Freedom of Expression Online

“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.”

The toolkit “is organized in six thematic modules that offer up to date information on the protection and promotion of freedom of expression, access to public information and safety of journalists in Judicial Systems in Ibero America. It also provides a range of learning activities, assessment tools, and didactic resources, with the aim of becoming a dynamic component of basic and advance training in Judicial Schools”. Available only in Spanish.

“In this report, [the authors] identify some policy options available for the European Commission and for European Union member states should they wish to create a more enabling environment for independent professional journalism going forward. Many of these options are relevant far beyond Europe and demonstrate what democratic digital media policy could look like. [They] argue that, to thrive, independent professional journalism needs freedom, funding, and a future. To enable this, media policy needs (a) to protect journalists and media from threats to their independence and to freedom of expression, (b) to provide a level playing field and support for a sustainable business of news, and (c) to be oriented towards the digital, mobile, and platform-dominated future that people are demonstrably embracing – not towards defending the broadcast and print-dominated past. The report identifies a number of real policy choices that elected officials can pursue, at both the European level and at the member state level, all of which have the potential to make a meaningful difference and help create a more enabling environment for independent professional journalism across the continent while minimising the room for political interference with the media. [It is hoped that] it can serve as a useful starting point for a discussion of the role of media policy in European democracy (and beyond) going forward and thus help ensure we develop twenty-first- century media policies for a twenty-first-century media environment.”

“The Information and Democracy Initiative demonstrates that a structural solution is possible to end the informational chaos that poses a vital threat to democracies. The exercise of human rights presupposes that democratic systems impose rules on the entities that create the standards and the architectures of choice in the digital space. This initiative demonstrates a capacity for reinventing multilateralism, with an innovative articulation between States and civil society. Initiated by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), this process resulted in an intergovernmental text. The signatory states of the Information and Democracy Partnership now represent a coalition that can exert influence to implement a democratic vision in the digital space. The Forum on Information and Democracy has complete independence from States. However, its work is intended to be the raw material for regulation. The Forum thus has a major role to play in facing the democratic emergency.” In this Framework, the Forum puts forth twelve main recommendations which are grouped into four broad categories. These categories are: “1.) public regulation is needed to impose transparency requirements on online service providers; 2.) a new model of meta-regulation with regards to content moderation is required; 3.) new approaches to the design of platforms have to be initiated; 4.) safeguards should be established in close messaging services when they enter into a public space logic.”

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