Mapping paradigms of european internet regulation: the example of internet content control

• Author: Michael W. Müller
• Pages: 19-31

FRONTIERS OF LAW IN CHINA

VOL. 13 SEPTEMBER 2018 NO. 3

DOI 10.3868/s050-007-018-0025-8

SPECIAL ISSUE

PARADIGMS OF INTERNET REGULATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND CHINA

MAPPING PARADIGMS OF EUROPEAN INTERNET REGULATION:

THE EXAMPLE OF INTERNET CONTENT CONTROL

Michael W. Müller∗

Abstract The article introduces three of the paradigms used to analyze internet

regulation and applies them to the history of internet content control in Europe. It builds

on Thomas Kuhn’s notion of paradigms and previous works on regulatory theory,

defining regulatory paradigms as a “shared understanding of the purpose of regulation,

of the way of thinking about how regulation works, and of the set of institutional

arrangements and instruments through which regulation is conducted.” Building on this

definition, the prevalent concepts of the paradigms of internet regulation refer to the

intention, mechanisms, and the intensity of regulation. The article discusses these

concepts with regard to the regulation of internet content control in Europe and analyzes

three paradigm shifts that have taken place since the early days of the internet. These

paradigm shifts concern the responsiveness, differentiation, and intensity of regulation.

Keywords internet regulation, internet content control, regulatory paradigms

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 330

I. INTERNET, REGULATION, PARADIGMS..................................................................... 330

A. Internet ..............................................................................................................330

B. Internet Regulation............................................................................................ 332

C. Regulatory Paradigms ......................................................................................333

II. MAPPING PARADIGMS OF INTERNET REGULATION................................................. 335

A. Intention ............................................................................................................ 335

B. Mechanisms....................................................................................................... 336

C. Intensity............................................................................................................. 336

III. PARADIGM SHIFTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNET CONTENT CONTROL IN

EUROPE ................................................................................................................ 337

A. Open Internet (–2000) .......................................................................................338

∗ Michael W. Müller, LL.M., Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; M.A., Faculty

of Philosophy, Philosophy of Science and the Study of Religion, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany; Ph.D.

candidate, Faculty of Law, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany; Law Clerk, Higher Regional Court of Munich,

Munich 80335, Germany. Contact: mwm@cantab.net