Freedom of Expression Online

"These case studies are part of a globally coordinated, independent academic research project by the Global Network of Interdisciplinary Internet & Society Research Centers (NoC). Facilitated by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, the project is the first output of a larger policy-oriented research initiative that examines the rapidly changing landscape of online intermediary governance at the intersection of law, technology, norms, and markets. In concert with other research projects, it seeks to develop criteria, comparative methods, and a shared data repository, and to compile insights and lessons learned across diverse communities of knowledge aimed at informing and improving Internet policy-making globally."

“This book is the Official 2017 Outcome of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility (DCPR), which is a multistakeholder group fostering a cooperative analysis of online platforms’ responsibility to respect human rights, while putting forward solutions to protect platform-users’ rights. This book offers responses to the DCPR’s call for multistakeholder dialogue, made ever more pressing by the diverse and raising challenges generated by the platformisation of our economy and, more generally, our society. The analyses featured in this book critically explore the human rights dimension of the digital platform debate, subsequently focusing on the governance of personal data and, lastly, suggesting new solutions for the new roles played by online platforms. This volume includes the Recommendations on Terms of Service and Human Rights, which were elaborated through a multistakeholder participatory process, facilitated by the DCPR. In accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the Recommendations provide guidance for terms of service that may deemed as “responsible” due to their respect of internationally agreed human rights standards.”  

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.”

“In a world of rising calls for limits on hate speech, international human rights law provides standards to govern State and company approaches to online expression. In the present report, submitted in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 34/18, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression explains how those standards provide a framework for Governments considering regulatory options and companies determining how to respect human rights online. The Special Rapporteur begins with an introduction to the international legal framework, focusing on United Nations treaties and the leading interpretations of provisions related to what is colloquially called “hate speech”. He then highlights key State obligations and addresses how content moderation by companies may ensure respect for the human rights of users and the public. He concludes with recommendations for States and companies.”

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.” 

“For the first time in human history, ordinary people have been given the ability to publicly share and access information instantly and globally through social media, without the mediation of traditional gatekeepers such as newspaper editors or government censors. Yet, the growth of social media has made even democracies wary of the resulting impact on the global ecosystem of news, opinion, and information. Unmediated and instant access to the global digital sphere has gone hand in hand with the amplification and global dissemination of harms, including online extremism and disinformation. With the entry into force of the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) in 2017, Germany became the first country in the world to require online platforms with more than 2 million users in their country to remove “manifestly illegal” content within a time period of 24 hours. Since the adoption of the NetzDG, more than 20 States around the world – including France – have adopted similar laws imposing “intermediary liability” on social media platforms. While democracies impose intermediary liability to counter online harms, ‘outsourcing’ government mandated content regulation to private actors raises serious questions about the consequences on online freedom of expression. The objective of this report is a preliminary and indicative attempt to sketch the duration of national legal proceedings in hate speech cases in selected Council of Europe States. The length of domestic criminal proceedings is then compared with the timeframe within which some governments require platforms to decide and take down hate speech under laws such as the NetzDG. Due to the nature of the relevant data, the following comparison between national criminal proceedings and time limits under government mandated notice and take down regimes is merely indicative and preliminary. Nevertheless, it is hoped that it may contribute to answering the question of how to develop time limits that are consistent with a meaningful assessment of the free speech interests of users of large social media platforms. A question essential to the future of online free speech.”

In this policy brief, ARTICLE 19 examines the compliance of dominant social media platforms – Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (owned by Google) – with international freedom of expression standards; and gives practical recommendations on what companies should do to demonstrate their commitment to protecting of freedom of expression.

“This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, aims at finding the balance between regulatory measures to tackle disinformation and the protection of freedom of expression. It explores the European legal framework and analyses the roles of all stakeholders in the information landscape. The study offers recommendations to reform the attention-based, data-driven information landscape and regulate platforms’ rights and duties relating to content moderation.” 

“This guide was designed as a basic and synthetic input to help judges and legal practitioners across the Americas who must apply international (especially inter-American) standards that enshrine and protect the fundamental right to freedom of expression.” Available only in Spanish.

“This report examines the state of free speech online, mapping the impact of social media companies’ corporatisation of speech standards and the Government’s role in creating a two-tier speech system. It is the product of over two years of research on online censorship, during which major themes have emerged: “hate speech” including speech on sex, gender and race; political posts, including left-wing and right-wing posts; and posts relating to health, from mental health to Covid-19. It is fully expected that readers will find some of example banned posts in this report disagreeable, misguided or offensive. However, we ask you not to judge your agreement with these posts, but to probe the more important questions – first, should this lawful content be censored by a private company and second, should lawful speech be censored with the state’s backing? Readers should also note that the examples cited in this report are merely a fraction of the unjustified censorship that we have researched and that, no doubt, has not fallen within the confines of our research. Some readers will, rightly, feel that certain forms of unfair social media censorship are not represented in this report. Our examples are not intended to be a comprehensive or fully representative example – such a task would be impossible, given the scale and opacity of corporate censorship online. However, it is a snapshot of some of the major themes we uncovered in the course of our team’s research. The report goes on to consider the draft Online Safety Bill and why the proposals would materially damage the right to free expression online. Finally, we put forward recommendations for policymakers on how to keep our online space safe and free.”