Freedom of Expression Online

“Artificial intelligence (AI) – a broad concept used in policy discussions to refer to many different types of technology – greatly influences and impacts the way people seek, receive, impart and access information and how they exercise their right to freedom of expression in the digital ecosystem. If implemented responsibly, AI can benefit societies, but there is a genuine risk that its deployment by States and private companies, such as internet intermediaries, could have a deteriorating effect on human rights… [This Paper] maps the key challenges to freedom of expression presented by AI across the OSCE region, in light of international and regional standards on human rights and AI. It identifies a number of overarching problems that AI poses to freedom of expression and human rights in general, in particular: (a.) The limited understanding of the implications for freedom of expression caused by AI, in particular machine learning; (b.) Lack of respect for freedom of expression in content moderation and curation; (c.) State and non-State actors circumventing due process and rule of law in AI-powered content moderation; (d.) Lack of transparency regarding the entire process of AI design, deployment and implementation; (e.) Lack of accountability and independent oversight over AI systems; and, (f.) Lack of effective remedies for violation of the right to freedom of expression in relation to AI. This Paper observes that these problems became more pronounced in the first months of 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic incentivized States and the private sector to use AI even more, as part of measures introduced in response to the pandemic. A tendency to revert to technocratic solutions, including AI-powered tools, without adequate societal debate or democratic scrutiny was witnessed. Using four specific case studies (“security threats”; “hate speech”; media pluralism and diversity online; and the impact of AI-powered State surveillance on freedom of expression), this Paper shows how these problems manifest themselves. This Paper concludes that there is a need to further raise awareness, and improve understanding, of the impact of AI related to decision-making policies and practices on freedom of expression, next to having a more systematic overview of regional approaches and methodologies in the OSCE region. It provides a number of preliminary recommendations to OSCE participating States and internet intermediaries, to help ensure that freedom of expression and information are better protected when AI is deployed.”

Here you will find the Syllabus for the MOOC 'Freedom of Expression in the Age of Globalization' created by Columbia Global Freedom of Expression. This course will examine the norms, institutions and forces that altogether have founded a global system of protection for freedom of expression and information. This Advanced  Course will focus on the multiple challenges brought about by the technology revolution of the last two decades. On one hand, it has given the world the means to realize its commitment to freedom of information without frontiers. Technology has shaped, reshaped, and radically transformed the production and distribution of information, profoundly impacting whole societies and greatly influencing, if not defining, information and communication. On the other hand, it has also precipitated or heightened a range of normative, regulatory and political issues related to the protection of freedom of expression, on and off line. This course will examine the complex, and often awkward, interplay of global information flows with national jurisdiction and state sovereignty, and what it means for the realization of a borderless vision for the right to freedom of expression.

The report “includes a systematization of standards aimed at promoting respect for freedom of expression on the Internet. This report analyzes best practices in this field, along with applicable international doctrine and jurisprudence.” It includes an explanation of: the Guiding Principles (Universal Access, Pluralism, Non-discrimination, Privacy); Net neutrality; Access to the Internet; Legislative limitations and subsequent liability: Standards of legitimacy and deliberative factors for resolving online rights conflicts; Filters and blocking; Intermediaries; Cybersecurity, privacy, and freedom of expression (Cybersecurity, Privacy, Internet communications surveillance); and, Principles for the protection of freedom of expression through multisector participation in Internet governance.

Video summarizing the report "Freedom of Expression and Internet". The report “includes a systematization of standards aimed at promoting respect for freedom of expression on the Internet. This report analyzes best practices in this field, along with applicable international doctrine and jurisprudence.” It includes an explanation of: the Guiding Principles (Universal Access, Pluralism, Non-discrimination, Privacy); Net neutrality; Access to the Internet; Legislative limitations and subsequent liability: Standards of legitimacy and deliberative factors for resolving online rights conflicts; Filters and blocking; Intermediaries; Cybersecurity, privacy, and freedom of expression (Cybersecurity, Privacy, Internet communications surveillance); and, Principles for the protection of freedom of expression through multisector participation in Internet governance.

“Freedom on the Net is an annual study of human rights in the digital sphere. The project assesses internet freedom in 70 countries, accounting for 88 percent of the world’s internet users. This report, the 11th in its series, covered developments between June 2020 and May 2021.” Its key findings are: “1) Global internet freedom declined for the 11th consecutive year; 2) Governments clashed with technology companies on users’ rights; 3) Free expression online is under unprecedented strain; 4) China ranks as the worst environment for internet freedom for the seventh year in a row; 5) The United States’ score declined for the fifth consecutive year; and, 6) State intervention must protect human rights online and preserve an open internet…[The uploaded report] is a summary of findings for the 2021 edition of Freedom on the Net. Narrative reports on the 70 countries assessed in this study can be found on our website at freedomonthenet.org.” 

“This brief comes as part of the UNESCO series ‘World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development’. It presents enhancing transparency as a third way between state overregulation of content, which has led to disproportionate restrictions on human rights, and a laissez-faire approach that has failed to effectively address problematic content such as hate speech and disinformation. It discusses how greater transparency in the operations of internet companies could strengthen freedom of expression and other issues central to UNESCO’s work, and it outlines existing mechanisms and initiatives. The brief sets out a preliminary selection of illustrative high-level principles, which could serve as a basis for future discussions towards a framework for transparency to guide companies, policy makers and regulators.”

“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 two segments of the MOOC 'Freedom of Expression in the Age of Globalization' created by Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, Agnès Callamard focuses on an issue which is highly debated within the online community, the so called right to be forgotten or right to be de-indexed, widely criticized as an attack against freedom of expression. In this first segment Dr. Agnes Callamard will present various court decisions and policy development related to the right to be de-indexed. In the next segment Dr. Callamard will present various arguments from both side of the debate and we'll conclude with general conclusions.

“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.”