"Some portion of the political left in the United States has called for the restriction of pornography and hate speech. Those who advocate such censorship do so on the ground that pornography and hate speech cause harm to disadvantaged "outsider" groups in society. For this reason, the leftist censorship advocates do not accept traditional First Amendment doctrines that protect much pornography and hate speech. In calling for censorship, the author argues, leftists endanger a great deal of activist speech, particularly in the form of artwork, that in fact seeks to undermine the very pornography and hate speech the censorship advocates target. Because much postmodern art appropriates the language and images of hate speech and pornography in order to deconstruct or otherwise subvert them, leftist attempts at censorship carry a grave danger of silencing leftist activists. Furthermore, the author maintains, leftist advocates of censorship have not, and ultimately cannot, develop theories of interpretation capable of protecting activist expression while still restricting or banning pornography and hate speech. Because of the indeterminacy of language, censorship advocates must choose whether to sacrifice vital voices of protest and criticism from within the left or whether to suppress pornography and hate speech."

"International regimes are defined as principles, norms, rules, and decision making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue-area. As a starting point, regimes have been conceptualized as intervening variables, standing between basic causal factors and related outcomes and behavior. There are three views about the importance of regimes: conventional structural orientations dismiss regimes as being at best ineffectual; Grotian orientations view regimes as an intimate component of the international system; and modified structural perspectives see regimes as significant only under certain constrained conditions. For Grotian and modified structuralist arguments, which endorse the view that regimes can influence outcomes and behavior, regime development is seen as a function of five basic causal variables: egoistic self-interest, political power, diffuse norms and principles, custom and usage, and knowledge."

Norms are a major focus of attention of all social sciences, particularly sociology, political science, economics, anthropology, and social psychology. The social sciences are interested in the empirical study of norms, whereas jurisprudence and philosophy (moral philosophy and deontic logic) address the question of what 'good' norms are and how normative reasoning can be formalized. This article addresses the most important issues in the empirical study of norms. We begin by outlining some basic facts about norms because explanations of norms should address these facts. Before proceeding further, it is useful to elaborate on the major dimensions of the norms concept that are found in the literature and to ask what norms definition is to be preferred. The next issue is how norms can be measured. The central theoretical questions are how norms originate and, if they exist, what effects they have. These questions are addressed in the last two sections of the article. Norms are a major focus of attention of all social sciences, particularly sociology, political science, economics, anthropology , and social psychology. The social sciences are interested in the empirical study of norms, whereas jurisprudence and philosophy (moral philosophy and deontic logic) address the question of what 'good' norms are and how normative reasoning can be formalized. The literature on norms is so vast that a short article on this subject has to be restrictive. The following sections address the most important questions of the study of norms. We begin by outlining some basic facts about norms because explanations of norms should address these facts. Before proceeding further, it is useful to elaborate on the major dimensions of the norms concept that are found in the literature and to ask what norms definition is to be preferred. The next issue is how norms can be measured. The central theoretical questions are how norms originate and, if they exist, what effects they have. These questions are addressed in the last two sections of the article. 

"This article examines the process of consensus formation by the international community on how to confront the problem of trafficking in persons. We analyze the corpus of UNGA Third Committee resolutions to show that (1) consensus around the issue of how to confront trafficking in persons has increased over time; and (2) the formation of this consensus depends on how the issue is framed. We test our argument by examining the characteristics of resolutions’ sponsors and discursive framing concepts such as crime, human rights, and the strength of enforcement language. We conclude that the consensus formation process in international relations is more aptly described as one of “accommodation” through issue linkage than a process of persuasion."

"This article examines the process of consensus formation by the international community on how to confront the problem of trafficking in persons. We analyze the corpus of UNGA Third Committee resolutions to show that (1) consensus around the issue of how to confront trafficking in persons has increased over time; and (2) the formation of this consensus depends on how the issue is framed. We test our argument by examining the characteristics of resolutions’ sponsors and discursive framing concepts such as crime, human rights, and the strength of enforcement language. We conclude that the consensus formation process in international relations is more aptly described as one of “accommodation” through issue linkage than a process of persuasion."

"Constructing the World Polity brings together in one collection the theoretical ideas of one of the most influential International Relations theorists of our time. These essays, with a new introduction, and comprehensive connective sections, present Ruggie's ideas and their application to critical policy questions of the post-Cold War international order. Themes covered include:* International Organization. How the 'new Institutionalism' differs from the old. The System of States. Explorations of political structure, social time, and territorial space in the world polity. Making History. America and the issue of 'agency' in the post-Cold Was era. NATO and the future transatlantic security community. The United Nations and the collective use of force."

“Kathryn Sikkink examines the important and controversial new trend of holding political leaders criminally accountable for human rights violations […] Sikkink offers a landmark argument for human rights prosecutions as a powerful political tool. She shows how, in just three decades, state leaders in Latin America, Europe, and Africa have lost their immunity from any accountability for their human rights violations, becoming the subjects of highly publicized trials resulting in severe consequences. This shift is affecting the behavior of political leaders worldwide and may change the face of global politics as we know it. Drawing on extensive research and illuminating personal experience, Sikkink reveals how the stunning emergence of human rights prosecutions has come about; what effect it has had on democracy, conflict, and repression; and what it means for leaders and citizens everywhere, from Uruguay to the United States. The Justice Cascade is a vital read for anyone interested in the future of world politics and human rights.”

“Norms have never been absent from the study of international politics, but the sweeping “ideational turn” in the 1980s and 1990s brought them back as a central theoretical concern in the field. Much theorizing about norms has focused on how they create social structure, standards of appropriateness, and stability in international politics. Recent empirical research on norms, in contrast, has examined their role in creating political change, but change processes have been less well-theorized. [The authors] induce from this research a variety of theoretical arguments and testable hypotheses about the role of norms in political change. [They] argue that norms evolve in a three-stage “life cycle” of emergence, “norm cascades,” and internalization, and that each stage is governed by different motives, mechanisms, and behavioral logics. [They] also highlight the rational and strategic nature of many social construction processes and argue that theoretical progress will only be made by placing attention on the connections between norms and rationality rather than by opposing the two.”

"This volume argues that international human rights law has made a positive contribution to the realization of human rights in much of the world. Although governments sometimes ratify human rights treaties, gambling that they will experience little pressure to comply with them, this is not typically the case. Focusing on rights stakeholders rather than the United Nations or state pressure, Beth Simmons demonstrates through a combination of statistical analyses and case studies that the ratification of treaties leads to better rights practices on average. Simmons argues that international human rights law should get more practical and rhetorical support from the international community as a supplement to broader efforts to address conflict, development, and democratization."

"The first section of this essay defines a few key terms and provides some historical background on the relationship between international law and international relations. The second section discusses the major theoretical approaches, from those that highlight material incentives to those that rest on more ideational foundations. The third section discusses international law development – concepts of legalization, judicialization, constitutionalization, and global administrative law. The fourth section reviews theories and empirical studies of compliance with public international law. The final section concludes that theory has become less compartmentalized by “school” and empirical research has become more rigorous over the past decade."

"Formal international law is stagnating in terms both of quantity and quality. It is increasingly superseded by ‘informal international lawmaking’ involving new actors, new processes, and new outputs, in fields ranging from finance and health to internet regulation and the environment. On many occasions, the traditional structures of formal lawmaking have become shackles. Drawing on a two-year research project involving over 40 scholars and 30 case studies, this article offers evidence in support of the stagnation hypothesis, evaluates the likely reasons for it in relation to a ‘turn to informality’, and weighs possible options in response. But informal structures can also become shackles and limit freedom. From practice, we deduce procedural meta-norms against which informal cooperation is increasingly checked (‘thick stakeholder consensus’). Intriguingly, this benchmark may be normatively superior (rather than inferior) to the validation requirements of traditional international law (‘thin state consent’)."

"The conceptual, and more recently empirical, study of compliance has become a central preoccupation, and perhaps the fastest growing subfield, in international legal scholarship. The authors seek to question this trend. They argue that looking at the aspirations of international law through the lens of rule compliance leads to inadequate scrutiny and understanding of the diverse complex purposes and projects that multiple actors impose and transpose on international legality, and especially a tendency to oversimplify if not distort the relation of inter-national law to politics. Citing a range of examples from different areas of international law – ranging widely from international trade and investment to international criminal and humanitarian law – the authors seek to show how the concept of compliance (especially viewed as rule observance) is inadequate for understanding how international law has normative effects. A fundamental flaw of compliance studies is that they abstract from the problem of interpretation: interpretation is pervasively determinative of what happens to legal rules when they are out in the world, yet ‘compliance’ studies begin with the notion that there is a stable and agreed meaning to a rule, and we need merely to observe whether it is obeyed."

The authors "examine why international actors-including states, firms, and activists-seek different types of legalized arrangements to solve political and substantive problems. [They] show how particular forms of legalization provide superior institutional solutions in different circumstances. [They] begin by examining the baseline advantages of "hard" legalization (that is, precise, legally binding obligations with appropriate third-party delegation). [They] emphasize, however, that actors often prefer softer forms of legalization (that is, various combinations of reduced precision, less stringent obligation, and weaker delegation). Soft legalization has a number of significant advantages, including that it is easier to achieve, provides strategies for dealing with uncertainty, infringes less on sovereignty, and facilitates compromise among differentiated actors. Although [their] approach is largely interest-based, [they] explicitly incorporate the normative elements that are central in law and in recent international relations theorizing. [They] also consider the important role of nonstate actors who, along with states, are central participants in contemporary international legalization. [They] illustrate the advantages of various forms of international legal arrangements with examples drawn from articles in this special issue and elsewhere.

"Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights has become a crucial instrument to stimulate and compel the national authorities of the 47 member states not only to abstain from interferences restricting media freedom and investigative journalism, but also to promote transparency, media pluralism and internet freedom. This paper explores some of the characteristics and developments of the European Court’s case law regarding media, journalism, internet freedom, newsgathering, whistleblowing and access to information. The perspective of the analysis is that effectively guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression and information helps developing the quality of democracy, the protection of other human rights and ultimately contributes to realise a more sustainable, and hence a better, world to live in"

Lee Bollinger argues that free speech establishes tolerance. Through a free speech regime, a vast number of ideas circulate even those that some may consider as extreme, dangerous, hateful, or wrong. Bollinger reasons that if we run up against ideas and opinions that differ from our own, we will learn to accept their existence. We will learn to manage our impulse, almost instinct to forbid such views. We will learn to manage our impulse to excessive intolerance. Through freedom of expression, we are forced to encounter others, others' opinions, others' dignities, others' autonomy, and to tolerate their existence. In his view, a free speech regime is a great social experience in tolerance. The extraordinary zone of freedom of expression tests our ability to live in a society that is necessarily defined by conflict and controversy. It trains us in the art of tolerance and steels us from vicissitudes. The best way to think of freedom of speech and press then, is not just as an aid in the search for truth, but also as creating an unregulated public arena, a special zone of social interaction. Bollinger argues that through the free speech experiment, we commit ourselves to being people of fortitude.    

This book review discusses the theory of Contempt of Court, in the context of its removal from the English courts, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Australian High Courts, and the Tasmanian case of a newspaper called The Mercury, and concludes with the note that though our Constitution adopted British law as frozen in 1950, it has failed to since then keep up with the developments in it, or with its spirit.

Traditionally the role of the media was to help shape the debate that would largely inform the electorate on issues of relevance to democracy. In recent times however, the media has come under attack for dereliction of its duty to inform and resorting to cheap gimmicks that target ratings. Essentially it is perceived, that the media is now seeking to “dumb down” viewers placating them with voyeuristic entertainment. In this article however Stockwell seeks to challenge this presumption that ‘infotainment’ is essentially negative. Deconstructing this inherent negativity attributed to ‘infotainment’, he posits that it actually offers a more.

This book mounts a criticism of the Millian defense of freedom of expression and the underlying harm principle and provides for an alternate paradigm in the “offense principle”. Discussions are based around US First Amendment precedent.

Discusses the doctrine of prior restraint, its nature and development as well as the speech and speech acts in respect of which it has been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This article discusses the importance of the freedom of expression and the freedom of press in the Indian context, and in the specific context of the constitution and the restrictions it allows to be placed on it. It then discusses censorship as an inevitable result of this, focusing on prior restraint and traces the history of legislation and cases on these principles, from the perspective of both civil and criminal law, and concludes with recommendations on changes which are needed, mentioning the law of contempt specifically.

This article is a comment on the EMS Namboodiripad v. T N Nambiar case (ref. ), which also discusses the evolution of the Indian law of Contempt, the influence of the English law on it, and suggests that the power of the courts under ‘contempt’ should be redefined in the context of ‘reasonableness’, and says that the dicta of the chief justice insofar as it restricts the restriction on freedom of expression only to cases where contempt is ‘manifest’ or ‘substantial’ is a definite improvement. It notes that the law of contempt is necessary, but should be redefined and limited to cases where it actually interferes with the administration of justice.

The article discusses Sedition Law in the American context. It examines the historical interplay between Sedition laws and the Freedom of Speech.

This Article argues that the law on seditious libel is essentially anti-democratic. It seeks to demonstrate that authoritarianism, political insecurity, diabolization of dissenters, and a hysterical fear of opposition have traditionally accompanied waves of prosecution for seditious libel. In conclusion, it proposes a theory of how courts should decide these cases under an enlightened view of freedom of speech and suggest the outlines of a first amendment theory that would spell the death of seditious libel.

This article advances a new understanding of the original guarantee of freedom of speech under the American Constitution, before the First Amendment. It is also about the modern implications of the original guarantee about speech-how it provides tougher and more juridical standards for limiting discretionary government power over speech and how it avoids costs to speech that America presently tolerates under a wholly rights-oriented and litigation-intensive mode of protecting speech.

The author analyses the Alien and Sedition Laws in America in the backdrop of Freedom of Press and the Alien and Sedition Laws.

This article examines the constitutionality of Sedition Laws in the United States and its relation with the freedom of speech and expression. The author also provides an account of the historical underpinnings of Sedition Laws.

The author provides an account of the historical evolution of the doctrine of sedition which is important for analyzing the basis of modern Sedition Laws.

In many common law liberal democracies today, news gatherers are resisting efforts to use the powers of the courts to compel them to identify their confidential sources. Often the struggles are epic. Often the public interest in effective news gathering fuelling the vitality of a modern liberal democracy is insufficiently recognised. The article uses recent cases to spotlight the shortfalls in the approach and legacy of the common law in dealing with news gatherer/ confidential source relationships. Post Human Rights Act English decisions, especially that of Tugendhat J in Ackroyd, combining European style commitment to the public interest in vigorous newsgathering with common law style analysis of evidence, point the way to a more effective approach. US and Hong Kong cases remind news gatherers of their public interest responsibilities.

This article provides a detailed overview about the considerations that need to be kept in mind while drafting a whistleblower protection law. It explains the pre-requisites for whistleblower laws and analyses the laws across various jurisdictions. Further it explains the different consideration that need to be put in place for public and private sector employees and the channels of disclosure that need to be implemented. The article concludes that effective whistleblower protections must include access to the normal legal process including trial by jury, protection for the whistleblower and protection of lawful disclosure. There must be no retaliation and there must be effective resolution of the wrongdoing disclosed by the whistleblower. It thus concludes that an effective legislation is the backbone of any proposed whistleblower protection.

This article constitutes a basic reading to understand the concept of whistleblowing and the need to afford protection to them in a modern democratic age. It also analyses the laws relating to whistleblower protection in various countries, including USA and Australia.

The chapter on Legal Principles in Whistleblower Laws provides the basic legal principles surrounding protection of whistleblowers in USA.

Gillwald examines the public sphere, contextualising it in terms of the debate between the liberalist school of thought and the Marxist school of thought. While the traditional liberalist position that locates the media “at the interface between the governors and governed”, the Marxist school characterises the media as bourgeoisie. Gillwald in elucidating on the shortcomings of both these notions, seeks to understand the public sphere in the sense of Habermas’ critical sphere. Through the debunking of certain misplaced assumptions with regard to the public sphere, she seeks to reconstruct the public sphere, thereby redefining the role of the media in a democracy.

Rawls’ discussion of the first principle of justice, which he terms the “liberty principle”, particularly when it would be justified to limit basic liberties such as that of speech.

Bennett in examining the scholarship on the different theories of media seeks to understand the assumptions at play in the various schools of thought, which have gone on to shape our understanding of media. Through this exercise he also aims to comprehend the implications of the terminology “mass, media and communications”, so as to discern the nature of the media as perceived.

"The press, long enshrined among our most highly cherished institutions, was thought a cornerstone of democracy when its name was boldly inscribed in the Bill of Rights. Freed from governmental restraint, initially by the first amendment and later by the fourteenth, the press was to stand majestically as the champion of new ideas and the watch dog against governmental abuse. Professor Barron finds this conception of the first amendment, perhaps realistic in the eighteenth century heyday of political pamphleteering, essentially romantic in an era marked by extraordinary technological developments in the communications industry. To make viable the time-honored "marketplace" theory, he argues for a twentieth century interpretation of the first amendment which will impose an affirmative responsibility on the monopoly newspaper to act as sounding board for new ideas and old grievances."

Originally intended as the preface to Animal Farm, discusses the motivations to self-censorship in literary endeavours.

Bentham’s statement of press freedom argues to permit political associations/assemblies in public and resistance to governmental authority as a check to abuse of power. Special mention of permitting criticism, including of state officials, and a discussion of how sedition and defamation of public officials should be addressed.

Mill argues for limited governmental intervention in silencing or compelling speech, emphasizes the value of contrary and minority opinions and presents a principle on which any governmental action in respect of speech should be based.

Bagehot argues for toleration by the state and under law of a diversity of opinions, and argues that discussions and exchange of opinions must be in pursuit of uncovering truths.

Blasi provides, in the context of the US First Amendment, the canonical iteration the notion that free speech performs the function of checking governmental abuse of power, and discusses its utility as a consideration in adjudication on free speech issues.

“The normal treatment of governmental regulation of markets makes a sharp distinction between the ordinary market for goods and services and the activities covered by the First Amendment-speech, writing, and the exercise of religious beliefs -which [. H. Coase] call[s], for brevity, "the market for ideas." […] What is the general view that [R. H. Coase] will be examining? It is that, in the market for goods, government regulation is desirable whereas, in the market for ideas, government regulation is undesirable and should be strictly limited. In the market for goods, the government is commonly regarded as competent to regulate and properly motivated. Consumers lack the ability to make the appropriate choices. Producers often exercise monopolistic power and, in any case, without some form of government intervention, would not act in a way which promotes the public interest. In the market for ideas, the position is very different. The government, if it attempted to regulate, would be inefficient and its motives would, in general, be bad, so that, even if it were successful in achieving what it wanted to accomplish, the results would be undesirable.” 

Nimmer argues that the existence of both a speech and a press clause suggests that a speech-press duality was intended under the First Amendment. He discusses precedent at the US Supreme Court which make apparent and engage with the distinction.

The report (A/72/135) is divided in seven sections. In section III, the Special Rapporteur “outlines the factors that shape her vision.” This section includes subsections on ‘freedom of peaceful assembly and of association as fundamental rights; ‘Democracy and freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; ‘Development and freedom of peaceful assembly and of association’. 

First Joint Declaration of OAS and ACHPR Special Rapportuers on Freedom of Expression

This article unpacks and explains the chilling effect and discusses how uncertainty generally and the chilling effect will affect how various classes of speech are treated.

The report (A/69/335)“focuses on the right of the child to freedom of expression. [The Special Rapporteur] calls for a greater focus by the international community and States on children’s right to freedom of expression and access to information, while noting with concern the adoption of various restrictive measures allegedly aimed at protecting children from harmful information.” 

The report (A/HRC/26/30) “focuses on the realization of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts, paying particular attention to the establishment and enforcement of legal instruments regulating political communications. [The Special Rapporteur] details the human rights framework applicable to the question of freedom of opinion and expression in political communications and electoral processes. [T]hen describes common violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral periods. Finally, [p]rovides recommendations on the alignment of national legal frameworks to the most relevant international human rights standards, emphasizing the importance of promoting pluralism, transparency and accountability.” 

“In the present report [A/68/362], the Special Rapporteur focuses on the right to access information. He describes how the right is established through international human rights law, emphasizing its interrelationships with the right to truth. Taking into account that framework, he discusses the permissible limitations to access to information, in particular the exceptions justified by national security concerns. He describes principles that may guide the design and implementation of laws on access to information and examines common obstacles noted in existing experience. He makes recommendations for the better translation of international human rights standards into national laws and practices that promote access to information.”

The report (A/HRC/23/40) “analyses the implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. While considering the impact of significant technological advances in communications, the report underlines the urgent need to further study new modalities of surveillance and to revise national laws regulating these practices in line with human rights standards.”

The report “presents an overview of the [hate speech and incitement to hatred] phenomenon, the relevant international norms and standards, including distinctions between types of hate speech, and examples of domestic legislation that contravene international norms and standards. While noting the importance of clear laws that conform to international norms and principles to combat hate speech, the Special Rapporteur underscores the importance of non-legal measures to tackle the root causes of hatred and intolerance. The report concludes with a set of recommendations to combat hate speech effectively without unduly curtailing the right to freedom of opinion and expression.” 

The report “expands upon the last report submitted to the Council […] (A/HRC/17/27), and addresses the issue through two equally important dimensions of Internet access: access to online content (sect. III), and access to Internet connection (sect. IV). In section III, the Special Rapporteur outlines the types of expression that States are exceptionally required to prohibit under international law (III.A) and also discusses impermissible restrictions (III.B), given the ongoing debate regarding regulation of content on the Internet. The report also addresses the importance of digital literacy and training in information and communications technology skills for individuals to enable them to access online content in an effective and meaningful manner. […] (sect. IV). The report concludes with recommendations to ensure full access to online content that is free of censorship and access to Internet connection, particularly for marginalized and disadvantaged groups.” 

The report (A/HRC/17/27) “underscores the unique and transformative nature of the Internet not only to enable individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, but also a range of other human rights, and to promote the progress of society as a whole. Chapter III of the report underlines the applicability of international human rights norms and standards on the right to freedom of opinion and expression to the Internet as a communication medium, and sets out the exceptional circumstances under which the dissemination of certain types of information may be restricted. Chapters IV and V address two dimensions of Internet access respectively: (a) access to content; and (b) access to the physical and technical infrastructure required to access the Internet in the first place.” 

Human right to freedom of opinion and expression: Frank La Rue speaks about the role of social media and human rights.

Chapter III OF THE REPORT (A/HRC/14/23) "expands on four main themes: (a) general considerations on the freedom of opinion and expression; (b) freedom of expression for groups in need of particular attention and the role of freedom of expression in combating discrimination; (c) permissable restrictions and limitations on freedom of the expression; and (d) protection of journalists and freedom of the press. Chapter IV presents the Special Rapporteur’s conclusions and general recommendations concerning these main subjects.” 

The report  (A/HRC/20/17) “builds on the previous work of the Special Rapporteur regarding the issue of the protection of journalists and media freedom, and focuses particularly on situations outside of armed conflict.” 

The report (A/HRC/11/4) focuses on the Special Rapporteur’s "vision and priorities for the mandate." Among others, the Rapporteur makes "preliminary reflections on the issue of limitations to the right to freedom of opinion and expression", he included a section on the "right to access to information in situations of extreme poverty", and a section on "safety and protection of media professionals, including the protection of journalists working in conflict zones." 

The report (A/HRC/31/66) presents a “compilation of practical recommendations for the proper management of assemblies. In each section of the compilation the special rapporteurs provide a summary of applicable international legal standards, followed by practical recommendations on how those principles might be implemented, with the aim of ensuring better protection of the various rights of those engaged in assemblies.” 

Resolution 68/167 on the right to privacy in the digital age.

The report (A/HRC/32/36) is divided into five sections. In section III, the Special Rapporteur “addresses the phenomenon of fundamentalism and its impact on the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. In section IV, he examines the positive role that assembly and association rights can play in preventing the spread of extremism and radicalization. The Special Rapporteur outlines his conclusions and his recommendations to various stakeholders in section V.” 

The report (A/71/385) “report examines the exercise and enjoyment of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the workplace, with a focus on the most marginalized portions of the world’s labour force, including global supply chain workers, informal workers, migrant workers, domestic workers and others.”

The report (A/HRC/29/25) is divided in four sections. In section III, the Special Rapporteur “addresses legislation and practices concerning natural resource exploitation that present challenges to the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.” 

 The report (A/68/299) “addresses concerns about the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the context of elections. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned about increasing human rights violations and abuses, which are being committed in several parts of the world against those who exercise or seek to exercise such rights in the context of elections and which indelibly mar such elections.” 

The report (A/HRC/23/39) is divided into five chapters. In “chapters III and IV, the Special Rapporteur addresses two issues he considers to be among the most significant ones of his mandate, namely funding of associations and holding of peaceful assemblies.” 

The report (A/HRC/20/27) is divided into four chapters. In “chapter III, the Special Rapporteur highlights best practices that promote and protect the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. [The Special Rapporteur also addresses the ‘Common Principles’ which include the legal framework and the environment in which these rights are exercised […] This chapter ends with an emphasis on the right to an effective remedy and accountability for human rights violations and abuses.”

Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and "Fake News", Disinformation and Propaganda

Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Countering Violent Extremism.

"This Joint Declaration addresses systematic or targeted attacks on freedom of expression which are aimed at silencing certain perspectives or voices, whether internationally, nationally or locally, and State responses to such attacks. Such attacks are perpetrated in different contexts, including of international and non-international armed conflicts, terrorist attacks and widespread organized crime."

Joint Declaration on the General Principles on Crimes against Freedom of Expression, Obligations to Prevent and Prohibit, Obligations to Protect, Independent, Speedy and Effective Investigations, Redress for Victims and the Role of other stakeholders

Joint Declaration about Censorship by Killing and Defamation

Joint Declaration about Countering Terror, Broadcasting and the Internet

Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Administration of Justice, Commercialisation and Freedom of Expression, and Criminal Defamation

 Joint Declaration on the Internet and on Anti-Terrorist Measures

Joint Declaration on Diversity of Outlet, Source and Content in Broadcasting

Joint Declaration on Defamation of Religions, and Anti-Terrorism and Anti-Extremism Legislation.

Joint Declaration on the Overall Environment for Media and Elections and on Public Media.

The Special Rapporteurs identify the ten key challenges to freedom of expression in the next decade: Mechanisms of Government Control over the Media, Criminal Defamation, Violence Against Journalists, Limits on the Right to Information, Discrimination in the Enjoyment of the Right to Freedom of Expression, Commercial Pressures, Support for Public Service and Community Broadcasters, Security and Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Expression on the Internet, Access to Information and Communications Technologies.

Joint Declaration on the Regulation of the Media, Restrictions on Journalists, and on Investigating Corruption.

Joint Declaration On Publishing Confidential Information, Openness of National and International Public Bodies, Freedom of Expression and Cultural/Religious Tensions, and Impunity in Cases of Attacks Against Journalists.

This document is a " step-by-step checklist for monitoring implementation of the practical recommendations on the management of assemblies report by United Nations Special Rapporteurs Maina Kiai and Christof Heyns (A/HRC/31/66)"

First Joint Declaration of the International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of Expression

The report “examines the crucial challenges of balancing the fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of expression, and the related value of transparency, in an online context. Through an exploration of their boundaries and of the various modalities of reconciling and aligning these rights and values, the study analyzes the legal frameworks at play, specific cases, and interactions between multiple players. Built on the findings, it provides policy recommendations for key stakeholders.”

“The initial part of the Study consists of a review of literature relevant to the principle of multistakeholder participation in Internet governance […]. In addition, the Study investigates how the principle of multistakeholder participation has been applied in practice in four case studies. Due to the primary focus of UNESCO’s work, the Study focuses on cases of multistakeholder participation in Internet governance and related topics that are or were conducted with the aim of supporting Internet Universality. In no specific order, the Study’s case studies move from Kenya to Brazil, South Korea, and an initiative under the auspices of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).”

“This study encompasses both quantitative and qualitative assessments of more than 50 declarations, guidelines, and frameworks. The issues contained in these documents are assessed in the context of UNESCO’s  interested areas such as access, freedom of expression, privacy, ethics, Priority Gender Equality, and Priority Africa, and sustainable development, etc.”

"This book explores the legal and regulatory systems governing public service broadcasters in eight different countries around the world, looking at the services they provide, the way in which their mandates are defined, their internal governance systems, mechanisms of oversight or accountability and funding. In selecting the various countries, an attempt has been made to ensure wide geographic representation, while including only countries that have a strong commitment to public service broadcasting. Special emphasis has been placed on the strategies that have evolved over the years to ensure that public service broadcasters are not undermined by two critical phenomena: external control (political or other), particularly over editorial output, and inadequate public funding. The book outlines tested approaches to resolving these key problems, but it also highlights innovative systems that are being piloted in different countries to address some of the new challenges that face public service broadcasters."

“The articles in this book, several by journalists with personal experience of harassment or violence, explore the problem from many angles. Although all agree that violence against journalists for doing their job is morally and legally unacceptable under any circumstances, there are differing points of view about whether journalists should be afforded extra legal protection under international humanitarian law.”

“While the rapidly emerging digital environment offers great opportunities for journalists to investigate and report information in the public interest, it also poses particular challenges regarding the privacy and safety of journalistic sources. These challenges include: mass surveillance as well as targeted surveillance, data retention, expanded and broad antiterrorism measures, and national security laws and over-reach in the application of these.”

In the report (A/73/348), the Special Rapporteur "explores the implications of artificial intelligence technologies for human rights in the information environment, focusing in particular on rights to freedom of opinion and expression, privacy and non-discrimination."

The report (A/HRC/38/35) examines "the regulation of user-general online content, the Special Rapporteur examines the role of States and social media companies in providing an enabling environment for freedom of expression and access to information online. In the face of contemporary threats such as “fake news” and disinformation and online extremism, the Special Rapporteur urges States to reconsider speech-based restrictions and adopt smart regulation targeted at enabling the public to make choices about how and whether to engage in online fora. The Special Rapporteur also conducts an in-depth investigation of how Internet companies moderate content on major social media platforms, and argues that human rights law gives companies the tools to articulate their positions in ways that respect democratic norms and counter authoritarian demands. The report is the culmination of a year-long series of consultations, visits to major internet companies and a wide range of State and civil society input."

The report (A/HRC/35/22) “addresses the roles played by private actors engaged in the provision of Internet and telecommunications access. [The Special Rapporteur] begins by examining State obligations to protect and promote freedom of expression online, then evaluates the digital access industry’s roles, to conclude with a set of principles that could guide the private sector’s steps to respect human rights.” 

The report (A/71/373) “addresses contemporary challenges to freedom of expression. He assesses trends relating to the permissible restrictions laid out in article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and concludes with recommendations that the United Nations, States and civil society may take to promote and protect freedom of opinion and expression.”

The report (A/HRC/29/32) “addresses the use of encryption and anonymity in digital communications. Drawing from research on international and national norms and jurisprudence, and the input of States and civil society, the report concludes that encryption and anonymity enable individuals to exercise their rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age and, as such, deserve strong protection.” 

The report (A/HRC/32/38) addresses “the intersection of State regulation, the private sector and freedom of expression in a digital age. In it, the Special Rapporteur examines the legal framework that pertains to freedom of expression and principles applicable to the private sector, identifies key participants in the information and communications technology sector that implicate freedom of expression, and introduces legal and policy issues that he will explore over the course of his mandate.”

“Drawing on international and national law and practice, the Special Rapporteur highlights [in his report (A/70/361)] the key elements of a framework for the protection of sources and whistle-blowers.”

Section III of the report (E/CN.4/2005/64) "contains a discussion of issues relevant to the mandate, including the right to access to information, the right to access to information for the purposes of education on, and prevention of, HIV/AIDS, and the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the context of counter-terrorism measures.”

 Chapter II of the report  (A/HRC/7/14) "presents an overall review of the main issues addressed by the Special Rapporteur throughout his mandate, specifically in the realms of the right of access to information, safety and protection of media professionals, legal restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression as well as the impact of freedom of expression on the realization of other human rights."

The report (A/HRC/4/27) is divided in three chapters. Chapter III addresses, among others, "future establishment of an intergovernmental body dealing with Internet governance and its role in limiting commercial pressure on, inter alia, a human rights approach to Internet freedom. The Special Rapporteur also addresses the necessity of swift action from Governments and Parliaments in order to decriminalize defamation and related offences. Finally, the Special Rapporteur examines the most recent initiatives with regard to security and protection of journalists and media professionals, and their repercussion on the availability of independent information and opinion-making. In addition to the proposed study on this matter, the Special Rapporteur also launches the idea of a voluntary fund to provide financial relief to the families of journalists killed while performing their duties or because of their activities, especially in developing countries”