“The Mapping Digital Media project examines the global opportunities and risks created by new and digital media. Covering 56 countries, the project assesses how these changes affect the core democratic service that any media system should provide – news about political, economic, and social affairs – and how they can help advance open society values. The Mapping Digital Media research confirms that digital television and the internet have had a radical impact on media businesses, journalists, and citizens at large. As might be expected, platforms distributing journalism have proliferated, media companies are revamping their operations, and citizens have access to a cornucopia of news and information sources. Other findings were less foreseeable: digitization has brought no pressure to reform state broadcasters, less than one-third of countries found that digital media have helped to expand the social impact of investigative journalism, and digitization has not significantly affected total news diversity. The Global Findings reveal other common themes across the world: 1) Governments and politicians have too much influence over who owns, operates, and regulates the media, 2.) Many media markets are rife with monopolistic, corrupt, or untransparent practices, 3) It’s not clear where many governments and other bodies get their evidence for changes or updates to laws and policies on media and communication, 4) Media and journalism online offer hope of new, independent sources of information, but are also a new battleground for censorship and surveillance, 5) Data about the media worldwide are still uneven, unstandardized, and unreliable, and are often proprietary rather than freely accessible. The 16 chapters in this report provide a unique survey of thematic and geographical trends, and provide new insight into how the information and communications revolution is shaping the new landscape of media and journalism.” 

“Nowadays, there is a growing debate on the impact of social media on society, particularly on its potential negative effects. Therefore, this research is focused on three intersections of social media and fundamental freedoms: free speech, freedom of information and privacy. We begin analyzing social networking sites and social media role and evolution since their birth at the beginning of 21st century and remarking their positive aspects. Our objective is to identify malpractices related to social media and fundamental freedoms. A review of the literature is presented which outlines those malpractices. This review highlights some issues, such as arbitrary censorship, boundaries of free speech, misinformation, diversity of sources, visions and views, user content and privacy settings, and data profiling. Finally, we propose some solutions for each one of those issues.”

“Algorithms and Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications are now a critical part of the information environment – they are found in every corner of the internet, on digital devices and in technical systems, in search engines, social media platforms, messaging applications, and public information mechanisms. In this report, the Special Rapporteur examines the impact AI on the information environment, and proposes a human rights framework for the design and use of technologies comprising AI by states and private actors. [In particular], it tries to do three things: define key terms essential to a human rights discussion about AI; identify the human rights legal framework relevant to AI; and present some preliminary recommendations to ensure that, as the technologies comprising AI evolve, human rights considerations are baked into that process. The report should be read as a companion to my most recent report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/38/35), in which a human rights approach to online content moderation was presented.”

“In 2016, UNESCO and the Government of Finland [co-hosted] the World Press Freedom Day’s main event in Helsinki, 3-4 May – for the first time in the Nordic Region. 2016 also marks the 250th anniversary of a Swedish fundamental law – The Freedom of the Press Act. This law prohibited censorship and guaranteed public access to official records, and was the first in the world to do so. Both these celebrations can be seen as appropriate background scenarios to this new book. In 2009, Nordicom published Freedom of Speech Abridged? Cultural, legal and philosophical challenges, an anthology focusing on the traditional concept of individual freedom of expression. A few years later, Nordicom published Freedom of Expression Revisited. Citizenship and journalism in the digital era. The current publication, published by the UNESCO Chair at the University of Gothenburg in collaboration with Nordicom, may be seen as a follow-up to these earlier titles. It is based on research in the Nordic countries, but many of the studies are global in nature and the results of collaborations between researchers from many parts of the world. Several of the articles also contain valuable reflections and second thoughts. It is hoped that these articles by Nordic researchers will contribute to knowledge development in the field as well as to global and regional discussions about freedom of expression, press freedom and the role of journalists, and communication rights in contemporary societies – in an era of globalization and digitization.” 

“UNESCO works to strengthen journalism education, and this publication is one of the offerings in a line of cutting-edge knowledge resources. It is part of the “Global Initiative for Excellence in Journalism Education”, which is a focus of UNESCO’s International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC). The Initiative seeks to engage with teaching, practicing and researching of journalism from a global perspective, including sharing international good practices. Accordingly, the current handbook seeks to serve as an internationally-relevant model curriculum, open to adoption or adaptation, which responds to the emerging global problem of disinformation that confronts societies in general, and journalism in particular. This handbook is designed to give journalism educators and trainers, along with students of journalism, a framework and lessons to help navigate the issues associated with ‘fake news’. [It is also hoped] that it will be a useful guide for practicing journalists. It draws together the input of leading international journalism educators, researchers and thinkers who are helping to update journalism method and practice to deal with the challenges of misinformation and disinformation. The lessons are contextual, theoretical and in the case of online verification, extremely practical. Used together as a course, or independently, they can help refresh existing teaching modules or create new offerings. Overall, this publication should help societies become more informed about the range of societal responses to disinformation problems, including those by governments, international organisations, human rights defenders, Internet companies, and proponents of media and information literacy. It particularly highlights what can be done by journalists themselves and by the people who educate and train them. [Ultimately, it is hoped that the] handbook can help to reinforce the essential contribution that journalism can make to society – and also to the Sustainable Development Goals’ ambition of “public access to information and fundamental freedoms”.”

“This Article endeavors to catalog and resolve cases involving competing free speech values, and then applies its solutions to violent and disruptive protests. Almost every First Amendment case can be framed as implicating free speech values on both sides of the First Amendment equation. Government action directly abridges speech, but government inaction may allow private parties too much control over others’ speech. First Amendment doctrine, which generally protects speech only from suppression by state actors, can thus compromise the very free speech values that form the rationales for the First Amendment. Scholars and litigants have argued that government regulation of speech, to preserve free speech values, is necessary in areas ranging from campaign finance, to access to media resources, to bigoted speech. This Article argues that strict adherence to a formal state action doctrine should resolve most, but not all, clashes between free speech doctrine and values. A robust application of the state action doctrine—where government interference to preserve speech values is not considered as part of the First Amendment calculus—also best advances both formal and substantive First Amendment equality. This Article proceeds in three parts. First, the Article chronicles the Supreme Court’s approach to cases involving competing free speech values. The Article then demonstrates why the state action doctrine, with its associated formal equality and neutrality principles, will ultimately advance free speech values. Finally, the Article considers political protests, and distinguishes between prosecution of violent protesters, which should be encouraged, and legislation criminalizing disruptive protest tactics, which may be unconstitutional.”

“The First Amendment dominates debate about freedom of speech in the United States. Yet it is not the only legal instrument that protects expressive freedom, the rights of the institutional press, or the democratic values that these rights facilitate. A rich body of local, state, and federal laws also does so, and does so in ways the First Amendment does not. This Article explores the history and present-day operation of this non–First Amendment body of free speech law. Doing so changes our understanding of both the past and the present of the American free speech tradition. It reveals that there was more legal protection for speech in the nineteenth century than scholars have assumed. It also makes evident that the contemporary system of free expression is much more majoritarian, and much more pluralist in its conception of what freedom of speech means and requires, than what we commonly assume. Recognizing as much is important not only as a descriptive matter but also as a doctrinal one. This is because in few other areas of constitutional law does the Supreme Court look more to history to guide its interpretation of the meaning of the right. And yet, the Court’s view of the relevant regulatory history is impoverished. Missing from the Court’s understanding of freedom of speech is almost any recognition of the important non-constitutional mechanisms that legislators have traditionally used to promote it. The result is a deeply inconsistent body of First Amendment law that relies on a false view of both our regulatory present and our regulatory past — and is therefore able to proclaim a commitment to laissez-faire principles that, in reality, it has never been able to sustain.”

“Pursuant to its mandate, the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights monitors and documents in its annual reports the intervention of the region’s justice system in matters of freedom of expression. In this report, the Office of the Special Rapporteur presents a compilation of different judgments handed down over the past four years by national high courts that represent progress at the domestic level or enrich the regional doctrine and jurisprudence, while incorporating the inter-American standards in support of their decisions. As in other annual reports, this type of analysis aims to contribute to a positive dialogue between the bodies of the system and the national courts, with the conviction that sharing different experiences leads to a virtuous circle of mutual learning. This compilation was put together starting with the cases that have been highlighted and documented by the Office of the Special Rapporteur in its annual reports for the 2013 – 2016 period. The criterion used for the selection of the judicial decisions summarized in this chapter was that they represent progress at the domestic level, either because they ensure the protection of the freedom of expression of the persons directly involved in the specific case, and/or because they set forth legal guidelines that incorporate and develop the inter-American standards in the national sphere. Summarized [in this report] is a selection of notable court decisions. They have been systematized in accordance with 24 items that reflect different standards and rules of the inter-American legal framework, and grouped according to 13 analytical aspects. The decisions are preceded by a synthesis of the inter-American standard that was used as a reference in each category.”

“It is universally acknowledged that the right to freedom of expression is a foundational human right of the greatest importance. At the same time, it is also universally recognized that it is not an absolute right, and every democracy has developed some system of limitations on freedom of expression. International law does provide for a general three-part test for assessing restrictions on freedom of expression, and this test has been elaborated on in numerous judgments by international courts tasked with oversight of international human rights treaties. National courts, often interpreting constitutional guarantees which are based on or are similar to international guarantees, have also helped elaborate on the precise meaning of the test for restrictions on freedom of expression. Assessing restrictions on freedom of expression, however, is an extremely complex matter. There are several reasons for this, including that the primary guarantee of freedom of expression is itself multifaceted, that the grounds for restricting freedom of expression or interests which restrictions aim to protect are numerous and that the contexts in which the need for restrictions is asserted are almost limitless. This Paper provides an overview of the key issues relating to restrictions on freedom of expression, describing how international and in some cases national courts have approached them. It also highlights some problem areas or issues which remain unclear or which lack sufficient elaboration. For these, it poses questions which might be considered by participants at the two meetings for which the Paper serves as background material.”

In this webinar organized by Rishit Vimadalal for the Lockdown Lecture Series, Advocate (India) and legal scholar Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud discusses the breadth and scope of the right to freedom of speech and expression in India from pre-constitutional to contemporary times. The broad themes spanned by the webinar are: the law of prior restraints; the law of sedition in India; the concerns about the propensity for laws pertaining to and regulating free speech and expression to be changed during pandemics such as the COVID-19; Constituent Assembly Debates about free speech and expression as a right in India; Constitutional amendments and their implications for free speech and expression; and interesting nuances of obscenity, contempt of court, and criminal defamation.

“In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression examines the threats posed by disinformation to human rights, democratic institutions and development processes. While acknowledging the complexities and challenges posed by disinformation in the digital age, the Special Rapporteur finds that the responses by States and companies have been problematic, inadequate and detrimental to human rights. She calls for multidimensional and multi-stakeholder responses that are well grounded in the international human rights framework and urges companies to review their business model and States to recalibrate their responses to disinformation, enhancing the role of free, independent and diverse media, investing in media and digital literacy, empowering individuals and rebuilding public trust.”

“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.”

“This book sets out to answer key questions regarding the extent and limits of freedom of expression online. It seeks to shed light on the often-obscure landscape of what we are allowed to say online and how our ideas, and the process of imparting and receiving information, are protected. It shows the large ambit of rights protected by freedom of expression, including freedom of the media and the right to access information, and confirms that all aspects of the communicative process, offline just as online, are protected by freedom of expression. The book makes an important point by making clear that freedom of expression online must be protected just like freedom of expression offline, taking into account the nature of the Internet, its asynchronicity, ubiquity and speed. The book also wishes to highlight the importance of the standard-setting, monitoring and promotion activities of international and non-governmental organisations. Freedom of expression online touches all aspects of society and does so in all societies. We have therefore included a chapter on relevant national practices to illustrate how different States deal with the challenge that the Internet has brought to ensuring freedom of expression for all. The book makes another important point in showing that freedom of expression implies obligations for all actors on the Internet. States must respect, protect and ensure freedom of expression online just as much as offline; Internet companies have to respect and protect freedom of expression, implement it within their sphere and remedy violations. Civil society has an important watchdog function and the individuals it comprises must ensure that, in making use of their freedom of expression, they do not violate the rights of others.”

“Alex Stamos, the former chief security officer at Facebook and an adjunct professor with Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, explained at a recent live taping of “The Future of Everything” that the emergence of social media has made everyone a potential publisher. “We will never go back to the era in which a small number of people control the flow of information,” Stamos says. While social media can be credited with democratizing the dissemination of information, these platforms have also become a hotbed of false and misleading content spread by domestic and foreign actors. Solving the “fake news” problem is extremely difficult, Stamos explains. “It turns out that regulating social media actually means asking social media companies to regulate people’s freedom of speech.” The danger here, Stamos emphasizes, is that this regulation will be done in a way that benefits the short-term interests of a company and does not uphold basic human rights.”

“The present report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, is being submitted to the Human Rights Council pursuant to Council resolution 34/18. In the report the Special Rapporteur registers alarm that some efforts to combat the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic may be failing to meet the standards of legality, necessity and proportionality. The Special Rapporteur highlights five areas of concern, showing that access to information, independent media and other free expression rights are critical to meeting the challenges of pandemic.”

“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.”

“Surveillance of individuals – often journalists, activists, opposition figures, critics and others exercising their right to freedom of expression – has been shown to lead to arbitrary detention, sometimes to torture and possibly to extrajudicial killings. Such surveillance has thrived amid weak controls on exports and transfers of technology to Governments with well-known policies of repression. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur begins by identifying the problem of targeted surveillance seen from the obligations that human rights law imposes on States and the related responsibilities of companies. He then proposes a legal and policy framework for regulation, accountability and transparency within the private surveillance industry. He concludes with a call for tighter regulation of surveillance exports and restrictions on their use, as well as a call for an immediate moratorium on the global sale and transfer of the tools of the private surveillance industry until rigorous human rights safeguards are put in place to regulate such practices and guarantee that Governments and non-State actors use the tools in legitimate ways.”

“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 source directs the readers to the transcript of two lectures delivered by Lee C. Bollinger at Cambridge University’s 2018 Clare Hall Tanner Lectures. In the first lecture, Prof. Bollinger delves into the First Amendment experience and presents a summary of it prior to offering some observations about how it may be interpreted as well as understood. In the second lecture, Prof. Bollinger focuses on the present and the future, intent on interrogating three of the most important questions of the present century: “(1) Should the legacy of the last century be continued and what are its prospects given current political and global trends towards authoritarian regimes? (2) What should be the general approach to dealing with the rising importance of the Internet and its component elements, which are now widely perceived as increasingly dominant in shaping the public forum? (3) And, lastly, what are we to make of the fact that the modern world is increasingly inter-connected and inter-dependent, yielding problems and issues that can only be resolved effectively through collective international action, with a new truly global communications technology to serve as a global public forum, but with vastly different competing conceptions of free speech and free press in contention? In other words, how should we think about free speech in a globalized world?”

“We live in an era in which offensive speech is on the rise. Given its potential for harm, should this speech be banned? Nadine Strossen, professor of law at NYU School of Law and former president of the ACLU, dispels the many misunderstandings that have clouded the perpetual debates about “hate speech vs. free speech.” She argues that an expansive approach to the First Amendment is most effective at promoting democracy, equality, and societal harmony and that anti-hate speech laws are not effective in reducing the feared harms, and worse yet, are likely counterproductive by giving enforcement officials the power to suppress vital expression and target minority viewpoints. The solution, maintains Strossen, instead is to promote equality and societal harmony through vibrant “counterspeech”.”

“The Supreme Court’s 1919 decision in “Schenck v. United States” is one of the most important free speech cases in American history. Written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, it is most famous for first invoking the phrase “clear and present danger.” Because of this decision, we now have an elaborate set of free speech laws and norms but the context is always shifting. New societal threats like terrorism, and new technologies of communication continually reshape our understanding of what speech should be allowed. How has our understanding of the First Amendment transformed over time? Has the social media age created new threats to freedom of expression? Lee C. Bollinger is the president of Columbia University. A leading First Amendment scholar, he is widely published on freedom of speech and the press, including Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open (2010), and currently serves on the faculty of Columbia Law School. Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. He was appointed by President Obama to serve on the President’s Review Group, which was charged with evaluating our nation’s foreign intelligence surveillance programs in the wake of Edward Snowden’s leaks.”

In this episode of the UCI Law’s COVID-19 & Law series, Prof. Kaye draws on the report submitted by him as the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression in April 2020 termed ‘Disease Pandemics and the Freedom of Opinion and Expression’. Taking an International Human Rights Law perspective, as opposed to a domestic law perspective, he attempts to urge the listeners to think about how it is that the tools of law can be utilized even during public health crises such as the COVID-19. In particular, he engages with the following themes: 1) the threats to free speech during the pandemic, 2) how International Human Rights Law presents certain guarantees to the freedom of expression, 3) the presence of rampant disinformation, the associated responsibilities, and the interactions with the guarantees, 4) the WHO’s guidelines on risk communication, 5) the question of how rights can be thought about as well as enforced during public health crises. The episode is moderated by Hans Keirstead.

“In the first-ever UN report that examines the regulation of user-generated online content, the Special Rapporteur examines the role of States and social media companies in providing an enabling environment for freedom of expression and access to information online. In the face of contemporary threats such as “fake news” and disinformation and online extremism, the Special Rapporteur urges States to reconsider speech-based restrictions and adopt smart regulation targeted at enabling the public to make choices about how and whether to engage in online fora. The Special Rapporteur also conducts an in-depth investigation of how Internet Companies moderate content on major social media platforms, and argues that human rights law gives companies the tools to articulate their positions in ways that respect democratic norms and counter authoritarian demands.”

“In this report, the Special Rapporteur addresses two linked questions: First, do the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression protect secure online communication, specifically by encryption or anonymity? And second, assuming an affirmative answer, to what extent may governments, consistent with human rights law, impose restrictions on encryption and anonymity? The report seeks to answer these questions, review examples of State practice, and propose recommendations. Drawing from research on international and national norms and jurisprudence, and the input of States and civil society, the report concludes that encryption and anonymity enable individuals to exercise their rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age and, as such, deserve strong protection.”

“This unofficial document is meant to accompany the June 2015 report to the Human Rights Council of the Special Rapporteur on the Protection and Promotion of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression. The report explores how encryption and anonymity facilitate the exercise of the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression and proposes a legal framework to govern the individual use and government restriction of encryption and anonymity technologies. The report itself provides citations to numerous sources for the report’s conclusions. However, because of space requirements attached to a report to the Human Rights Council, this companion reference document was prepared to highlight a limited set of additional technical and legal resources that interested readers may wish to investigate. All of these documents informed, in one way or another, the report itself.”

“The Internet was designed to be a kind of free-speech paradise, but it has also been used to incite violence, spread lies, and promote hate. Over the years, three American behemoths – Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter – became the way many people around the world experience the Internet, and therefore act as the conveyors of some of its most disturbing material. Who should decide whether content should be removed from platforms, or which users should be kicked off? Should the giant social media platforms police the content themselves, as is the norm in the U.S., or should governments and international organizations regulate the Internet, as many are demanding in Europe? How do we keep from helping authoritarian regimes to censor all criticisms of themselves? David Kaye is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the global body’s principal monitor for freedom of expression issues worldwide. He is also a clinical professor of law and the director of the International Justice Clinic at the University of California, Irvine.”

“While autonomy arguments provide a compelling foundation for free speech, they also support individual privacy rights. Considering how speech and privacy may be justified, the article argues that the speech necessary for self-government does not need to include details that would violate privacy rights. Additionally, it argues that if viewed as a kind of intangible property right, informational privacy should limit speech and expression in a range of cases. In a world where we have an overabundance of content to consume, much of which could be called “information pollution,” and where there are numerous platforms to broadcast one’s expressions, it is increasingly difficult to maintain that speech should trump privacy.”

“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?”

“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.”

“Besides being protected by the First Amendment, the right of students and faculty to express different ideas and opinions—even discomfiting ideas and opinions—is central to the academic mission of schools, colleges, and universities. Two familiar arguments articulated by John Stuart Mill underscore this point: First, the dynamic clash of contrary ideas offers the best prospect we have of arriving at the “whole truth” about any complex subject. Second, unless it is subject to periodic questioning and critique, any established and received bit of wisdom “will be held in the manner of a prejudice with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.” These arguments notwithstanding, heated debates persist as to the proper bounds of free speech in educational institutions dedicated to open inquiry and the examination of multiple viewpoints. Two distinct positions provide us with a useful framework for analyzing many of these debates. The libertarian position rejects regulation of campus speech—except in extreme cases of speech that invade the rights of individuals or small specific groups of people—while instead championing a maximally free marketplace of ideas. The liberal democratic position, however, proposes that, in the interest of scholarly objectivity and rational autonomy, verbal interaction that denigrates or stigmatizes others on account of ascriptive characteristics such as gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation should be constrained in higher education. Adherents to the libertarian position oppose the implementation of campus hate speech codes on the grounds that such codes violate First Amendment principles and are not an effective bulwark against prejudice, discrimination, and inequality. Adherents to the liberal democratic position support narrowly tailored speech codes that formally sanction slurs, “fighting words,” and the like, but they generally believe that most of the work of regulating abusive speech should occur through the informal enforcement of new “norms of civility” on campus. Although these two positions constitute a major fault line in debates over campus speech, they do not capture the range of standpoints taken by participants in the debates. To cite one noteworthy example, some scholars, in the name of what they refer to as “an affirmative action pedagogy,” call for broader restrictions on speech (particularly classroom speech) than either the libertarian or liberal democratic positions endorse.”

“Citizens United v. FEC has fundamentally reshaped American politics by enshrining into law a radical new conception of what it means to be a democratic participant. The Court strikes down, on freedom of speech grounds, a federal law prohibiting independent political expenditures by unions and corporations. Yet, throughout the approximately 180 pages of opinion, there is strikingly sparse discussion of just what “speech” is. Nor do any of the Justices adequately explore the rationale behind the phrase “corporate speech,” an arguably paradoxical syntactical combination rooted in the Court’s “freedom of expressive association” jurisprudence-a doctrine of relatively recent vintage. Justice Stevens’ passionate dissent is laced throughout with the concession that corporations themselves engage in “speech”-a term that, on its face, would seem to require a human “speaker.” Thus even the dissent implicitly accepts the default position that corporations are potentially eligible for protections clearly designed by the First Amendment’s framers for human beings. Legal academics and journalists of all stripes have likewise blithely accepted the conclusion that there is something called “corporate speech.” In doing so, the dissent and others who find the Citizens United decision troubling have unwittingly and unwisely ceded unnecessary ground. By reifying corporations and imbuing them with the sympathetic qualities of individual American citizens seeking to assert their fundamental First Amendment freedoms, the majority is able to craft an opinion that resembles constitutional common sense. In this article, I examine how the Court ultimately arrives at this destination. In the decades prior to Citizens United, the Court established that associating with others has a close nexus with the textual freedoms of speech and assembly, but the contours of the “right to associate” remained far from clear. I argue that the right to enhance individual expression through association gradually, and without acknowledgement, morphed into a right of the association itself I trace and critique this development, looking closely at Court precedent, the views of the Framers, and the core philosophical underpinnings of free speech. After Citizens United, the fiction of the “corporate speaker,” useful in other contexts, was inappropriately accorded First Amendment status. The result, I argue, is contrary to democratic and republican ideals-allowing corporations and other associations to become potent players in political contests intended for individual citizens.”

Free speech remains a crucial question at the heart of every democracy. In Western countries, citizens ranging from progressive fringes to “constitutional conservatives” defend it as frequently as staunchly. In this paper, I discuss the tensions and contradictions of some formulations of free speech. Among other, I draw on two authors converging in their critique from two very different perspectives: Alasdair MacIntyre and Stanley Fish. After having assessed the extreme conception of free speech and having shown its implausibility, freedom of speech is characterised as ideological in at least one definition of the word, that employed by legal realists. I claim that free speech is indeed an incomplete, context-sensitive right granted to someone on some occasions, often depending on extra-legal, historical, sociological, political and practical factors. This leaves the door open to interpretations of the right to free speech as ideological in other and more substantial ways, such as in the venues of Critical Legal Studies. I conclude by drawing implications applicable to our societies in their current conditions, with a special focus on the role of new media.”

“The United Nations does not have an access-to-information policy that applies to every department and specialized agency; it does not even have ad hoc standards to provide a response to access-to-information requests. For the central global political institution, one that serves the public interest across a range of subject matters, this is intolerable. But the United Nations is not alone. While freedom of information policies have been introduced worldwide, international organizations, with a few specific exceptions, have not followed suit. The present report provides an assessment of the state of access to information with regard to the activities of international organizations. It urges all international organizations, especially the United Nations, to adopt robust freedom of information policies, with specific recommendations to organizations, Member States and civil society.”

In this highlight from an episode of the Origins Podcast, Lawrence Krauss discusses current attitudes about free speech and expression with Noam Chomsky. The discussion spans the themes of free speech on campuses, Donald Trump’s Executive Order, the divide between and the perceptions of the right and the left, the fear of ideas/discussions which produce discomfort, the First Amendment, and, sovereign immunity.  

“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 Report, from the Inter-American Dialogue’s Peter D. Bell Rule of Law Program and Edison Lanza, expert on freedom of expression and current Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression at the Organization of American States, provides a succinct assessment of freedom of expression developments in the Americas in the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic. It draws on Inter-American legal standards, the ongoing documentation work of the Special Rapporteurship, reports from international human rights bodies, conclusions of the webinar discussion “Voices in the Pandemic: Covid-19 and Freedom of Expression in the Americas,” and available information from governments, national and international civil society, and media organizations. Unless otherwise noted, the information included in the report is updated to July 1st, 2020.”

“Fighting hate, discrimination, racism and inequality is at the core of United Nations principles and the Organization’s work. It is enshrined in the founding Charter, in the international human rights framework and in our collective efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Hate speech, including online, has become one of the most frequent methods for spreading divisive and discriminatory messages and ideologies. The United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action endeavours to counter this poison and embodies a commitment by the United Nations to step up coordinated action to tackle hate speech both globally and at the national level. It responds to the worrying growth of xenophobia, racism and intolerance, including anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred, around the world. Hate speech undermines social cohesion, erodes shared values and can lay the foundation for violence, undermining peace, stability, sustainable development and the fulfillment of human rights for all. Implementing the Strategy requires concerted system-wide efforts. This Guidance provides detailed information on how to implement the 13 commitments set out in the Strategy and options for action that United Nations staff can take in field contexts, guided by the broad vision of prevention, and building on good practices from within the United Nations system as well as from Member States, civil society and other stakeholders. The Guidance is a living document that will be reviewed and updated as needed.”

“In the years since 9/11, international security discourse has heightened concerns around extremism, positioning this as the key threat that States need to address in order to prevent and combat terrorism. Politically, enactment of domestic legislation curtailing extremist expressions has been internationally authorised and encouraged and in May 2016 the United Kingdom (‘UK’), spearheading a liberal State trend towards rights-restrictive approaches to extremism, announced its intention to enact legislation imposing a range of civil sanctions on those publicly expressing extremist views. But laws such as this restrict the core democratic right to freedom of expression and so must comply with the tripartite requirements for restrictions enshrined in Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) to be legitimate. Using the UK to dynamically exemplify the issues, this paper assesses the manner in which the laws curtailing extremist expressions comply with international human rights law.”

“The freedom of expression is vital to our ability to convey opinions, convictions, and beliefs, and to meaningfully participate in democracy. The state may, however, ‘limit’ the freedom of expression on certain grounds, such as national security, public order, public health, and public morals. Examples from around the world show that the freedom of individuals to express their opinions, convictions, and beliefs is often imperilled when states are not required to meet a substantial justificatory burden when limiting such freedom. This article critiques one of the common justificatory approaches employed in a number of jurisdictions to frame the state’s burden to justify limitations on the freedom of expression—the proportionality test. It presents a case for an alternative approach that builds on the merits and addresses some of the weaknesses of a typical proportionality test. This alternative may be called a ‘duty-based’ justificatory approach because it requires the state to demonstrate—through the presentation of publicly justifiable reasons—that the individual concerned owes others a duty of justice to refrain from the expressive conduct in question. The article explains how this approach is more normatively compelling than a typical proportionality test. It also illustrates how such an approach can better constrain the state’s ability to advance majoritarian interests or offload its positive obligations by limiting the freedom of expression of minorities and dissenting voices.”

“The Windhoek+30 Declaration was adopted on 03 May 2021 during a conference held to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Windhoek Declaration and World Press Freedom Day. The conference was held under the theme ‘Information as a Public Good’ from 29 April and ended on 03 May. The Windhoek Declaration was promulgated in 1991 and focused on the role of a free, independent and pluralistic media. The date of the declaration’s adoption, 03 May, was declared World Press Freedom Day. The Windhoek+30 Declaration has called on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and other intergovernmental organisations to reinforce cooperation with governments and civil society organisations in order to safeguard and enhance guarantees for the full exercise of the right to information and freedom of expression, both online and offline, with a particular focus on strengthening media freedom, diversity, and independence as well as media viability, transparency of digital platforms, and media and information literacy.”

“Across the world, journalism is under fire. While more individuals have access to content than ever before, the combination of political polarization and technological change have facilitated the rapid spread of hate speech, misogyny and unverified ‘fake news’, often leading to disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression. In an ever-growing number of countries, journalists face physical and verbal attacks that threaten their ability to report news and information to the public. In the face of such challenges, the World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development series offer a critical analysis of the trends in media freedom, pluralism, independence and the safety of journalists. With a special focus on gender equality in the media, the report provides a global perspective that serves as an essential resource for UNESCO Member States, international organizations, civil society groups, academia and individuals seeking to understand the changing global media landscape.”

The Panel on ‘Freedom of Speech: Theories and Foundations’ was convened by the Emory Law Journal as part of the 2015 Randolph W. Thrower Symposium on ‘The New Age of Communication: Freedom of Speech in the 21st Century’. The Panel comprised of Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California-Irvine School of Law; Professor Frederick Schauer, University of Virginia School of Law; Professor Alexander Tsesis, Loyola University Chicago School of Law; and Professor Laura Weinrib, The University of Chicago Law School, and was moderated by Prof. Julie Seaman. The objective of the Symposium was to explicate and discuss the changing doctrine of free speech in the USA, particularly in light of decisions about the contours of speech rights such as McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, Snyder v. Phelps, and United States v. Alvarez. The Symposium emphasized on the impetus provided by these decisions and the approaches contained therein for a discourse on theories and foundations, current doctrines, as well as the future of free speech and expression. 

“Digital companies are enabling politicians, political parties and voters to communicate in unprecedented ways, and expanding opportunities for seeking, receiving and imparting political information and ideas. Alongside positive developments, there also growing concerns about emerging and increasing threats to the integrity and credibility of elections, as well as the media’s contribution to free, fair, transparent and peaceful electoral processes. This report highlights three converging trends in media and elections in digital times: 1) the rise of disinformation, 2) intensifying attacks on journalists, and 3) disruptions linked to the use of information and communication technology in electoral arrangements. Offering possible responses to the challenges at hand, this study is a tool for governments, election practitioners, media organizations, journalists, civil society, the private sector, academia and individuals.” This issue brief on ‘Elections and Media in Digital Times’ is part of the UNESCO In Focus series ‘World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development’.

“In this public talk hosted by the Center for Media, Data and Society at the CEU School of Public Policy, UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye discussed global threats to freedom of expression. He was introduced by Sejal Parmar, Assistant Professor at the CEU Department of Legal Studies. The agenda of the talk and themes discussed in his lecture and in the ensuing Q&A spanned the following: global threats to freedom of expression; how to promote protective measures to free speech, hate speech and access to information; protection of whistleblowers; role and liability of intermediaries and social media companies; surveillance; digital security; transparency; the Bernstein case, Apple v. FBI; code speech; different national security measures on freedom of expression, and the UN standard on the issue; Facebook posts as reasons for prosecution for incitement; Article 19; the right to be forgotten; content discrimination in relation to freedom of expression; Article 19 to promote government transparency and access to information; the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction Movement and its academic implications; academic freedom; how the Special Rapporteur prioritizes over requests and communications; and, contempt of court in relation to freedom of expression.”

“The surge of access to information (ATI) laws reached 126 worldwide by the end of 2019. This Report explores recent developments in regard to the laws and their implementation, covering evolving international standards, models for implementation bodies, and new digital challenges and opportunities. In order to understand the drivers of change, the Report examines trendsetting activities within UNESCO, the Sustainable Development Agenda, the Universal Periodic Review, the Open Government Partnership, and the standard-setting work of regional intergovernmental organizations and national oversight bodies. The research also draws on unique UNESCO surveys and analysis of Voluntary National Reports presented at the United Nation’s High-level Political Forum. The research shows how Sustainable Development Goal 16.10 offers a new opportunity for advancing ATI.”

“The aim of this Report is to provide a holistic assessment on the safety of journalists around the globe as well as a yearly update on the status of journalist killings. The study covers the period 2014-2018, as well as several developments in 2019. It takes stock of trends in killings of journalists, and other attacks faced by media professionals. It is based on UNESCO’s monitoring of killings as recognized by the Director-General of the Organization, as well as information provided by Member States and research by international NGOs. Among the key findings, the Report emphasizes, the continued trend of impunity for attacks against journalists and highlights the increased prevalence of digital threats and harassment online, including those targeting women journalists. It sheds light on new reporting and monitoring initiatives on the safety of journalists, notably within the framework of SDG indicator 16.10.1, and looks at good practices reported by Member States to enhance efforts to monitor, prevent, protect and prosecute in relation to safety of journalists.”    

“This study assesses the challenges, and the opportunities, for journalism today. It dovetails with the 2020 theme of World Press Freedom Day (“Journalism without Fear or Favour”), an annual calendar date that commemorates and celebrates the universal human right to expression in the public arena. Without press freedom, it is impossible to envisage editorial independence in the media, and without editorial independence as an essential enabler of professional standards, journalism cannot thrive. These are not “nice to haves”. Society depends on journalism for the vibrancy of democracy and informed responses to crises.  Without journalism, a huge gap exists in holding states accountable for realizing their commitment to achieving progress in the areas covered by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The report provides a structured way of understanding the contemporary context of journalism in terms   of trends in editorial independence and professional standards. Each analysis constitutes the source of targeted recommendations at the end of the study. The report as a whole serve as a starting point for debate among and between governments, intergovernmental organizations, civil society, media actors, academics, internet   companies   and   other   stakeholders.   Such  discussions are key if independent journalism and its outputs are to persist and flourish as a matter of public good. The present report explores the above-mentioned themes and identifies relevant patterns and recent trends in how they have manifested themselves across the globe. It also seeks to give a sense of the responses from international and regional organizations, national governments, and other actors. While each of these three themes has its own distinctive dynamics and drivers, the interplay between them in relation to elections is particularly powerful.”

“In this toolkit, ARTICLE 19 provides a guide to identifying ‘hate speech’ and how to effectively counter it, while protecting the rights to freedom of expression and equality. It responds to a growing demand for clear guidance on identifying “hate speech,” and for responding to the challenges ‘hate speech’ poses within a human rights framework. [In particular] it addresses three key questions: 1) how do we identify ‘hate speech’ that can be restricted, and distinguish it from protected speech? 2) what positive measures can States and others take to counter ‘hate speech’? 3) which types of ‘hate speech’ should be prohibited by States, and under which circumstances? The toolkit is guided by the principle that coordinated and focused action taken to promote the rights to freedom of expression and equality is essential for fostering a tolerant, pluralistic and diverse democratic society in which all human rights can be realised for all people. It is informed by, and builds upon, ARTICLE 19’s existing policy work in this field.” The toolkit is structured so as to cover the absence of a uniform definition for ‘hate speech’ under International Human Rights Law, a typology for distinguishing between types of ‘hate speech’ as guided by States’ obligations, guidance on policy measures to be taken by State and non-State actors to enable a conducive environment for free speech and equality, the exceptional circumstances in which States are obligated to prohibit severest forms of ‘hate speech’, and the tests against which such prohibitions must be measured.

This video was a part of the ERA’s Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Human Rights, convened in Brussels in March 2020. In this live-stream, Dan Shefet (Lawyer, Cabinet Shefet, Paris) presents and discusses the advantages of AI decision-making to the justice system. He further discusses the “accountability of private corporations for human rights violations and the challenges in enforcing judgments against them abroad.”

“Media freedom has increasingly come under the spotlight in recent years. The threat to media freedom is often attributed to the recent rise of populist and authoritarian governments, with many world-leaders – including leaders of major democracies – increasingly seeming to view free media as an opponent, rather than a fundamental aspect of a free society. The knock-on effects of such actions can be grave, particularly given the important role that a free media plays in upholding democracy and democratic freedoms. Media freedom and pluralism are part of the rights and principles enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the European Convention on Human Rights. As the coronavirus pandemic continues to have significant ramifications for public health, social welfare and the economy, the crisis also presents a significant threat to media freedom. Media freedom proponents have warned that governments across the world could use the coronavirus emergency as a pretext for the implementation of new, draconian restrictions on free expression, as well as to increase press censorship. In its 2020 World Press Freedom Index, RSF argues that certain governments have used the crisis to impose media restrictions that in ordinary times would be impossible. The Council of Europe (CoE) Platform for the Protection of Journalists has warned that the fresh assault on media freedom amid the Covid-19 pandemic has worsened an already gloomy media freedom outlook.” In this Briefing, the European Parliament discusses: “1) the current state of media freedom, 2) the impact of coronavirus on media freedom, 3) the wider implications of media freedom restrictions, and 4) EU action to protect and boost media freedom.”

“This webinar, organized by the Bonavero Institute, UNESCO, and the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford), discusses the challenges for freedom of expression, access to information, privacy and related rights posed by measures adopted by governments around the world in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The panel is made up of Justice Edward Amoako Asante (President of the ECOWAS Court of Justice), Judge Darian Pavli (Judge at the European Court of Human Rights), Mr. Joan Barata (UNESCO expert; Center for Internet and Society and Cyber Policy Center, Stanford University) and Ms. Jennifer Robinson (prominent lawyer with expertise in media law, public law and international law) as speakers, and is chaired by Professor Kate O’ Regan (Director of the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights).”

“Many would argue that these are the fundamental goals of a good education. So why has Cambridge University taken to warning its students that the sexual violence in Titus Andronicus might be traumatic for them? Why are other universities in America and increasingly in Britain introducing measures to protect students from speech and texts they might find harmful? Safe spaces, trigger warnings and no-platforming are now campus buzzwords – and they’re all designed to limit free speech and the exchange of ideas. As celebrated social psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues in his book ‘The Coddling of the American Mind’, university students are increasingly retreating from ideas they fear may damage their mental health, and presenting themselves as fragile and in need of protection from any viewpoint that might make them feel unsafe. The culture of safety, as Haidt calls it, may be well intentioned, but it is hampering the development of young people and leaving them unprepared for adult life, with devastating consequences for them, for the companies that will soon hire them, and for society at large. That, Haidt’s critics argue, is an infuriating misinterpretation of initiatives designed to help students. Far from wanting to shut down free speech and debate, what really concerns the advocates of these new measures is the equal right to speech in a public forum where the voices of the historically marginalized are given the same weight as those of more privileged groups. Warnings to students that what they’re about to read or hear might be disturbing are not an attempt to censor classic literature, but a call for consideration and sensitivity. Safe spaces aren’t cotton-wool wrapped echo chambers, but places where minority groups and people who have suffered trauma can share their experiences without fear of hostility. In November 2018, Haidt came to the Intelligence Squared stage to discuss and debate these ideas. Joining him were the former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who believes that educating young people through debate and argument helps foster robustness, author and activist Eleanor Penny, and sociologist Kehinde Andrews, one of the UK’s leading thinkers on race and the history of racism.”

This issue brief on ‘The Right to Information in Times of Crisis’ is part of the UNESCO series ‘World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development’. It recognizes the heightened importance of information in crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and attends to the ways in which States can foster trust among members of the public by enabling and ensuring access during such crises. The key highlights of the brief include: “1) Public access to information serves public health and economic goals and should be seen as part of the response and not as an external burden. 2) The right to information is a fundamental human right. The experience of many countries shows that it is possible to maintain right to information systems during a health emergency. 3) States are under a positive obligation to disclose on a proactive basis key emergency-related health, budgetary, policy-making, procurement, economic, benefits-related and other information. 4) A health emergency may result in logistical barriers to the processing of requests for information, such as an inability to access physical documents or to provide information to requesters who are not digitally enabled. Workarounds should, as far as possible, be sought to this. 5) The view that public authorities are too busy to process requests for information during a health emergency can be addressed, in part, by extensive proactive disclosure as a way to limit the volume of requests. 6) Digital technologies provide robust means to maintain right to information systems during health emergencies. Building on lessons learnt during the COVID-19 pandemic, States should put in place robust digital systems for the right to information, including in preparation for possible crises.” The objective of the issue brief is for it to serve as referential guidance for UNESCO member States, civil society organizations, media outfits, academics, and internet companies.

“Left unfettered, the 21st-century speech environment threatens to undermine critical pieces of the democratic project. Speech operates today in ways unimaginable not only to the First Amendment’s 18th--century writers but also to its 20th-century champions. Key among these changes is that speech is cheaper and more abundant than ever before, and can be exploited—by both government and powerful private actors alike—as a tool for controlling others’ speech and frustrating meaningful public discourse and democratic outcomes. The Court’s longstanding First Amendment doctrine rests on a model of how speech works that is no longer accurate. This invites us to reconsider our answers to key questions and to adjust doctrine and theory to account for these changes. Yet there is a more or less to these re-imagining efforts: they may seek to topple, or instead to tweak, current theory and doctrine. Either route requires that reformers revisit the foundational questions underlying the Free Speech Clause: What, whom and how does it protect—and from whom, from what, and why?”

“Private social media companies regulate much more speech than any government does, and their platforms are being used to bring about serious harm. Yet companies govern largely on their own, and in secret. To correct this, advocates have proposed that companies follow international human-rights law. That law–by far the world’s best-known rules for governing speech–could improve regulation itself, and would also allow for better transparency and oversight on behalf of billions of people who use social media. This paper argues that for this to work, the law must first be interpreted to clarify how (and whether) each of its provisions are suited to this new purpose. For example, the law provides that speech may be restricted to protect national security, as one of only five permissible bases for limiting speech. Governments, for which international law was written, may regulate on that basis, but not private companies which have no national security to protect. To fill some of the gap, the paper explains and interprets the most relevant provisions of international human-rights law–Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which pertain to freedom of expression–for use by social media companies, in novel detail.”

The objective of this infographic, designed collaboratively by Projek Dialog and ARTICLE 19, is to respond to the “growing demand for clear guidelines to identify ‘hate speech’” and to address the “challenges it poses to human rights”. The infographic primarily endeavours to generate an understanding about the following: 1) what hate speech is, 2) how hate speech which can be restricted can be identified in juxtaposition to protected speech, and 3) the positive measures States and other stakeholders need to take in order to produce a countervailing effect to hate speech. 

This lecture is the sixth to be delivered in a series of lectures which are part of the Oxford Kashmir Forum’s online course on ‘International Human Rights Law and Kashmir: Prospects and Challenges’. In this lecture, Prof. David Kaye discusses the ways in which the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under International Human Rights Law as well as the obligations it imposes on States. In particular, Prof. Kaye emphasizes on the role such laws play in our online lives as well as discusses the nature of the function of the actors who animate the space of internet governance. Recognizing issues of speech and expression as some of the most direct as well as salient issues of law and public policy globally, he provokes his listener to think more deeply about what those issues are as well as who should determine answers to those issues in a democratic world.   

This issue brief on ‘Journalism, Press Freedom and COVID-19’ is part of the UNESCO series ‘World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development’. It highlights the key global trends in the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on the freedom of the press and journalism. These trends include: “1) fueling the pandemic, a dangerous “disinfodemic” has arisen, 2) against soaring demand for verified information, independent media have risen to the challenge, 3) technology companies are taking action, but more transparency is needed, 4) some regulatory measures have led to new restrictions of human rights, 5) to keep the public informed, journalists are putting their own safety at risk, 6) the economic impact of COVID-19 may pose an existential threat to journalism, 7) amid the crisis, there are new opportunities to stand up for journalism.” The objective of the issue brief is for it to serve as referential guidance for UNESCO member States, civil society organizations, media outfits, and internet companies.

Wehbé states that there is a duality between the legal recognition and practice of promoting the freedom of expression globally. In particular, at times when such freedom is most vital to the generation of the ‘consent of the governed’, International Law appears to allow for censorship. In this article, Wehbé makes the case for increasing international legal protections for freedom of expression with the objective of encouraging and fostering the growth of free governments. The article is divided into four sections, which outline the international legal protections for freedom of expression, the application of these protections in the context of emergent or re-emergent governments, and proposals by way of which multilateral treaty and State practice(s) can achieve the end of protecting freedom of expression.

This article aims at documenting the implementation of the Domain Name System in China, in coordination and in tension with the global Domain Name System since the end of the 1980s with the Chinese country-code top-level domain “.cn,” and more recently with the creation of Chinese-language domain names such as “.中国” and “.中文网.” It puts into perspective the notion of “digital sovereignty” by analysing the role of the DNS in the “localisation” of online content as part of the censorship system. It further shows that although Chinese representatives have always been very critical of the existing architecture and management of the DNS on the global stage, their attitude has evolved from de facto, bottom-up participation and protection of their interests to a more confident and assertive behaviour, as the growth of the Chinese Internet has put them in a more dominant position.

The exponential increase of Internet connectivity in China has generated a great deal of journalistic and scholarly work that has essentially documented the emergence of the Internet as an unprecedented, though censored, platform for public expression, and has assessed its political significance. Much attention has been paid to information control exercised by the Chinese government, notably in the form of the filtering system known as the Great Firewall, and of regulations forcing social network platforms to censor contents, as well as to the determinants of self-censorship on the users’ side. Much less is known, however, about the more diversified forms of power that are embedded in Internet governance, broadly conceived as the incremental conception, implementation, regulation, management, and uses of Internet networks and services. This issue focuses on a) the reliance of the Chinese government’s information control and propaganda on institutional arrangements and on the design of web platforms, b) analysis of the impact of Internet technical infrastructures and standards on the definition of a “Chinese” Internet and its implications for the strategic interests of the Chinese government.

This article explores the apparently ambivalent foundations of the notion of cybersovereignty as seen from China, through some of the most recent Chinese academic literature on global Internet governance. It shows that the sampled authors conceive of the current Internet order as an anarchic or disorderly space where global hegemons reproduce their domination over the world in the digital age. In the rather dichotomous world that this portrays, most of the authors concentrate their attention on the position and strategy of the United States, with a view to underlining the contradictions in American discourse through the PRISM scandal or the status of ICANN. In this context, most scholars studied here see the current situation, where Internet governance is increasingly debated, as an opportunity to rebalance the global Internet order and advance the strategic interests of China through the establishment of an intergovernmental Internet governance framework in the long term, and through active participation in the current status quo in the short term.

The Australian Constitution lacks a comprehensive statement of rights. The few rights which have been judicially recognized by the High Court of Australia have typically been narrowly interpreted. One such right is the freedom of political communication, which is a restricted/limited kind of free speech right. Though the early 1990s witnessed several decisions in which the freedom of speech was protected in fairly expansive ways, the doctrine was revised in 1997 due to growing doubts about its “more adventurous applications” within the Court. In Lange, the affirmation of the doctrine was accompanied by an emphasis on the limits imposed on the right by the text and structure of the Constitution, and the afterlife of Lange until Coleman witnessed the failure of all free speech challenges levelled in the High Court of Australia. In this article, Stone and Evans discuss how the decision in Coleman affirms the survival of the freedom of political communication as well as clarifies several aspects of the doctrine. They highlight that the quashing of Coleman’s conviction is reflective of the rejection of arguments about the legitimacy of the State’s endeavour to mandate civility in political communication. They argue that the Judiciary’s decision reveals a preference for public debate which tolerates insult as well as other forms of uncivil expression, and that such a justification “exposes the fragility of the consensus regarding the legitimacy of the implied freedom established in Lange.”

This introductory lesson on Freedom of Expression, delivered by Prof. Tomás Vial, is Lecture 9 of the free online course on International Human Rights Law offered by MOOC Chile. In this lesson, Prof. Vial explores answers to primarily two questions: 1) what is the freedom of expression? and 2) why is it an important right? Identifying the freedom of expression as an essential right in a democratic society, Prof. Vial elaborates on the following in this lesson: 1) sources of freedom of speech in International Human Rights Law, 2) the types of discourses which are protected and those which are not, 3) the main justifications for the protection of free expression, and, 4) the main restrictions to which the freedom of expression may be subjected.

“This report examines the international standards and principles applicable to the protection of freedom of opinion and expression during elections in the digital age. In the 2014 report to the Human Rights Council, the previous mandate holder examined the State’s obligations to respect and ensure freedom of expression in electoral contexts. This report reviews the nature and scope of these obligations in light of advances in technology and their impact on elections. Advances in information and communications technology have been critical to facilitating access to information and the free flow of ideas during elections. However, State and non-State actors have also exploited these advances to interfere with democratic participation and access to information during election periods, and to undermine the integrity of electoral processes. This report focuses on four such interferences: network shutdowns, efforts to combat the perceived spread of “fake news” and online disinformation, Direct Denial of Service (“DDoS”) attacks and interference with voters’ records and data.”

In this debate on ‘Freedom of the Press’, organized by the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Dartmouth and moderated by Richard Tofel, RonNell Andersen Jones (Professor of Law, University of Utah Quinney College of Law) and Andy Phillips (Partner and Litigator, Clare Locke law firm (DC)) discuss whether limitations should be imposed on the American press given the reportage of blatantly inaccurate fake news and incitement of violence by certain media outfits. The debate endeavours to explore different perspectives on and paths towards the proper resolution of the question about limitations on the press due to its pertinence to the role of the press in a democratic society as well as to the functioning of a democracy itself.

Social protest is recognized and protected as intrinsic to the existence and consolidation of democracies by the inter-American system of human rights. As per the instruments of the inter-American system, the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association guarantee and protect individual and collective forms of public expression of opinions, dissent, demand for compliance with human rights, and affirmation of the historically marginalized groups in society. Despite such recognition, the region continues to repress and limit the exercise of these rights in the public sphere, due to the notion of citizen mobilization being disruptive for public order or a threat to the stability of democratic institutions. The objective of this report, therefore, is to “contribute to a better understanding of State obligations aimed at guaranteeing, protecting, and facilitating public protests and demonstrations, as well as the standards that should frame the progressive use of force—and as a last resort—in protest contexts”. The report discusses: guiding principles, applicable legal framework, obligation to respect rights, obligation to protect and facilitate, obligation to guarantee rights, protests and the internet, access to information, states of emergency, and conclusions and recommendations. 

This interview, conducted by Mark Pearson with Dirk Voorhoof, provides insights into the manner in which freedom of expression operates internationally as well as regionally. Pearson and Voorhoof discuss the different levels of and multiple approaches to free expression and their breaches by training on them a comparative lens. Voorhoof’s responses focus on the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, in particular, to highlight the limitative nature of the cases in which the freedom of expression can be restricted, arguing that such jurisprudence urges States to upgrade their freedom of expression, particularly for the media and journalists. They also delve into the explicit recognition of the right to information and its pivotal nature as a tool in democracies, which enables actors such as the media and CSOs to fulfil their duties as public watchdogs.

Balkin argues that the conception of free speech which characterized the 20th century is inadequate to protect free speech and expression in the 21st century due to the transition from a dualistic model of speech regulation with two players to a pluralist model of speech regulation with multiple players. In this essay, he frames free speech as operationalizing as a triangle, with States and the European Union at one end, internet-infrastructure companies at another, and different kinds of speakers at the third end. He analyses the three problems which this triangle creates: 1) new-school speech regulation which produces collateral censorship and digital prior restraint, 2) the absence of due process and transparency in the manner in which privatized bureaucracies govern end-users, resulting in abuse and arbitrariness, and 3) the vulnerability of end-users to digital surveillance and manipulation. He discusses the ways in which States should or should not regulate the digital ecosystem in order to align with the values of freedom of speech and proposes reforms which can be implemented by Governments in consonance with the Constitutional guarantees of free speech and the press as long as they are properly-designed. These reforms are: 1) structural regulation with the aims of promoting competition and preventing discrimination by basic internet services and payment systems, 2) guaranteeing curatorial due process, and 3) the treatment of social media companies as information fiduciaries towards their end-users, who are responsible for upholding duties of trustworthiness and good faith.

An integral part of the international community’s efforts to end the impunity of those who attack journalists is bringing the perpetrators to justice and holding them accountable for their actions in accordance with the rule of law and human rights. These guidelines identify elements that should be analyzed in the decision-making process when an alleged crime is committed against a journalist and put into perspective the measures that may command the public interest, public order and the safeguard and confidence into the administration of justice.

Danbury explores the frequent tension between the statutory universality of human rights, in this case free speech on one hand, and the challenges to such assertions on cultural grounds on the other. Danbury points to four reasons that free speech should be universal: 1) discussions about free speech and related questions in liberal democracies that frequently invoke references to democracy and the values of liberalism can lead to a relativist assumption that liberal arguments that defend free speech are more limited than is appropriate; 2) placing liberal theories of free speech in a wider context draws attention to the fact that arguments that exist for free speech can be severed from debates about wider aspects of political philosophy; 3) the fact that the free-speech theories described can be somewhat disengaged from their political context is of importance in a world of Internet communication where, given the prevalence, immediacy, and internationality of such communication, questions of the relativity of freedom of speech become acute; and 4) free speech theories provide an approach that can be overlooked to resolving dilemmas related to speech within liberal democracies.

Danbury and Townend explore the practical implications of technological advances and legal structures on the assumption that “journalists should protect a source…whatever the personal and organisational cost.” They conclude that at the individual level, ethical codes should require journalists to warn sources of vulnerabilities before offering assurances of anonymity, while organisations should train journalists on how to have these conversations.

In this chapter, Danbury explores the legal and normative duties of investigative journalists to proactively supply law enforcement with information uncovered regarding terrorist activity. Though Danbury explains that journalists may have a duty to inform the state if they learn of an imminent attack, a proactive duty in other cases may risk compromising the work and safety of journalists.

"This article examines the ‘Joint Declarations on freedom of expression’ from a critical perspective. Since 1999, these Joint Declarations have been adopted annually by the four intergovernmental mechanisms on freedom of expression with the assistance of two non-governmental organisations. This article identifies the factors which contribute to the Joint Declarations’ value, with a specific focus on the collaborative process leading up to their adoption, their progressive content and their demonstrated influence upon courts and other actors. It also acknowledges the limitations of the texts, including their non-binding nature as soft law, their limited impact and lack of visibility. Notwithstanding these issues, this article contends that the Joint Declarations constitute a distinct and potentially influential body of international soft law on freedom of expression, one whose relevance to policy debates deserves broader recognition."

“October 2016 marked the 35th anniversary of the adoption of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights - the first two decades of which the meaning, normative content and scope of the right of access to information guaranteed by article 9 of the Charter were largely unexplored. However, the implementation bodies of the African Charter subsequently have whittled down challenges posed by the narrow formulation of article 9, its claw-back clause and the undemocratic practices of African regimes in relying on vague and widely-drafted laws to deny access to state-held information on grounds of state security. This article examines the methodologies adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights to supplement and entrench a substantive right of access to information compatible with international standards in article 9. The article finds that an overhauled article 9 dictates that the right of access to information held by public and private bodies is a fundamental right, indispensable to the health of a democracy and a means of protecting other rights, especially socio-economic rights. The right may in recognised instances be restricted, including on grounds of national security, only as clearly provided by law to serve a legitimate purpose and as necessary in a democratic society. The article proposes that state parties to the African Charter engage with the logic and reasoning of its implementation bodies to adopt measures and align their constitutional frameworks with the fundamental principles of access to information.”

"Many human rights have a dual value in that their realisation is both an important end, and a means to enable the realisation of other rights. The effective implementation of these kinds of rights is thus particularly important for advancing rights-based democracy. However, in practice, the implementation of such rights is often problematic. The article examines access to information and protest as examples of such ‘enabling’ rights. Drawing on the experience of communities and civil society organisations, it identifies and discusses some striking similarities in the way in which the legislation promulgated to give effect to these two rights in South Africa is being implemented, and argues that the problematic implementation of legislation is having the effect of thwarting these rights, rather than promoting them. Further, it argues that the existence of such striking similarities may point to a more systemic problem of civil and political rights failing to enable the realisation of socio-economic rights."

"The adoption in 2013 of the Model Law on Access to Information for Africa by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights is an important landmark in the increasing elaboration of human rights-related soft law standards in Africa. Although non-binding, the Model Law significantly influenced the access to information landscape on the continent. Since the adoption of the Model Law, the Commission adopted several General Comments. The AU similarly adopted Model Laws such as the African Union Model Law on Internally Displaced Persons in Addressing Internal Displacement in Africa. This collection of essays inquires into the role and impact of soft law standards within the African human rights system and the AU generally. It assesses the extent to which these standards induced compliance, and identifies factors that contribute to generating such compliance. This book is a collection of papers presented at a conference organised by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, with the financial support of the government of Norway, through the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Pretoria. Following the conference, the papers were reviewed and reworked."

In this segment of the MOOC 'International and African Legal Framework on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and the Safety of Journalists' developed by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria with the support of UNESCO, Pansy Tlakula talks about freedom of expression and hate speech.

This segment is part of Module 5: Protecting freedom of expression in the digital age.

In this segment of the MOOC 'International and African Legal Framework on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and the Safety of Journalists' developed by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria with the support of UNESCO, Frank La Rue talks about freedom of expression online and its challenges.

This segment is part of Module 5: Protecting freedom of expression in the digital age.

In this segment of the MOOC 'International and African Legal Framework on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and the Safety of Journalists' developed by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria with the support of UNESCO, Frank La Rue talks about freedom of expression online.

This segment is part of Module 5: Protecting freedom of expression in the digital age.

In this segment of the MOOC 'International and African Legal Framework on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and the Safety of Journalists' developed by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria with the support of UNESCO, Frank La Rue talks about Access to information, freedom of expression and UN Sustainable Development Goals.

This segment is part of Module 4 of the MOOC: The right of access to information in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and African standards.

In this segment of the MOOC 'International and African Legal Framework on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and the Safety of Journalists' developed by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria with the support of UNESCO, Pansy Tlakula talks about the adoption of the Model Law on Access to Information in Africa.

This segment is part of Module 4 of the MOOC: The right of access to information in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and African standards.

In this segment of the MOOC 'International and African Legal Framework on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and the Safety of Journalists' developed by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria with the support of UNESCO, professor Guy Berger talks about the internet and access to information.

This segment is part of Module 4 of the MOOC: The right of access to information in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and African standards.

In this segment of the MOOC 'International and African Legal Framework on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and the Safety of Journalists' developed by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria with the support of UNESCO, professor Frans Viljoen explains the right to access information in the African system.

This segment is part of Module 4 of the MOOC: The right of access to information in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and African standards.

In this segment of the MOOC 'International and African Legal Framework on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and the Safety of Journalists' developed by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria with the support of UNESCO, professor Guy Berger talks about safety in the digital world.

This segment is part of Module 3 of the MOOC: The safety of journalists and the issue of impunity.

In this segment of the MOOC 'International and African Legal Framework on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and the Safety of Journalists' developed by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria with the support of UNESCO, Frank La Rue explains international standards on safety of journalists (specifically, prevention, protection and procurement of justice).   

This segment is part of Module 3 of the MOOC: The safety of journalists and the issue of impunity.

In this segment of the MOOC 'International and African Legal Framework on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and the Safety of Journalists' developed by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria with the support of UNESCO, Pansy Tlakula explains standards on protections of sources and whistleblowers.

This segment is part of Module 3 of the MOOC: The safety of journalists and the issue of impunity.

In this segment of the MOOC 'International and African Legal Framework on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and the Safety of Journalists' developed by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria with the support of UNESCO, Justice Ben Kioko explains the landmark case Beneficiaries of the Late Norbert Zongo and others v. Burkina Faso Justice rendered by the African Court of Human and People’s rights.

This segment is part of Module 3 of the MOOC: The safety of journalists and the issue of impunity.

In this segment of the MOOC 'International and African Legal Framework on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and the Safety of Journalists' developed by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria with the support of UNESCO, professor Frans Viljoen explains the particular provisions in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ rights that deals with freedom of expression (article 9). Viljoen also references some seminal case law.

This segment is part of Module 2 of the MOOC: Legitimate restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.

In this segment of the MOOC 'International and African Legal Framework on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and the Safety of Journalists' developed by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria with the support of UNESCO, Justice Ben Kioko explains the landmark case Lohé Issa Konaté v. The Republic of Burkina Faso rendered by the African Court of Human and People’s rights.

This segment is part of Module 2 of the MOOC: Legitimate restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.

In this segment of the MOOC 'International and African Legal Framework on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and the Safety of Journalists' developed by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria with the support of UNESCO, Pansy Tlakula explains the right to freedom of expression under the African Charter and international law.

This segment is part of Module 2 of the MOOC: Legitimate restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.

"This Study, produced by Toby Mendel, Executive Director of [Centre for Law and Democracy] in 2006 for the UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide provides an in-depth analysis of the different international law rules on incitement to genocide and racial hatred, comparing the different rules and probing the way that the concept of incitement has been treated under both of them."

"This paper is a contribution to a book published in Macedonia called the Black Book of Shame, which focuses on attempts by the powerful to silence the media and others using legal tools in the post-communist period. The paper outlines international standards regarding hate speech, with a particular focus on the constitutive elements of a crime of hate speech which is compatible with freedom of expression guarantees."

"This paper, which was prepared as a background document for meetings by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, provides a comprehensive analysis of the scope and nature of restrictions on freedom of expression under international law, posing questions for further thought. It analyses, among others, the scope of the right, including positive obligations, what constitutes an interference with freedom of expression, the three-part test for restrictions on this right, and positive obligations to restrict freedom of expression (such as hate speech rules)."

"It is legitimate for states to exempt information whose release would be prejudicial to national security from their disclosure laws. But in order to insure that this exemption is not abused it is important to develop an acceptably narrow definition of what constitutes national security. To this end, the Centre for Law and Democracy has produced a paper examining how national security should be defined in the context of information disclosure. The paper was produced as a contribution to the “Principles on National Security and the Right to Information” currently being developed by the Open Society Initiative."

"Almost 90 countries around the world have enacted access to information (ATI) legislation, and in many of these countries, reforms and amendments are either being considered or have been passed. However, even minor adjustments to the legal framework around ATI laws can have substantial impact on how the law is implemented and used. In order to address the challenges of access to information reform, the World Bank Institute has recently published this working paper by Toby Mendel, Executive Director of Centre for Law and Democracy. The paper looks at the main substantive issues ATI reform attempts have targeted and what legal forms they may take. It also examines the role different actors—civil society, the media, oversight bodies, parliaments, and political leaders—can play in helping support the adoption of reforms that promote openness and defeat those that erect barriers."

This book on Freedom of Information by Toby Mendel helps to answer some of the questions faced by “those tasked with drafting and/or promoting legislation guaranteeing the right to know in accordance with the principle of maximum disclosure”. The book describes “the international standards which have been established in this area and some of the key features of effective freedom of information legislation. Importantly, it illustrates the way in which ten countries and two international organisations have dealt with these difficult issues.”

"States all over the world are enacting new laws that criminalize insults, and using existing insult laws with renewed vigour. In this article, we examine state practice, treaty provisions, and case law on insulting speech. We conclude that insulting speech is currently insufficiently protected under international law and regulated by confused case law and commentary. We explain that the three principal international treaties that regulate speech provide conflicting guidance on the right to insult in international law, and the treaty provisions have been interpreted in inconsistent ways by international courts and United Nations bodies. We conclude by recommending that international law should recognize a "right to insult" and, drawing on US practice under the First Amendment, we propose eight recommendations to guide consideration of insulting speech in international law. These recommendations would promote coherence in international legal standards and offer greater protection to freedom of speech."

"Government officials in various parts of the world use defamation to silence critics, but defamation liability may curtail freedom of expression on topics of public interest and undermine human rights generally. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees freedom of expression unless a state can show need to protect individual reputation and acts proportionally. In its adjudication of complaints for violations of Article 19, and in its General Comment 34, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has crafted the principle that defamation liability may not be imposed if an erroneous statement about a public official was made in “error but without malice.” Although soft law, General Comment 34 represents the committee's most compelling articulation of the values animating freedom of expression in international human rights law, and chief among the values is the role played by free expression to promote realization of all human rights."

"Free Expression and Democracy takes on the assumption that limits on free expression will lead to authoritarianism or at least a weakening of democracy. That hypothesis is tested by an examination of issues involving expression and their treatment in countries included on The Economist's list of fully functioning democracies. Generally speaking, other countries allow prohibitions on hate speech, limits on third-party spending on elections, and the protection of children from media influences seen as harmful. Many ban Holocaust denial and the desecration of national symbols. Yet, these other countries all remain democratic, and most of those considered rank more highly than the United States on the democracy index. This book argues that while there may be other cultural values that call for more expansive protection of expression, that protection need not reach the level present in the United States in order to protect the democratic nature of a country."