Challenges of Safeguarding Freedom of Expression in the Digital Age

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Law Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Law Faculty- Shahid Beheshti- Tehran- Iran

10.22099/jls.2024.49536.5116

Abstract

The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims the aspiration for a world where individuals are free to express their opinions without fear as the highest goal of humanity. This right has faced numerous ups and downs throughout history, and in the digital age, with the transformation of communication platforms and patterns, many questions have arisen regarding its protection. The internet, as the dominant communication medium in our time, has advanced and provided us with new communication tools such as social media, and it continues to evolve. With the changing communication platforms and patterns in the digital age and the emergence of new technologies, many questions have arisen about how to protect the right to freedom of expression. Theorists and lawmakers often base the principles and laws protecting freedom of expression on the fundamental characteristics of human communication. However, new technologies can change communication patterns in a way that calls into question the basis of these principles and laws.
Given the technical structure of the internet, there are numerous problems surrounding online freedom of expression. Simply put, the internet is a globally interconnected network of computer networks that are voluntarily connected using common technical standards. On the internet, any user can make content available to other users, whether partially (one-to-one communication) or more extensively (one-to-many communication). The internet enables one-to-one communication through communication platforms such as email, chat, and short messages. Generally, the World Wide Web is used for one-to-many internet communications, which sends content to the entire network simultaneously through hyperlinks. The internet provides various types of media content, including text, audio, still and moving images. However, no central authority controls the internet's infrastructure or the flow of online information.
If there is unhindered access to the internet, anyone can easily access news and information from the other side of the world, just as easily as local news. This transnational scope of the internet has significant implications for the freedom and utility of online speech, as all types of online communication can cross national and cultural boundaries. Content providers can choose hosting for their information in a less regulated jurisdiction, thereby circumventing the direct regulations of their home jurisdiction. The transnational reach of the internet also makes online freedom of speech problems transnational. The different approaches of various legal systems to freedom of speech problems are now testing democracy more than ever, especially since the internet's transcendence of national borders has placed these approaches in direct conflict and contradiction.
The first step to any approach is to accurately identify the obstacles and problems. Therefore, this article attempts to identify the obstacles and problems that the online space has created for protecting this right. It seems necessary to examine the United States legal system's approach to the internet as one of the most important and influential legal systems in the world to find these challenges. Freedom of speech in this legal system has historically been of particular importance and significance, and the First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees this right.
The transnational scope of the internet has significant implications for the freedom and utility of online speech, as all types of online communication can cross national and cultural boundaries. Content providers can choose hosting for their information in a less regulated jurisdiction, thereby circumventing the direct regulations of their home jurisdiction. The transnational reach of the internet also makes online freedom of speech problems transnational.
Just as the internet can increase the benefits of speech, it also has the power to increase the harms of speech that governments may not want to curb. The internet creates new ways for governments and private companies to increase their dominance over people and societies. Although social media occupies a vast cultural space, some argue that these media promote limited interactive methods and marginalize other forms of human communication. To better understand the problems arising from the internet and social media, the architecture and communication structure of the internet are briefly described. Part of the challenges of lawmaking in this area are the structural concerns of the internet that have limited online freedom of expression and increased the importance of regulations in the digital age; these problems include inequality in internet access, the concentration of private sector power, and the practical problems of regulating content. Finally, the article addresses privacy, intellectual property, the authenticity, and the influence of online news sources, which encompass the most significant substantive concerns of online communication. These fundamental issues in the realm of online communication give rise to new concerns and challenges in the legal field. By emphasizing points of importance for the future, this article seeks to explain and solve the problems governing the right to freedom of expression in the digital world and to continue developments in this area and propose possible solutions to guarantee this right in the future.
Ultimately, laws protecting online freedom of expression must consider the harms of the internet alongside its benefits. At the same time, this should not lead to a hasty reaction to address these problems; instead, we should seek regulatory strategies consistent with democratic values to identify and control harmful speech.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

 
Ackerman, S., & Ball, J. (2014). Optic Nerve: millions of Yahoo webcam images intercepted by GCHQ. The Guardian, 27.<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo> accessed 28 August 2018.
Bagdikian, B. H. (2004). The new media monopoly: A completely revised and updated edition with seven new chapters. Beacon Press.
Bambauer, D. E. (2012). Orwell's armchair. U. Chi. L. Rev., 79, 863.
Benjamin, S. M. Algorithms and Speech”(2013). University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 161, 1445.
Bhagwat, A. (2011). Sorrell v. IMS Health: Details, Detailing, and the Death of Privacy. Vt. L. Rev., 36, 855.
Borger, J. (2013). GCHQ and European spy agencies worked together on mass surveillance. the Guardian, 1.<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/01/gchq-europe-spy-agencies-mass-surveillance-snowden> accessed 28 August 2018.
Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018). Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The guardian, 17(1), 22.<https://www.theguardian.com/news/20i8/mar/i7/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election> accessed 28 August 2018.
Chandler, J. A. (2006). A right to reach an audience: An approach to intermediary bias on the Internet. Hofstra L. Rev., 35, 1095.
Cotter, T. F. (1997). Pragmatism, economics, and the droit moral. NCL Rev., 76, 1.
Del Vicario, M., Zollo, F., Caldarelli, G., Scala, A., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2017). Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: The Brexit debate. Social Networks, 50, 6-16.
Eko, L., Kumar, A., & Yao, Q. (2011). Google this: The great firewall of china, the it wheel of India, Google inc., and internet regulation. Journal of Internet Law, 15(3), 3-14.
Evgeny Morozov, The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom (Public Affairs 2011).
Frenkel, S., & Benner, K. (2018). To stir discord in 2016, Russians turned most often to Facebook. The New York Times, 17. <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/technology/ indictment-russian-tech-facebook.html> accessed 28 August 2018.
Frischmann, B. M., & Van Schewick, B. (2006). Network neutrality and the economics of an information superhighway: A reply to Professor Yoo. Jurimetrics, 47, 383.
Goode, L. (2009). Social news, citizen journalism and democracy. New media & society, 11(8), 1287-1305.
Greenwald, G., & MacAskill, E. (2013). NSA Prism program taps into user data of Apple, Google and others. The Guardian, 7(6), 1-43.(The Guardian, 7 June 2013)
    <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data> accessed 28 August 2018.
Joseph, S. (2012). Social media, political change, and human rights. BC Int'l & Comp. L. Rev., 35, 145.
Kang, C. (2017). FCC repeals net neutrality rules. The New York Times, 12(14), 2017.
Keegan, J. (2016). Blue feed, red feed. The Wall Street Journal, 18.<http://graphics.wsj. com/blue-feed-red-feed/> accessed 28 August 2018
Lee, D. (2017). Germany’s NetzDG and the threat to online free speech. Yale Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic Case Disclosed Blog, 10.
Lee, E. (2015). The right to be forgotten v. free speech. ISJLP, 12, 85.
Lewis, P. (2018). Fiction is outperforming reality’: How YouTube’s algorithm distorts truth. The Guardian, 2, 2018.<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtubes-algorithm-distorts-truth> accessed 28 August 2018.
Madrigal, A. C.(2017). What Facebook did to American democracy. The Atlantic, 12.<https://www.theatlanLic.c0m/techn0l0gy/archive/2017/10/what-faceb00k-did/542502/> accessed 28 August 2018.
Magarian, G. P. (2018). Forward into the Past: Speech Intermediaries in Television and Internet Ages. Okla. L. Rev., 71, 237.
Marthews, A., & Tucker, C. E. (2017). Government surveillance and internet search behavior.<https://www.sebastianwendt.de/wp-c0ntent/upl0ads/2015/06/G0vernment-Surveillance-and-Internet-Search-Behavior.pdf> accessed 28 August 2018.
Michael J Kelly and David Satolam, ‘The Right to Be Forgotten’ (2017) U III L Rev 1, 38-9.
Morant, B. D. (2003). Democracy, Choice, and the Importance of Voice in Contemporary Media. DePaul L. Rev., 53, 943.
Nunziato, D. C. (2009). Virtual freedom: Net neutrality and free speech in the internet age. Stanford University Press.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. Penguin.
Radsch, C. (2012). Unveiling the revolutionaries: Cyberactivism and the role of women in the Arab uprisings. Rice University James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy Research Paper.<https://www.bak-erinstitute.0rg/media/f1les/news/130a8d9a/ITP-pub-CyberactivismAndW0men-051712.pdf> accessed 28 August 2018.
Ruijgrok, K. (2017). From the web to the streets: internet and protests under authoritarian regimes. Democratization, 24(3), 498-520.
Schauer, F. (2003). The boundaries of the First Amendment: A preliminary exploration of constitutional salience. Harv. L. Rev., 117, 1765.
Song, F. W. (2009). Virtual communities: Bowling alone, online together (Vol. 54). Peter Lang.
Stoycheff, E. (2016). Under surveillance: Examining Facebook’s spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA internet monitoring. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(2), 296-311.
Tracy, J. F. (2008). C. Edwin Baker, Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.£ 35.00 (hbk),£ 14.99 (pbk). 256 pp. European Journal of Communication, 23(2), 249-253.
Tushnet, R. (2007). Power without responsibility: Intermediaries and the First Amendment. Geo. Wash. L. Rev., 76, 986.
Volokh, E. (1994). Cheap speech and what it will do. Yale LJ, 104, 1805.
Weston, G., Greenwal, G., & Gallagher, R. (2014). CSeC used airport Wi-Fi to track Canadian travellers:Edward Snowden documents. CBC News, January, 30. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csec-used-airport-wi-fi-to-track-canadian-travellers-edward-snowden-documents-i.25i788i> accessed 28 August 2018.
Wu, T. (2019). Is the first amendment obsolete?. In The Perilous Public Square: Structural Threats to Free Expression Today (pp. 15-61). Columbia University Press.
Yemini, M. (2008). Mandated network neutrality and the first amendment: lessons from Turner and a new approach. Va. JL & Tech., 13, 1.
 
Document:
Case C-131/12, ECLI:EU:C:20i4:3i7 [13 May 2014].
Case C-360/13 [2014] ECLI:EU:C:20i4: ii95 [5 June 2014].
Communications Decency Act 47 USC § 230(c)(1) (1996).
Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Act 2015 (Cth).
Digital Millennium Copyright Act 17 USC § 512 (2012).
Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc [2017] 1 SCR 824.
Google Spain SL v Agenda de Protecdon de Datos.
Law no 20,453 (Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile, 26 August 2010)
Journal of Legal Studies
Volume 16, Issue 3 - Serial Number 53
October 2024
Pages 219-256

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics