of expression must be protected and evaluated according to the particularities of social networks. Such understandings may transform the bar of acceptable expression and influence public discussions’ tone beyond social networks.


Bardutzky, S. (2020) ‘Limits in Times of Crisis: On Limitations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Slovenian Constitutional Order’, Central European Journal of Comparative Law, 1(2), pp. 9–31.

Barlow, J.P. (1996) ‘A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace’, Electronic Frontier Foundation. [Online] Available at: https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence (Accessed: 16 August 2021).

Boyd, D.M. and Ellison, N.B. (2007) ‘Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), pp. 210–230.

European Commission (2017) ‘Tackling Online Disinformation’ [Online] Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/tackling-online-disinformation (Accessed: 18 March 2021).

Fišer, D., Erjavec, T. and Ljubešić, N. (2016) ‘JANES v0.4: Korpus slovenskih spletnih uporabniških vsebin’, Slovenščina 2.0: empirical, applied and interdisciplinary research, 4(2), pp. 67–99.

Gillespie, T. (2018) Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. United States of America: Yale University Press.

Higgins, A. (2021) ‘Wielding Twitter, Europe’s ‘Marshal Twito’ Takes Aim at the Media’ [Online]. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/world/europe/sloveniajansa-press-freedom-twitter.html (Accessed: 25 October 2021).

Jereb, A. (2020) ‘Žaljive objave na družbenih omrežjih kot moderni izziv sodišč: So lahko tudi všečki protipravni?’, Pravni Letopis 2020, pp. 175–199.

Kettemann, M.C., and Tiedeke S.A. (2020) ‘Back up: Can Users Sue Platforms to Reinstate Deleted Content?’, Internet Policy Review, 9(2), pp. 1–20.

Klonick, K. (2018) ‘The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech.’ Harvard Law Review, 131(6), pp. 1598–1670.

Mance, B. (2014) ‘Odnosi med novinarji in politiki na Twitterju’, Javnost – The Public, 21(1), pp. 23–40.

Mills Eckert, L. (2011) ‘A Critique of the Content and Viewpoint Neutrality Principle in Modern Free Speech Doctrine’, Law, Culture and the Humanities, 7(2), pp. 264–288.

Petrič, G., Rogelj, A., Petrovčič, A. and Dremelj, P. 2015. ‘Opolnomočenje v spletnih podpornih skupinah za ljudi s težavami v duševnem zdravju: Vloga podpornega komuniciranja in motivov za uporabo.’ Teorija in Praksa, 52(5), pp. 865–1004.

Plesničar, M.M., and Šarf, P. (2020) ‘“This Web Page Should Not Exist”: A Case Study of Online Shaming in Slovenia’ in Trottier, D., Gabdulhakov, R. and Huang, Q. (eds.) Introducing Vigilant Audiences. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.

Selak, Š. and Kuhar, M. (2020) ‘Socialno-psihološki vidik uporabe spletnega socialnega omrežja Facebook skozi prizmo dejavnikov selektivnega samopredstavljanja’, Teorija in Praksa, 57(2), pp. 622–645.

Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2020) ‘Uporaba interneta v gospodinjstvih in pri posameznikih, podrobni podatki, Slovenija, 2020’ [Online] Available at: https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/News/Index/9258 (Accessed: 16 February 2021).

Stjernfelt, F. and Lauritzen, A.M. (2020) ‘Facebook’s Handbook of Content Removal’ in Stjernfelt, F. and Lauritzen, A.M. (eds.) Your Post Has Been Removed: Tech Giants and Freedom of Speech. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Toplak, J. (2020) ‘Svoboda izražanja bo zbledela, dobrodošli v čase zasebne cenzure’, Pravna Praksa 39(33), p. 3.

Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018) Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy. Oxford University Press.

Valicon (2020) ‘Uporaba družbenih omrežij in storitev klepeta v Sloveniji 2018–2019’, [Online] Available at: https://www.valicon.net/sl/2020/01/uporaba-druzbenihomrezij-in-storitev-klepeta-v-sloveniji-2018–2019/ (Accessed 16 February 2021).

Vehovar, V., Povž, B., Fišer, D., Ljubešič, N., Šulc, A. and Jontes, D. (2020) ‘Družbeno nesprejemljivi diskurz na Facebookovih straneh novičarskih portalov’, Teorija in Praksa 57(2), pp. 622–645.

How to Cite
ČufarK. (2022). (Re)Constructions of Social Networks in Slovenian Case Law. Law, Identity and Values, 2(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.55073/2022.1.7-23