{"id":1721,"date":"2024-06-14T12:09:30","date_gmt":"2024-06-14T11:09:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-digital-rights-europe\/module-1-key-principles\/introduction-copy\/"},"modified":"2024-06-17T08:42:51","modified_gmt":"2024-06-17T07:42:51","slug":"freedom-of-expression-2","status":"publish","type":"publication","link":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-digital-rights-europe\/module-1-key-principles\/freedom-of-expression-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Freedom of Expression and Online Restrictions"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In 2022, international digital rights advocacy organisation Access Now published a report<\/a> documenting the use of digital technology by both authoritarian and democratic regimes in Eastern Europe and Central Asia to \u201cadvance their interests at the expense of people\u2019s freedoms.\u201d For example, it notes that \u201cartificial intelligence algorithms are used for racial profiling, spyware tools threaten people\u2019s privacy, and digital identity programs undermine data protection and enable discrimination.\u201d[footnote]Access Now, available at https:\/\/www.accessnow.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Digital-dictatorship-authoritarian-tactics-and-resistance-in-Eastern-Europe-and-Central-Asia-Access-Now.pdf.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In parts of Europe, concerns have been raised about \u201cthe expansion of ubiquitous data collection systems, including biometric surveillance, powered by artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithmic decision-making,\u201d \u201cinternet shutdowns and other network disruptions, as well as mass and targeted surveillance,\u201d \u201cgovernment hacking or state-sponsored online harassment campaigns,\u201d and \u201cthe expansion of digital authoritarian practices outside national borders through targeting diaspora or the export of surveillance technology.\u201d[footnote]European Parliament, \u2018Digital technologies as a means of repression and social control\u2019 (2021) (accessible at https:\/\/www.europarl.europa.eu\/RegData\/etudes\/STUD\/2021\/653636\/EXPO_STU(2021)653636_EN.pdf).[\/footnote] The effect of these measures is that freedom of expression online is restricted, often unjustifiably.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 19(2) of the ICCPR stipulates that the right to freedom of expression applies regardless of frontiers and through any media of one\u2019s choice. The UN General Comment No. 34 further explains that article 19(2) includes internet-based modes of communication.[footnote]See UNHRC, \u2018General Comment 34 on Article 19: Freedom of Expression\u2019 (2011) (accessible at https:\/\/www2.ohchr.org\/english\/bodies\/hrc\/docs\/gc34.pdf) at para. 12.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a 2016 resolution, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC<\/a>) affirmed that:[footnote]UNHRC, \u2018Resolution on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the internet\u2019, (2016) at para. 1 (accessible at https:\/\/digitallibrary.un.org\/record\/845728?ln=en).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

[T]he same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one\u2019s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

While freedom of expression is clearly protected by a considerable body of treaty law, it can also be regarded as a principle of customary international law, given how frequently the principle is enunciated in treaties, as well as other soft law instruments. Most human rights treaties, including those dedicated to the protection of the rights of specific groups \u2014 such as women, children, and people with disabilities \u2014 also make explicit mention of freedom of expression.[footnote]Id.[\/footnote] The European Convention on Human Rights (the \u2018ECHR\u2019) provides protection for freedom of expression through Article 10:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    The European Court of Human Rights (the \u2018ECtHR\u2019) has noted in a number of cases that the Internet provides an unprecedented platform for the exercise of freedom of expression,[footnote]Delfi AS v. Estonia<\/em> [GC], no. 64569\/09, \u00a7 110, ECHR 2015; Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, nos. 48226\/10 and 14027\/11, \u00a7 52, ECHR 2015 (extracts).[\/footnote] holding that, in view of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicate vast amounts of information, the Internet plays an important role in enhancing the public\u2019s access to news and facilitating the dissemination of information generally.[footnote]Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom<\/em> (nos. 1 and 2), nos. 3002\/03 and 23676\/03, \u00a7 27, ECHR 2009; Delfi AS v. Estonia<\/em> [GC], \u00a7 133.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The ECtHR has held that the blocking of access to the Internet may be a violation of Article 10, on the basis it offends the rights set forth in Article 10 which are secured \u201cregardless of frontiers\u201d.[footnote]Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131r v. Turkey<\/em>, no. 21482\/03, \u00a7 67, 24 November 2009.[\/footnote] Further, the Court has observed that an increasing amount of services and information is available only via the Internet[footnote]Kalda v. Estonia<\/em>, no. 17429\/10, \u00a7 52, 19 January 2016[\/footnote] and that political content ignored by the traditional media is often shared via the Internet thereby facilitating the emergence of \u2018citizen journalism\u2019.[footnote] Cengiz and Others v. Turkey<\/em>, \u00a7 52.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In the context of online speech, the ECtHR has emphasised that Article 10 is to apply to communication on the Internet, whatever the type of message being conveyed and even when the purpose is profit-making in nature.[footnote]Ashby Donald and Others v. France<\/em>, no. 36769\/08, \u00a7 34, 10 January 2013.[\/footnote] It recently held in favour of a political party that made available a mobile application allowing voters to share anonymous photographs of their invalid ballot papers and their comments on why they were voting in this way.[footnote]Magyar K\u00e9tfark\u00fa Kutya P\u00e1rt v. Hungary<\/em> [GC], no. 201\/17, \u00a7 91, 20 January
    2020.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    With respect to press freedom, the ECtHR has reiterated that, having regard to the role the Internet plays in the context of press activity and its importance for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression generally, the absence of an appropriate legal framework at the domestic level allowing journalists to use information obtained from the Internet without fear of incurring sanctions seriously hinders the exercise of the vital function of the press as a \u201cpublic watchdog\u201d. This court has noted that the exclusion of such information from the legislative guarantees provided to journalists in the exercise of their role may give rise to an unlawful interference with press freedom.[footnote]Magyar Jeti Zrt v. Hungary<\/em>, no. 11257\/16, \u00a7 60, 4 December 2018.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    At the European Union level, press freedom is considered a fundamental right established in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, with its provision on press freedom similar to that of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 11 of the Charter states as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      The EU has been to the forefront in legislating for protections around privacy in the face of rapid technological advancements. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has played a significant role to implementing those protections, often to the detriment of press freedom. These modules explore how the CJEU, and the ECtHR, have shaped the law in relation to press freedom in Europe, and indeed elsewhere, through a series of seminal judgments on a range of novel issues that have emerged as a consequence of online speech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Considerations for speech online<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      The ECtHR has recognised that the Internet can facilitate clearly unlawful speech, including defamatory remarks, hate speech and speech inciting violence. The emphasis is on the speed with which such informatio0n can be disseminated, its reach, and its availability, theoretically forever.[footnote]Delfi AS v.Estonia<\/em> [GC], \u00a7 110 above n 7.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The ECtHR has distinguished the Internet from print media, especially as regards the capacity to store and transmit information. It has acknowledged that the electronic network, serving billions of users worldwide, is not and potentially will never be subject to the same regulations and control, and that the policies governing reproduction of material from the printed media and the Internet may differ. The rules governing the latter undeniably have to be adjusted according to the technology\u2019s specific features in order to secure the protection and promotion of fundamental rights and freedoms.[footnote]Editorial Board of Pravoye Delo and Shtekel v. Ukraine<\/em>, no. 33014\/05, \u00a7 63, ECHR 2011(extracts).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      However, the ECtHR has also noted that while social media platforms for example remain powerful communication tools, the choices inherent in the use of the Internet and social media mean that online information does not have the same effect as information published or broadcast through other media,[footnote]Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom<\/em> [GC], no. 48876\/08, \u00a7 119,
      ECHR 2013 (extracts).[\/footnote] and that a telephone interview broadcast in a programme available on an Internet site had a less direct impact on viewers than a television programme.[footnote]Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft SRG v. Switzerland<\/em>, no. 34124\/06, \u00a7 64, 21June 2012.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n

      The CJEU<\/strong> has also played a significant role in developing standards on online speech. With the introduction of the Fundamental Rights Charter in 2000, Article 11 of that treaty \u2018corresponds\u2019 to Article 10 of the ECHR subject to some deviations.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Although the Explanatory Note for Article 11 does \u2018not as such have the status of law\u2019, it provides essential information in explaining the textual differences between the Charter and ECHR.[footnote]Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2007\/C-303\/02): explanation on Article 11.[\/footnote] For example, in the note explicitly stating Article 10(2) ECHR and describing the role of Article 52(3) of the Charter in making the \u2018meaning and scope of this right\u2019 as the same as that guaranteed by the ECHR, it is observed that any limitations on the core freedom may not exceed those provided in Article 10(2). Article 11(2) of the Charter explicitly references the media in relation not only to the CJEU\u2019s \u2018case law [and legislation] regarding television\u2019 but also relates to the ECtHR\u2019s previous statements regarding the media\u2019s broader societal role, as endorsed by the CJEU\u2019s statement that the media plays a significant role as a public \u2018watchdog\u2019.[footnote]C-421\/07 Frede Damgaard [2009] ECR I-2629 [AG 81], citing The Observer & The Guardian Ltd v United Kingdom App No 13585\/88 (ECtHR, 26th November 1991) para 59. N[\/footnote]   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The CJEU defines freedom of expression<\/strong> as including \u201cthe expression of opinions and the freedom to receive and impart information\u201d.[footnote]Tietosuojavaltuutettu v. Satakunnan Markkinap\u00f6rssi <\/em>E.C.R. I-9831 [2008] Case C-73\/07.[\/footnote]The case law of the CJEU is particularly interesting in the way it has balanced the right to freedom of expression online with the right to privacy. For example, in the debate between the right to be forgotten and the right to freedom of expression, it is the right to privacy that is emphasised. The CJEU has developed detailed balancing principles based on the idea in relation to the right to be forgotten that the ECtHR has expanded on, as discussed in more detail in Module 2 on privacy and date protection.[footnote]Google Spain v. AEPD<\/em> (2016)[\/footnote]<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

      <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      In 2022, international digital rights advocacy organisation Access Now published a report documenting the use of digital technology by both authoritarian and democratic regimes in Eastern Europe and Central Asia to \u201cadvance their interests at the expense of people\u2019s freedoms.\u201d For example, it notes that \u201cartificial intelligence algorithms are used for racial profiling, spyware tools […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"parent":1718,"menu_order":426,"template":"page-templates\/chapter.php","publication-category":[],"class_list":["post-1721","publication","type-publication","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nFreedom of Expression and Online Restrictions | eReader<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In this module series, Media Defence unpacks digital rights and freedom of expression questions in the context of Europe.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-digital-rights-europe\/module-1-key-principles\/freedom-of-expression-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Freedom of Expression and Online Restrictions | eReader\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In this module series, Media Defence unpacks digital rights and freedom of expression questions in the context of Europe.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-digital-rights-europe\/module-1-key-principles\/freedom-of-expression-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"eReader\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-06-17T07:42:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-digital-rights-europe\\\/module-1-key-principles\\\/freedom-of-expression-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-digital-rights-europe\\\/module-1-key-principles\\\/freedom-of-expression-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"Freedom of Expression and Online Restrictions | eReader\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2024-06-14T11:09:30+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-06-17T07:42:51+00:00\",\"description\":\"In this module series, Media Defence unpacks digital rights and freedom of expression questions in the context of Europe.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-digital-rights-europe\\\/module-1-key-principles\\\/freedom-of-expression-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-digital-rights-europe\\\/module-1-key-principles\\\/freedom-of-expression-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-digital-rights-europe\\\/module-1-key-principles\\\/freedom-of-expression-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Publications\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Modules on Litigating Digital Rights in Europe\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-digital-rights-europe\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"Module 1: Digital Rights and Emerging Challenges\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-digital-rights-europe\\\/module-1-key-principles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":5,\"name\":\"Freedom of Expression and Online Restrictions\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/\",\"name\":\"eReader\",\"description\":\"Media Defence\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Freedom of Expression and Online Restrictions | eReader","description":"In this module series, Media Defence unpacks digital rights and freedom of expression questions in the context of Europe.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-digital-rights-europe\/module-1-key-principles\/freedom-of-expression-2\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Freedom of Expression and Online Restrictions | eReader","og_description":"In this module series, Media Defence unpacks digital rights and freedom of expression questions in the context of Europe.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-digital-rights-europe\/module-1-key-principles\/freedom-of-expression-2\/","og_site_name":"eReader","article_modified_time":"2024-06-17T07:42:51+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-digital-rights-europe\/module-1-key-principles\/freedom-of-expression-2\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-digital-rights-europe\/module-1-key-principles\/freedom-of-expression-2\/","name":"Freedom of Expression and Online Restrictions | eReader","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-06-14T11:09:30+00:00","dateModified":"2024-06-17T07:42:51+00:00","description":"In this module series, Media Defence unpacks digital rights and freedom of expression questions in the context of Europe.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-digital-rights-europe\/module-1-key-principles\/freedom-of-expression-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-digital-rights-europe\/module-1-key-principles\/freedom-of-expression-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-digital-rights-europe\/module-1-key-principles\/freedom-of-expression-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Publications","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Modules on Litigating Digital Rights in Europe","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-digital-rights-europe\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Module 1: Digital Rights and Emerging Challenges","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-digital-rights-europe\/module-1-key-principles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":5,"name":"Freedom of Expression and Online Restrictions"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/","name":"eReader","description":"Media Defence","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/1721","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publication"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/1718"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"publication-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication-category?post=1721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}