International System of Protection

“In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, focuses on the freedom of opinion and expression aspects of academic freedom, highlighting the special role played by academics and academic institutions in democratic society and noting that, without academic freedom, societies lose one of the essential elements of democratic self-governance: the capacity for self-reflection, for knowledge generation and for a constant search for improvements of people’s lives and social conditions. The Special Rapporteur finds that threats to and restrictions on academic freedom limit the sharing of information and knowledge, an integral component of the right to freedom of expression. He reveals that academics and their institutions face social harassment and State repression for their research, the questions that they pursue, the points that they raise and the methodologies that they bring to bear on public policy – or simply for the stature that their academic work has given them in society. While he focuses on the ways in which the freedom of opinion and expression protects and promotes academic freedom, the Special Rapporteur also recognizes that there is no single, exclusive international human rights framework for the subject. He emphasizes one set of protections for academic freedom, while recognizing and reaffirming others. He concludes with a set of recommendations to States, academic institutions, international organizations and civil society.”

ARTICLE 19’s newly published report is a three-part series on Queer Resistance to Digital Oppression in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). It is based on the experiences of more than five thousand LGBTQI+ people from Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Sudan, and Tunisia. The research, conducted in cooperation with The De|Center and local experts, tackles two overarching questions: How do the authorities in the MENA region weaponize technology – from messaging and dating apps to social media – to target the LGBTQI+ community? And how can tech companies help protect the community and other marginalized groups? Part I of the report reviews the regional context, pointing to the laws that have enabled the oppression. Part II includes the findings from interviews, surveys, and focus groups and analyzes the “harrowing evidence of tech-enabled police and state violence against the LGBTQ community.” Part III lists recommendations for tech companies, outlining concrete ways through which the companies can fulfill their human rights obligations. 

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 Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi, LIRNEasia, and the School of Law at BRAC University published a report that outlines the social media regulation frameworks and trends in Sri Lanka, India, and Bangladesh. South Asia is an understudied region in terms of platform regulation, even though the three countries in focus have seen a public debate on the matter unfolding for the past few years. The report aims to fill that research gap, analyzing “(a) the intermediary liability framework governing social media platforms; (b) the relevant cybersecurity and other information and communication technology (ICT) regulations; and (c) key speech laws (mostly penal) applicable to end-users.” Case studies show that in Sri Lanka, India, and Bangladesh, social media governance relies on control of the online information flow, with its practices being internet shutdowns, content blocking, and online speech criminalization. There is a growing centralization of power in all three countries and an absence of functioning parliamentary and court oversight over executive decisions that restrict speech.

This article debates the question of whether the First Amendment repudiated seditious libel at the time of its adoption. It discusses the widely criticized Sedition Act of 1798 and concludes that even though the modern consensus is that the 1798 Act violated the First Amendment guarantees of right to freedom of speech and press, the proposition that the First Amendment at its adoption repudiated the common law crime of seditious libel remains doubtful.

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.” 

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

"Freedom of expression and opinion online is increasingly criminalised with the aid of penal and internet-specific legislation. With this report, we hope to bring to light the problematic trends in the use of laws against freedom of expression in online spaces in Asia. In this special edition of GISWatch, APC brings together analysis on the criminalisation of online expression from six Asian states: Cambodia, India, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan and Thailand. The report also includes an overview of the methodology adapted for the purposes of the country research, as well as an identification of the international standards on online freedom of expression and the regional trends to be found across the six states that are part of the study. This is followed by the country reports, which expound on the state of online freedom of expression in their respective states."