Freedom Of Expression Online Research Articles

Decentralized social networks and the future of free speech online

Decentralized social networks like Mastodon and BlueSky are trending topics that have drawn much attention and discussion in recent years. By devolving powers from the central node to the end users, decentralized social networks aim to cure existing pathologies on the centralized platforms and have been viewed by many as the future of the Internet. This article critically and systematically assesses the decentralization project's prospect for communications online. It uses normative theories of free speech to examine whether and how the decentralization design could facilitate users’ freedom of expression online. The analysis shows that both promises and pitfalls exist, highlighting the importance of value-based design in this area. Two most salient issues for the design of the decentralized networks are: how to balance the decentralization ideal with constant needs of centralization on the network, and how to empower users to make them truly capable of exercising their control. The article then uses some design examples, such as the shared blocklist and the opt-in search function, to illustrate the value considerations underlying the design choices. Some tentative proposals for law and policy interventions are offered to better facilitate the design of the new network. Rather than providing clear answers, the article seeks to map the value implications of the design choices, highlight the stakes, and point directions for future research.

Southeast Asian Civil Society Organizations and Digital Rights in the Age of China’s Digital Silk Road

Abstract: This article analyzes the activities of Southeast Asian civil society organizations (CSOs) with regard to citizens’ online freedom of expression (digital rights) against the backdrop of China’s increasing digital investments in the region through its Digital Silk Road (DSR) concept. CSO behavior relating to citizens’ digital rights contributes to the on-the-ground, agency-driven perspective among countries that are targets of Chinese digital infrastructure investments. This perspective is underrepresented in the literature surrounding China’s contemporary global rise. Focusing specifically on Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines—three countries that rank as “high” recipients of Beijing’s media influence (one form of digital technology influence)—this article sheds light on two phenomena. First, the Southeast Asian CSO landscape currently focuses on pressing issues threatening freedom of expression in national and regional spaces, such as national government surveillance, misinformation campaigns, and internet shutdowns, more so than the “digital Chinese threat.” Second, although pushback against the threats to Southeast Asians’ digital rights often has connections to China’s digital technologies, the reality that digital repression techniques are organized and executed by Southeast Asian governmental regimes (and not by Chinese actors) generates contradictions that run counter to the democratic ideals espoused by these countries and align more closely with the Chinese states’ views relating to information organization and control.

Far Right > Digital Rights: The Precarity of Free Expression, Internet Access, Net Neutrality and Data Privacy in Bolsonaro’s Brazil

The election of Jair Bolsonaro to the Brazilian Presidency in 2018 was a politically destabilising event with far-reaching consequences. The fate of digital rights in Brazil was particularly impacted, with the legacy of the celebrated Marco Civil da Internet rights charter called into question. By examining the many ways that the fragile gains of the Marco Civil were corroded during the Bolsonaro presidency – including systematic attacks on freedom of expression online, disinformation campaigns, the violation of network neutrality through zero rating, and the continuing assault on privacy rights – we can understand the multi-pronged nature of Bolsonaro’s assault on the public sphere in Brazil as well as the inadequacy of digital rights in safeguarding against the conjoined threats of platform capitalism and far-right populism.

Restrictions on Freedom of Expression Under Chinese President Xi Jinping in the Globalization Era

Much literature has highlighted the current Chinese government’s restriction on freedom of expression on the internet and religious freedom. However, very little research has examined the nexus between freedom of expression in China and globalization. This article aims to offer a view on President Xi Jinping’s increasing autocracy over the freedom of expression and its implications on China’s performance in this globalizing world. A qualitative approach was utilized in this study and data were collected via library research. It was found that China’s increasing autocracy under Xi Jinping, as shown in its tightening controls on online freedom of expression and rules on religious freedom, has created a setback for China’s participation in globalization. This argument lies in two basic assumptions. Firstly, the spirit of globalization enables people to interact around the globe more freely in any way, while China’s government restricts such interaction. Secondly, as a significant global player, China shows little respect for the freedom of religion. Accordingly, it violates the globalization of religious liberty, which is considered a universal human right in the 21st century. KEYWORDSChina; freedom of expression; globalization; religious freedom

Social media before domestic courts in Europe: An analysis of free speech cases

Social media arose as a way to communicate with friends, but it evolved to become a significant medium through which individuals exercise their right to free speech. At the same time, social media has raised a variety of challenges for fundamental rights. Whereas national and supranational legislators play a key role in terms of governing social media, court decisions are a test-bed for the protection of fundamental rights in a social media context. This article seeks to shed light on the social media jurisprudence of constitutional and supreme courts in a selected set of EU Member States. It examines in particular the contribution of national judiciaries to the protection of freedom of expression online and its balancing with other rights and interests in a social media setting. The focus is on cases that concern political speech, cases that examine the application of safeguards for the press on social media, and cases that reflect upon the impact of social media on legacy media regulation, that is, regulation for the mass media from the pre-digital age. The analysis identifies key trends in domestic judicial reasoning and shows the importance of fundamental rights as an interpretative tool for judicial decision-making on social media standards.

The ‘right to be forgotten’ online within G20 statutory data protection frameworks

Although it is the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and the Google Spain judgment which has brought the concept of the ʻright to be forgottenʼ online to the fore, this paper argues that its basic underpinnings are present in the great majority of G20 statutory frameworks. Whilst China, India, Saudi Arabia and the United States remain exceptional cases, fifteen out of nineteen (almost 80%) of G20 countries now have fully-fledged statutory data protection laws. By default, almost all of these laws empower individuals to challenge the continued dissemination of personal data not only when such data may be inaccurate but also on wider legitimacy grounds. Moreover, eleven of these countries have adopted statutory ʻintermediaryʼ shields which could help justify why certain online platforms may be required to respond to well-founded ex post challenges even if they lack most ex ante duties here. Nevertheless, the precise scope of many data protection laws online remains opaque and the relationship between such laws and freedom of expression is often unsatisfactory. Despite this, it is argued that G20 countries and G20 Data Protection Authorities should strive to achieve proportionate and effective reconciliation between online freedom of expression and ex post data protection claims, both through careful application of existing law and ultimately through and under new legislative initiatives.

Ulusal Çıkarlar Versus Online İfade Özgürlüğü: İnternet Kullanıcılarının Türkiye’de ‘Wikipedia’nın Engellenmesi Üzerine Tartışmaları

In 2017, The Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA) blocked online access to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia in Turkey due to its articles and comments that mention Turkey as a country that seems to be in coordination and aligned with various terrorist groups. Since then, the blocking has been criticized by Turkish people as a violation of the right of access to knowledge and a crackdown on online freedom of expression. However, freedom of expression becomes controversial when expression appears to threaten some important national interests. This paper aims at providing a framework for resolving questions about the recognition of online information rights, by finding out the rationale behind online users’ arguments on freedom of expression. In this article, online users’ comments on the blocking of Wikipedia in Turkey are analyzed. The findings reveal that most of the users disapprove the blocking. Both opponents and approvers discussed the issue by putting a broad framework and they put forward very different arguments to justify their attitude.

The Brazilian Presidential Election of 2018 and the relationship between technology and democracy in Latin America

PurposeThe purpose of this paper selected by ICIL 2019 committee in Rome is to demonstrate the current importance of the internet in the protection of democracy in developting countries.Design/methodology/approachIt is intended to make a comparison with the growing and current phenomenon of Brazilian disinformation with other contemporary phenomena related to new technologies through literature review methodology.FindingsThe Brazilian elections in 2018 represent an authentic model in a post-Cambridge Analytical phase where the myth of the sanctity of data has been broken. The big influence of the algorithmic revolution on democracies in Latin America has never been more evident. The misuse of algorithms created an artificial environment that does not put us in contact with different realities; the consequences of this conjuncture have the deepest impacts, especially in countries that rely on a deficient educational system.Social implicationsBesides that, the broad use of zero-rating on the internet delivery in developing countries is also considered a factor of fake news dissemination. The information bubbles promote political polarization to the detriment of diversity – and the diversity is par excellence one of the pillars of democracy.Originality/valueThe research about the impact that the phenomenon of disinformation has on underdeveloped countries, it is essential to analyze the new role of the legislator in the elaboration of hypercomplex laws with multi-stakeholder interests that respect the essential core of digital human rights as the freedom of expression online.

Freedom of Expression & Hate Speech in the EU’s Digital Age: ‘To What Extent Have the Approaches to 'Online Freedom of Expression' of both the Council of Europe and the European Union Demonstrated that Eu Law Is Fit for Purpose in the Digital Age? Following from This, What Lessons Can the EU Legislature Learn from the Aforementioned Approaches in Drafting

Freedom of Expression & Hate Speech in the EU’s Digital Age: ‘To What Extent Have the Approaches to 'Online Freedom of Expression' of both the Council of Europe and the European Union Demonstrated that Eu Law Is Fit for Purpose in the Digital Age? Following from This, What Lessons Can the EU Legislature Learn from the Aforementioned Approaches in Drafting

The ‘Right to be Forgottenʼ Online within G20 Statutory Data Protection Frameworks

Although it is the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and the Google Spain judgment which has brought the concept of the ʻright to be forgottenʼ online to the fore, this paper argues that its basic underpinnings are present in the great majority of G20 statutory frameworks. Whilst China, India, Saudi Arabia and the United States remain exceptional cases, fifteen out of nineteen (almost 80%) of G20 countries now have fully-fledged statutory data protection laws. By default, almost all of these laws empower individuals to challenge the continued dissemination of personal data not only when such data may be inaccurate but also on wider legitimacy grounds. Moreover, eleven of these countries have adopted statutory ʻintermediaryʼ shields which could help justify why certain online platforms may be required to respond to well-founded ex post challenges even if they lack most ex ante duties here. Nevertheless, the precise scope of many data protection laws online remains opaque and the relationship between such laws and freedom of expression is often unsatisfactory. Despite this, it is argued that G20 countries and G20 Data Protection Authorities should strive to achieve proportionate and effective reconciliation between online freedom of expression and ex post data protection claims, both through careful application of existing law and ultimately through and under new legislative initiatives.

Redefining Freedom of Speech in the Digital Environment from an EU law Perspective

This paper discusses the freedom of expression in the digital environment from an EU law perspective. The author proposes to apprehend it as an autonomous concept. In the first part, the general legal regulation of online freedom of expression is analysed, with reference to the three-part test and the specific case of hate speech. In the second part, the paper uses copyright law as a case study of how balancing of rights is applied by the courts, with reference to the mechanism of blocking orders. However, the author regrets the lack of reference to freedom of expression in the recent discussion about the qualification of hyperlinks as communication to the public. In the third part, three characteristics of online freedom of expression are addressed: the application between individuals (horizontal effect), the intermediaries' protection and the principle of neutrality.

Expressions on Platforms:

Freedom of expression online and Internet Service Providers are closely connected. Consequently, when dealing with the regulation of their liability, it is necessary that public actors take deeply into consideration how the ISP’s liability regime affects fundamental rights. Recently, in the framework of the European Digital Single Market Strategy, the EU Commission have issued two proposals which would impact on the ISP’s system of liability in Europe and, as a result, on freedom of expression. Hence, it is necessary to analyse the potential drawbacks, providing, from a comparative perspective, alternative solutions which comply with the EU constitutional framework.

The Access-Based Jurisdictional Principle in Internet-Related Cases

This study focuses on the access-based jurisdictional approach and on the effect that this approach can have on the fulfilment of freedom of expression online. The term access-based jurisdictional approach describes the criterion used by some national courts to establish jurisdiction in Internet-related cases. There are two distinctive elements that define the access-based jurisdictional approach. First, this approach is used by national courts to establish jurisdiction over content published online but uploaded and hosted outside the domestic forum. Second, the basis upon which jurisdiction is exercised is that the content published online from within the territory of a foreign State can be accessed within the territory of the country exercising jurisdiction. This study aims to answer the following research questions: how has the access-based jurisdictional approach so far been applied by national courts dealing with Internet-related cases? What are the main characteristics of this approach? Can establishing jurisdiction based on access affect the fulfilment of freedom of expression online? This study argues that the accessbased jurisdictional approach allows countries to apply their laws extraterritorially to regulate virtually any content published online. This fact limits the freedom of expression of Internet users located in foreign States and subjected to foreign jurisdictions. In theory, these parties should only comply with the laws of their countries when uploading content on the Internet, rather than being expected to abide by the laws of every country where that content is accessible. This thesis is developed through the analysis of seven leading Internet jurisdiction cases discussed before national courts in Europe, North America and East Asia where the access-based jurisdictional approach was adopted: Dow Jones v Gutnick, Young v New Haven Advocate, Coleman v MGN Limited, Breeden v Black, Yeung v Google Inc., R v Perrin and LICRA and UEJF v Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo France. Overall, this study identifies the problems associated with the exercise of jurisdiction based on access to online content and highlights the need for national courts to abandon this approach. The paper also examines the positive and negative aspects of adopting an alternative jurisdictional criterion, such as the targeting test.

The Battle against Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression Online

The issue of hate speech has gained another dimension since the creation of the newest mass media: spreading of hatred online. There will be created a clear view on the problem of defining hate speech and the limitation of freedom of speech by the European Court of Human Rights combined with the reasoning of more focus on the online aspect, its characteristics and causes of generating more hate, harm and similar behaviour. This will lead to a human rights approach, including legal comparison, social angles and a focus on society as a whole. This paper will assess the need for a new impulse for battling hate speech, due to the lack of definition, framework and eye for new actors and the characteristics of the internet which are of importance for the actor and victim.

Are courts re-inventing Internet regulation?

ABSTRACTThe article reviews the evolution and key dimensions of the jurisprudence around the world as it relates to the Internet regulation and governance. It argues that while the judicial sector played a fairly marginal role as far as on-line issues were concerned in the first two decades of the Internet development, judicial rulings have now emerged as one of the main forces shaping on-line freedom of expression and information and the Internet governance. The article reviews a number of decisions from Europe and Latin America to demonstrate that judicial ruling are challenging some of the Internet’s founding principles and values. They have become highly influential, not just as interpreters of the law (the tribunals’ traditional function) but as shapers or transformers of the Internet norms and values. This evolution has become particularly clear over the last three to five years, demonstrating the increasing confidence of judges and Tribunals in challenging engineers, users, corporations, or indeed governments and possibly establishing different norms as far as the cyberspace is concerned.

Public Opinion Toward Internet Freedom in Asia: A Survey of Internet Users from 11 Jurisdictions

Introduction: This document summarizes the findings from a survey of Asian Internet users. The purpose of the study is to understand the public opinion toward issues related to Internet freedom in Asia. This report provides a basic overview of the opinions and behaviors on a number of topics related to Internet freedom, including but not limited to Internet censorship and the adoption and use of circumvention, anonymization, and encryption tools. Method: The survey was carried out between July 29 and August 24, 2015 in 11 jurisdictions: Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. The original list includes China, but the widespread self-censorship practice in the market research industry prevented the study from being carried out in China — which attests to the very limited press and research freedom in China. The survey was fielded by YouGov, a well-known international online opinion polling service provider headquartered in the United Kingdom. In total, 7,357 respondents from different countries and regions participated in the survey. The survey is not intended to be representative of the general population of the 11 jurisdictions. Instead, quota sampling was used, based on gender, age, education, and income distributions of the Internet population in each jurisdiction. Key Findings: There is robust and strong support for Internet freedom in Asia. About 78% of respondents agree that freedom of expression on the Internet needs to be protected, and nearly 90% consider access to the Internet a basic human right. The robust support for freedom of expression online is accompanied by almost equally strong support for Internet censorship. More than two thirds of respondents agree that some form of censorship is needed on the Internet: 19.4% express strong agreement and 54.5% express agreement. Nevertheless, respondents disagree on whether it is desirable to censor religiously offensive and political content. A majority agree it is necessary to censor pornography, gambling, and copyright infringing content. While respondents disagree on what content should be censored, a large majority strongly agree that censorship rules and decisions should be made public and transparent (74.1%). Internet users in Asia, when asked whom they trust most to manage the global Internet, are more likely to choose software or search engine companies (e.g. Microsoft, Google) (33%) and the multi-stakeholder model (29%) than other options (e.g., local or national government, telecommunication companies, etc.). On average, 71% of respondents believe online censorship currently exists in their respective jurisdictions. About a quarter of respondents report having used circumvention (23.5%), anonymization (25.0%), and encryption tools (26.7%) to access censored or blocked information online. It is important to note that cross-country variation is substantial in Asia. Respondents in Japan and Korea express low to moderate support for Internet freedom, low support for Internet censorship, low volume of circumvention and anonymization technology use, low privacy protection behavior, and low levels of online censorship. In contrast, respondents in India and Vietnam show an opposite pattern. Respondents in Singapore and Thailand are in the “moderate” group. In both Hong Kong and Malaysia, people are more supportive of Internet freedom than censorship, and they adopt many non-technical (but not technical) privacy protection measures. Indonesia, Pakistan, and Taiwan comprise the last group: in all three jurisdictions, respondents indicate high levels of support for Internet censorship but relatively low levels of support for Internet freedom.

Networked communication and the reprise of tolerance theory: Civic education for extreme speech and private governance online

Digital intermediaries such as Facebook and Twitter have the power to remove extreme or harmful speech from their platforms after individual users have “flagged” that speech. Such power over the public discourse in the hands of individuals and digital intermediaries raises concerns for online freedom of expression. This article asks: how can First Amendment principles be applied to assess this system of private governance of extreme speech? This article argues that Lee Bollinger’s tolerance theory offers the best interpretation of First Amendment principles to apply to assessing this system due to its unique focus on individual intolerance toward extreme speech.

Freedom of Expression On-Line

This article analyses the contents of the universal right to free expression in the context of its applicability on-line. It starts off with a brief recapitulation of the origin, definition and interpretation of the right to free expression, derived from article 19 UDHR. It then goes on to name the three composite rights (the right to hold, impart and receive information and ideas) and details the limitations that may be put by states upon the individual exercise of those freedoms. States' duty to protect free expression is than identified as their negative obligation to refrain from infringement as well as a positive one, to guarantee that human rights are “protected, respected and remedied” within national legal systems. Then the role of Internet Service Providers is introduced as the gate keepers of free expression in the information society. Different schemes for national ISP liability mechanisms are presented: the notice-and-take down procedure as well as Internet content filtering (preventive censorship). The paper goes on to criticize both mechanisms as enabling ISPs too much freedom in deciding upon the shape and scope of individuals' right to impart and receive information.

App Neutrality: Apple’s App Store and Freedom of Expression Online

Apple’s wireless devices have become a critical entry point into the Internet. But unlike the broader Internet, which can be construed as a relatively open communications network, the iOS app store is arguably a closed technological ecosystem. Developers must gain Apple’s approval before distributing their apps through the store. Some have criticized the company’s app review and approval process for being opaque and arbitrary. This process has also resulted in the rejection of both explicitly and implicitly political apps. This article analyzes Apple’s guidelines and approval process, discusses content-based rejections of apps, and outlines the consequences of this process for developers’ and consumers’ freedom of expression. It also argues for principles that guarantee “app neutrality” while also guaranteeing device safety and quality control.

The New Internet World: A Global Perspective on Freedom of Expression, Privacy, Trust and Security Online

Worldwide diffusion of the Internet is focusing debate around values and attitudes that are likely to vary across cultures, particularly around online freedom of expression, privacy, trust and security. However, we know relatively little about the opinions of users around the world. How do users see these issues, and how are they experiencing the impact of the Internet in these areas? This paper reports on a survey of over 5,400 adult Internet users from thirteen different countries, who participated in an online survey conducted by the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) and INSEAD, in collaboration with Comscore. The survey was designed to better understand cross-cultural differences in user behaviour and attitudes, focusing on freedom of expression, privacy, trust, and security. Findings from this study show that a global Internet culture has emerged as users across countries often share similar viewpoints and habits related to these vital matters pertaining to the Internet. Users worldwide generally support and desire freedom of expression, privacy, trust and security online, without signalling a willingness for tradeoffs among these potentially conflicting values and priorities. However, users in the newly adopting countries, which are becoming the dominant online population, express even greater support for the most basic value underpinning the Internet – freedom of expression. In addition, the users in nations that are more recently embracing the Internet are also outpacing users in older adopting nations in their innovative uses of the Internet. We conclude that a new Internet world is emerging which may lead to many shifts in the Internet’s global centre of gravity – ones that will have major implications for the future of the Internet.