Freedom of Expression Online

“This series of Briefing Notes is designed to give readers an understanding of the key international legal standards that apply in the context of freedom of expression. They are aimed at an audience which does not necessarily have a deep understanding of freedom of expression issues, but they also aim to be of interest and relevance to more sophisticated freedom of expression observers and practitioners. Thus, while the Briefing Notes are designed to be broadly accessible, they also provide readers with fairly in-depth knowledge about freedom of expression issues. Each individual Briefing Note addresses a different thematic freedom of expression issue. The first, perhaps predictably, is titled Freedom of Expression as a Human Right, while the second looks at the permissible scope of restrictions on freedom of expression under international law. Several of the Briefing Notes focus on different areas of media regulation, including print, broadcast and public service media, journalists, media diversity and independent regulation. This reflects the central role media regulation plays both in terms of guaranteeing freedom of expression and in the legal frameworks found in democracies relating to freedom of expression. There are also Briefing Notes on both criminal and civil restrictions on freedom of expression, as well as on the right to information (or freedom of information) and digital rights. In addition to providing substantive guidance in the relevant thematic area, the Briefing Notes contain a number of pithy quotes from leading sources. The idea is to provide readers with quick access to ‘quotable quotes’ for possible reuse in their work. Each Note also contains a section at the end on further resources, for readers who want to probe the subject more deeply.”

"A study of legal provisions and practices related to freedom of expression, the free flow of information and media pluralism on the Internet in OSCE participating States"

"In this policy brief, ARTICLE 19 outlines its position on the compatibility of blocking and/or filtering of online content with international standards on human rights, in particular the right to freedom of expression"

“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.” 

For the thirteenth year in a row, there has been a drop in internet freedom worldwide, with digital repression causing the largest decline in Iran. Myanmar was found to have the worst internet freedom conditions in the world, while President Rodrigo Duterte's use of an antiterrorism statute to restrict news sites critical of his administration made matters worse in the Philippines. After a presidential candidate whose campaign manager employed internet trolls to intimidate media outlets was elected, Costa Rica's reputation as a champion of internet freedom came under danger. Attacks on the right to free speech have become more widespread; out of the 70 nations that Freedom on the Net covers, 55 have reported facing legal consequences for online speech, and 41 have executed or killed individuals for their comments posted online.

With 47 governments using commenters to sway online debates, generative artificial intelligence (AI) poses a serious challenge to online disinformation tactics. Disinformation strategies have intensified as a result of the increased sophistication, accessibility, and ease of use of AI-based technologies. Governments have also improved and honed their online censorship strategies; in 22 countries, laws have been passed requiring or rewarding digital companies to use machine learning to filter out objectionable social, political, and religious content.

The defenders of democracy must apply the lessons they have learnt from previous internet governance issues to AI to preserve online freedom. AI has the potential to be a powerful tool for digital repression, increasing the efficiency, speed, cost-effectiveness, and ease of censorship, surveillance, and the production and dissemination of false information.

The report, released by SMEX, a non-profit advancing digital rights across West Asia and North Africa (WANA), examines the moderation of content on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) on social media in the WANA region. In this context, the study looks at content moderation policies and their practical application by Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X/Twitter, and YouTube. The authors turned to desk research, internal consultations, a survey in which regional SRHR organizations and activists participated, in-depth interviews with some survey respondents, and policy assessments based on the Ranking Digital Rights methodology. Documenting multiple episodes of SRHR content censorship, the report builds its critique on several levels – from the absence of SRHR-tailored policies to the “vague grounds” for posts’ removal and content in Arabic being subject to stricter restrictions than comparable content in English. The report concludes with recommendations for platforms.

“This paper addresses how the use of artificial intelligence (AI) affects freedom of expression and media freedom. While AI can improve communication and information access in numerous ways, including through legacy media, this paper focuses on the main concerns when AI is not deployed in a human rights-friendly manner…This paper also addresses how biases both in datasets and of human developers may risk perpetuating existing inequality, how AI affects legacy media and how the COVID-19 pandemic aggravates the above-mentioned concerns. Providing policy recommendations, this paper concludes that states and the private sector need to guarantee that the design and deployment of AI are grounded in human rights, with transparency and accountability being ensured at all stages.”

“When academics’ opinions, which are published in academic journals as letters to the editor or commentaries, are retracted based on sensitivities and objections that are raised for example on social media, there needs to be a reflection on what this might represent. On one hand, an opinion is precisely that, i.e., a subjective and biased view about an issue. Those views might even be radical, unpopular, or insensitive, but ultimately approved by editors for publication nonetheless. To maintain a truly sustainable scholarly discourse, the best academic way to counter such opinions is by allowing disagreeing voices to express themselves, also as letters to the editor or commentaries. Pressure-induced retractions of opinions not only stifle academic debate, they send the message that opinions need to be moderated and standardized to meet a publishing market that is being increasingly driven by legal parameters, political correctness, as well as business and commercial values rather than academic ones. In an environment of restrictive academic freedom, what emerges is an academia in which the way things are said, tone, and the sensitivity of those that might be affected are given greater weight than the message itself. By cherry-picking parts of the message that detractors or critics might disagree with, the original message may be drowned out by the noise of the objectors. The struggle of academics to liberally voice their opinions in the scholarly publishing realm, and to preserve those opinions, has never been more acute in this age of misinformation and radicalism fueled by polarized social and mass media. Is the politicization and/or commercialization of academia, alongside the retraction of opinions, stifling open and healthy academic debate, or expressing itself as the retraction of opinions, and does this represent a distinct form of “cancel culture” in academia and academic publishing?”

In this newly released report, part of the Engaging Tech for Internet Freedom initiative, ARTICLE 19 focuses on tech companies and their corresponding human rights obligations in authoritarian states – in this issue, China, Myanmar, and Vietnam. Zooming in on freedom of expression and privacy, the report unpacks how tech companies have been responding to oppressive legal and political conditions. Case studies show that companies have often referred to domestic laws in explaining their collaboration with the authorities, thus allowing for censorship, propaganda, breach of data privacy, and surveillance. ARTICLE 19 calls on companies to employ a human-rights-centered approach in decision-making and comply with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The report lists recommendations for the states in the region and tech companies operating within them. Find more relevant ARTICLE 19 publications on China, Myanmar, and Vietnam here.

"This report investigates how adversarial relationships between states in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) translate into Internet censorship practices. Based on analysis of Internet censorship data collected from 16 countries, the study finds that it is becoming increasingly common for governments in the MENA region to block content that originates from or is affiliated with rival states in the region."