References

Access Now (2020) What the Facebook Oversight Board Means for Human rights, and Where We Go From Here. https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2020/06/Response-to-FB-Oversi ght-Board-announcement.pdf

Arun C (2021) (forthcoming) Facebook’s Faces.

Bakircioglu O (2007) The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Freedom of Expression and Public Morality Cases. German Law Journal 8:711-733

Balkin J (2004) Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society. New York University Law Review 79:1-58

Balkin J (2018) Free Speech is a Triangle. Columbia Law Review, 1:2011-2056

Barendt E (2007) Freedom of Speech, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Bassini M, Pollicino O (2014) Free speech, defamation and the limits to freedom of expression in the EU: a comparative analysis. In: Savin A, Trzaskowski J (eds) Research Handbook on EU Internet Law. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp 508-542

Bickert M (2019) Updating the Values that Inform our Community Standards. Meta, Menlo Park. https://about.fb.com/news/2019/09/updating-the-values-that-inform-our-commun ity-standards/ Accessed 18 November 2020

Blavin J H, Cohen G I (2002) Gore, Gibson, and Goldsmith: The Evolution of Internet Metaphors in Law and Commentary. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 16:265-285

Celeste B (2018) Digital constitutionalism. Mapping the constitutional response to digital tech­nology’s challenges. HIIG Discussion Paper Series on Internet and Society 2018-02. https://ssrn. com/abstract=3219905 Accessed 10 March 2021

Choudhry S (2006) Migration as New Metaphor in Comparative Constitutional Law. In: Choudhry S (ed) The Migration of Constitutional Ideas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1-36.

De Gregorio G (2020) The Rise of Digital Constitutionalism in the European Union. International Journal of Constitutional Law 19:41-70. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id= 3506692 Accessed 10 March 2021

De Gregorio G, Goanta C (2020) The Influencer Republic: Monetizing Political Speech on Social Media. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3725188 Accessed 12 March 2021

Dias Oliva T (2020) Rights Standards to Protect Freedom of Expression. Human Rights Law Review 20:607-640

Douek E (2019) Facebook’s Oversight Board: Move Fast with Stable Infrastructure and Humility. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology 21:1-78

Dyevre A, Jakab A (2013) Foreword: Understanding Constitutional Reasoning. German Law Review 14:979-1626

Ebbeson J (2008) Law, Power and Language: Beware of Metaphors. Scandinavian Studies in Law 53:259-269

Epstein L, Knight J (2003) Constitutional borrowing and nonborrowing. International Journal of Constitutional Law 1:196-223

Erdos D (2012) Confused? Analysing the Scope of Freedom of Speech Protection vis-a-vis European Data Protection. University of Oxford Legal Research Paper Series, Paper No. 48/2012. http:// ssrn.com/abstract=2119187 Accessed 15 March 2021

Filippova D (2019) Technopouvoir. Depolitiser pour mieux regner. Les Liens Qui Liberent, Paris

Finn J E (2001) The Civic Constitution: Some Preliminaries. In: Barber S A, George R P (eds) Constitutional Politics. Essays on Constitution Making, Maintenance, and Change. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 41-69

Fiss O (1986) Free Speech and Social Structure. Iowa Law Review 71:1405-1425.

Frankenberg G (2010) Constitutional transfer: The IKEA theory revisited. International Journal of Constitutional Law 8:563-579

Frosio G F (2017) Reforming Intermediary Liability in the Platform Economy: A European Digital Single Market Strategy.

Gilbert B (2020) Facebook is spending $130 million to create a ‘Supreme Court’ that can overrule Mark Zuckerberg - here are its first 20 members. https://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-first- 20-members-of-facebook-supreme-court-2020-5 Accessed 13 April 2021

Gillespie T (2018) Platforms Are Not Intermediaries. Georgetown Law Technology Review 2:198­216

Ginsburg T (2017) Constitutional Advice and Transnational Legal Order. UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law 2:5-32

Golia A Jr (2021) Beyond Oversight. Advancing Societal Constitutionalism in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism. I-CONnect - Blog of the International Journal of Constitu­tional Law. http://www.iconnectblog.com/2021/03/beyond-oversight-advancing-societal-consti tutionalism-in-the-age-of-surveillance-capitalism/ Accessed 15 March 2021

Goodhart M (2013) Human Rights and the Politics of Contestation. In: Goodale M (ed) Human Rights at the Crossroads. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 31-44

Gradoni L (2021) Constitutional Review via Facebook’s Oversight Board. How platform governance had its Marbury v. Madison. Verfassungsblog - on matters constitutional. https://verfassungsb log.de/fob-marbury-v-madison/ Accessed 10 March 2021

Grafanski S (2018-2019) Platforms, the First Amendment and Online Speech: Regulating the Filters. Pace Law Review 39:111-162

Grimmelmann J (2014) Anarchy, Status Updates, and Utopia. Pace Law Review 35:135-153

Gumperz J J (2009) The Speech Community. In: Duranti A (ed) Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex

Haberle P (1980) Die Verfassung des Pluralismus. Studien zur Verfassungstheorie der offenen Gesellschaft. Athenaum, Konigstein

Haberle P (2002) Ustavna drzava. Politicka kultura, Zagreb

Hall S (2002) Political Belonging in a World of Multiple Identities. In: Vertovec S, Cohen R (eds) Conceiving Cosmopolitanism. Theory, Context, and Practice.

Harris B (2019) An Updated on Building a Global Oversight Board. Meta, Menlo Park. https:// about.fb.com/news/2019/12/oversight-board-update/ Accessed 13 April 2021

Heinze E (2015) Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Heinze E (2019) Is Democracy Necessary for Human Rights? This Century’s Review. https://ssrn. com/abstract=3339830 Accessed 1 April 2021

Jackson V (2019) Knowledge Institutions in Constitutional Democracies: of Objectivity and Decentralization. Harvard Law Review Blog. https://bit.ly/2PGE2Wu Accessed 10 March 2021

Jacquemet M (2018) Beyond the speech community: On belonging to a multilingual, diasporic and digital social network. Language & Communication 68:46-56 https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/abs/pii/S0271530918301848 Accessed 15 March 2021

Johnson B G (2016) Facebook’s Free Speech Balancing Act. Corporate Social Responsibility and Norms of Online Discourse. University of Baltimore Journal of Media Law & Ethics 5:19-37

Klonick K (2020) The Facebook Oversight Board: Creating an Independent Institution to Adjudicate Online Free Expression. The Yale Law Journal 129:2418-2499

Latham-Gambi A (2021) The Constitutional Imaginary: Shared Meanings in Constitutional Practice and Implications for Constitutional Theory. Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/icl-2021-0001/html Accessed 10 March 2021 Lennon K (2015) Imagination and the Imaginary. Routledge, New York

Lessig L (2006) Code v 2.0. Basic Books, New York

MacKinnon R, Hickok E, Bar A, Lim H (2014) Fostering freedom online: The role of internet intermediaries. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000231162 Accessed 29 November 2020

Maroni M (2019) Some reflections on the announced Facebook Oversight Board. EUI Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom - Robert Schuman Centre. https://cmpf.eui.eu/some-reflec tions-on-the-announced-facebook-oversight-board/ Accessed 15 March 2021

Mendes G, Oliveira Fernandes V (2021) Digital Constitutionalism and Constitutional Jurisdiction: A Research Agenda for the Brazilian Case.

Mill J S (1989) Izabrani politicki spisi. Drugi svezak. Informator, Zagreb

Milos M (2016) Private and public dimensions of personal data in online speech: lessons from the right to be forgotten. In: Balthasar A, Golob B, Hansen H et al (eds) CEE eDem and eGov Days 2016. Austrian Computer Society, Vienna, pp 451-462

Milos M (2019) Personalizing privacy? Examining the Shifting Boundaries of a Fundamental Right in Preimplantation Genetic Testing of Embryos. In: Bodiroga-Vukobrat N, Rukavina D, Pavelic K, Sander G G (eds) Personalized Medicine in Healthcare Systems. Legal, Medical and Economic Implications. Springer, Cham, pp 197-209

Morelli A, Pollicino O (2020) Metaphors, Judicial Frames and Fundamental Rights in Cyberspace. American Journal of Comparative Law. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3422946 Accessed 10 March 2021

Musa A, Kopric I (2011) What kind of agencification in Croatia? Trends and future directions. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences S.I:33-53

Nieuwenhuis A (2000) Freedom of speech: USA vs. Germany and Europe. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 18:195-214

Oozeer A (2014) Internet and social networks: freedom of expression in the digital age. Commonwealth Law Bulletin 40:341-360

Pasquale F (2010) Beyond Innovation and Competition: The Need for Qualified Transparency in Internet Intermediaries. Northwestern University Law Review 104:105-174

Petju V (2012) Constitutional Transplants, Borrowing, and Migrations. In: Rosenfeld M, Sajo A (eds) Oxford Handbook on Comparative Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1304-1327

Pollicino O, Soldatov O (2019) Judicial Balancing of Human Rights Online. In: Susi M (ed) Rout­ledge Handbook on Digital Society, Human Rights and Law. Routledge, New York. https://ssrn. com/abstract=3397347 Accessed 10 March 2021

Price M E (2002) Media and Sovereignty. The Global Information Revolution and Its Challenges to State Power.

Riordan J (2016) The Liability of Internet Intermediaries. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Rosenfeld M (2001) Constitutional Migration and the Bounds of Comparative Analysis. NYU Annual Survey of American Law 58:67-84

Rosenfeld M (2002-2003) Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis. Cardozo Law Review 24:1523-1568

Sajo A (2004) Freedom of Expression. Institute of Public Affairs, Warsaw

Sajo A, Uitz R (2017) The Constitution of Freedom. An Introduction to Legal Constitutionalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Salinas S (2018) Mark Zuckerberg said an independent ‘Supreme Court’ could fix Facebook’s content problems. CNBC, Englewood Cliffs. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/02/facebook-ceo- mark-zuckerberg-on-a-supreme-court-for-content.html Accessed 10 April 2021

Sander B (2020) Freedom of expression in the age of online platforms: The promise and pitfalls of a human rights-based approach to content moderation. Fordham International Law Journal 43:939-1006

Shapiro M (1981) Courts. A Comparative and Political Analysis. Chicago University Press, Chicago

Stone A (2010) The Comparative Constitutional Law of Freedom of Expression. Melbourne Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 476. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1633231 Accessed 19 November 2020

Suzor N (2010) The Role of the Rule of Law in Virtual Communities. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 25:1817-1886

Suzor N (2012) Order Supported by Law: The Enforcement of Rules in Online Communities. Mercer Law Review 63:523-596

Suzor N (2018) Digital Constitutionalism: Using the Rule of Law to Evaluate the Legitimacy of Governance by Platforms. Social Media + Society, July-September 2018:1-11

Suzor N, Van Geelen T, Myers West S (2018) Evaluating the legitimacy of platform governance: A review of research and a shared research agenda. The International Communication Gazette 0:1-16

Thompson M (2016) Beyond Gatekeeping: The Normative Responsibility of Internet Intermedi­aries. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law 18:783-848

Tushnet M (2008) Some scepticism about Normative Constitutional Advice. William and Mary Law Review 49:1473-1496

Van Loo R (2016) The Corporation as Courthouse. Yale Journal on Regulation 33:547-602

Viellechner L (2019) The transnational dimension of constitutional rights: Framing and taming ‘private’ governance beyond the state. Global Constitutionalism 8:639-661

Wagner B (2018) Free Expression? Dominant Information Intermediaries as Arbiters of Internet Speech. In: Moore M, Tambini D (eds) Digital Dominance: Implications and Risks. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 219-239

Matija Milos is a postdoctoral fellow at the Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Croatia. He is employed at the Chair for Constitutional Law, teaching mostly constitutional law and coaching the Faculty’s Price Media Law Moot Court teams. His research interests lie in the field of consti­tutional theory and in particular current challenges to popular sovereignty. Along these lines, his most recent project examines how constitutional theory may conceptualize power relations that it usually overlooks. He has recently published a paper exploring the blind spots of constitutional theory in its understanding of direct democracy.

Toni Pelic is an undergraduate student at the Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Croatia. He is a student assistant at the Chair for Constitutional Law. In this role, Toni has participated in both teaching and research. He has also been involved in preparing Rijeka’s Price Moot Court teams and has displayed particular interest in researching hate speech. Toni has been the recipient of the Dean’s award for his academic achievements and is the student administrator of the free legal aid centre established at the University of Rijeka.