Search Tips
sorted by
300 shown of 1365 entities
Sustainable development and freedom of expression
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2023
- Document code
- A/HRC/53/25
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Gendered disinformation and its implications for the right to freedom of expression
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2023
- Document code
- A/78/288
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Reinforcing media freedom and safety of journalists in the digital age
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2022
- Document code
- A/HRC/50/29
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Disinformation and freedom of opinion and expression during armed conflicts
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2022
- Document code
- A/77/288
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Disinformation and freedom of opinion and expression
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2021
- Document code
- A/HRC/47/25
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Gender justice and freedom of opinion and expression
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2021
- Document code
- A/76/258
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Academic freedom
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2020
- Document code
- A/75/261
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Disease pandemics and the freedom of opinion and expression
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2020
- Document code
- A/HRC/44/49
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Artistic Freedom of Expression
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2020
- Document code
- A/HRC/44/49/Add.2
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Online hate speech
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2019
- Document code
- A/74/486
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Surveillance and human rights
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2019
- Document code
- A/HRC/41/35
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Overview of submissions received
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2019
- Document code
- A/HRC/41/35/Add.3
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Summary of an expert's consultation
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2019
- Document code
- A/HRC/41/35/Add.4
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Artificial Intelligence technologies and implications for the information environment
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2018
- Document code
- A/73/348
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Online content regulation
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2018
- Document code
- A/HRC/38/35
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Supplementary annex accompanying the thematic report
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2018
- Document code
- A/HRC/38/35/Add.1
- Date modified
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- IXPs handle an enormous volume of Internet traffic that may be filtered or intercepted at government request. The growing number of censorship and surveillance incidents involving IXPs indicates that they are major access choke points, even if their precise role is unclear. For example, in 2013, the manner in which access to YouTube was blocked in Pakistan indicated that the platform was filtered by IXPs, rather than ISPs, through a method known as “packet injection”. According to a leaked internal memo of a multinational ISP operating in Ecuador, users were unable to access Google and YouTube in March 2014 because the private Association of Internet Providers of Ecuador — which runs two of the major IXPs in the country — was “blocking access to certain Internet websites by request of the national Government”. The revelations of mass surveillance conducted by the United States National Security Agency have raised concern among technologists that the agency is intercepting a significant proportion of domestic and foreign Internet traffic by targeting United States IXPs. In September 2016, the world’s largest Internet exchange point, which is based in Germany, challenged legal orders issued by the country’s intelligence agency to monitor international communications transiting through its hub.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- States should not restrict encryption and anonymity, which facilitate and often enable the rights to freedom of opinion and expression. Blanket prohibitions fail to be necessary and proportionate. States should avoid all measures that weaken the security that individuals may enjoy online, such as backdoors, weak encryption standards and key escrows. In addition, States should refrain from making the identification of users a condition for access to digital communications and online services and requiring SIM card registration for mobile users. Corporate actors should likewise consider their own policies that restrict encryption and anonymity (including through the use of pseudonyms). Court-ordered decryption, subject to domestic and international law, may only be permissible when it results from transparent and publicly accessible laws applied solely on a targeted, case-by-case basis to individuals (i.e., not to a mass of people) and subject to judicial warrant and the protection of due process rights of individuals.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- Lastly, ensuring accountability for what is reported in the media also remains important. For example, the open journalism paradigm promoted by the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland encourages two-way interaction between journalists and the audience online, which has reinserted journalists' willingness to engage in debate and be accountable for what they do into the core of journalism. At the very minimum, media outlets and journalists should adopt voluntary ethical codes and standards that do not allow hate speech and promote high standards of professional journalism, in addition to establishing independent and self-regulatory bodies to elevate standards of journalism and to ensure the accountability of all media professionals. Self-regulatory bodies should be seen not only as an exercise in policing and dispute resolution, but also as an opportunity to involve society at large in debates about the role and contribution of the media, to monitor the state of the media, to advocate professional journalism and to promote media literacy. Such bodies can also play a proactive and exemplary role in setting and reinforcing ethical standards for online content and the social media.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Hence, as civilians, all journalists, whether accredited to or embedded with the forces involved, attached to adversary forces or operating unilaterally, are provided with comprehensive protection under international humanitarian law during armed conflict, provided they do not directly participate in hostilities. The Special Rapporteur would like to discourage the granting of special protection or special status to journalists under international law, as this would necessitate the formulation of a precise definition of journalists as a protected category and the clearer identification of journalists in armed conflict, both of which could potentially lead to significantly decreased protection for journalists. The former might require journalists to be duly accredited and recognized by some public authority, thus increasing interference by the State, and the latter might place journalists in further danger, since many are targeted precisely because they are journalists, as explained above. Thus, the Special Rapporteur firmly believes that existing standards are sufficient, but that respect for and the implementation of such standards must be strengthened.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 71
- Paragraph text
- Keeping the above in mind, the Special Rapporteur strongly emphasizes the importance of promoting and providing support to projects which seek to ensure the access to information and communication. In this regard, the global project "One Laptop per Child" is a good initiative. As stated in the most recent report of the Special Rapporteur to the Human Rights Council, this kind of initiative helps to spread the availability of ICT in developing countries. The project, supported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and several partners, has benefited not just children, but their families as well, since one of the essential aspects of the permanently connected laptop is its free use at home, which allows the child and the family to increase their access to information and to the outside world. Two important elements of these laptops are that they can be charged by solar or mechanical power; and they have been designed to provide an engaging wireless network, which allows the laptops to be connected automatically to others nearby.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Families
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- Like the former Commission on Human Rights, the Human Rights Council has regularly expressed concern regarding attacks against journalists in resolutions on freedom of expression, including the most recent resolution on the issue, adopted in October 2009 (Council resolution 12/16), in which the Council expressed its continuing concern that threats and acts of violence, including killings, attacks and terrorist acts, particularly directed against journalists and other media workers in situations of armed conflict, have increased and are not adequately punished, in particular in those circumstances where public authorities are involved in committing those acts. The Council called upon States to ensure that victims of such violations have an effective remedy, to investigate effectively threats and acts of violence, including terrorist acts, against journalists, including in situations of armed conflict, and to bring to justice those responsible in order to combat impunity. It also called on all parties to armed conflict to respect international humanitarian law, and to allow, within the framework of applicable rules and procedures, media access and coverage, as appropriate, in situations of international and non international armed conflict.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- Some evidence suggests that vendors may provide support for government censorship and surveillance. In a case pending before United States courts, Cisco has been accused of designing, implementing and helping to maintain a Chinese surveillance and internal security network known as the Golden Shield. (Cisco denies those allegations.) In Ethiopia, human rights groups found that ZTE Corporation had designed and installed a customer management database for Ethio Telecom that enabled intrusive surveillance.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- The trend lines regarding security and privacy online are deeply worrying. States often fail to provide public justification to support restrictions. Encrypted and anonymous communications may frustrate law enforcement and counter-terrorism officials, and they complicate surveillance, but State authorities have not generally identified situations - even in general terms, given the potential need for confidentiality - where a restriction has been necessary to achieve a legitimate goal. States downplay the value of traditional non-digital tools in law enforcement and counter-terrorism efforts, including transnational cooperation. As a consequence, the public lacks an opportunity to measure whether restrictions on their online security would be justified by any real gains in national security and crime prevention. Efforts to restrict encryption and anonymity also tend to be quick reactions to terrorism, even when the attackers themselves are not alleged to have used encryption or anonymity to plan or carry out an attack. Moreover, even where the restriction is arguably in pursuit of a legitimate interest, many laws and policies regularly do not meet the standards of necessity and proportionality and have broad, deleterious effects on the ability of all individuals to exercise freely their rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 18
- Paragraph text
- Today, journalists and other "social communicators" may claim the right of confidentiality for the source. Persons other than journalists inform the public and carry out a "vital public watchdog role". International bodies increasingly use terms more general than "journalist", such as "media professionals" or "media workers". The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights refers to "media practitioners" and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Representative on Freedom of the Media refers to "new participants in journalism". All those terms demonstrate an understanding that those performing the same journalistic functions should enjoy the right to protect sources. The Council of Europe has defined the term "journalist" functionally as "any natural or legal person who is regularly or professionally engaged in the collection and dissemination of information to the public via any means of mass communication". For the purposes of source protection - when, as the Norwegian Supreme Court has noted, the broadest protection should be available - any person or entity involved in collecting or gathering information with the intent to publish or otherwise disseminate it publicly should be permitted to claim the right to protect a source's confidentiality. Regular, professional engagement may indicate protection, but its absence should not be a presumptive bar to those who collect information for public dissemination.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 70
- Paragraph text
- A further initiative preventing communications anonymity is the gradual adoption of policies that require the registration of SIM cards with a subscriber's real name or government-issued identity document. In 48 countries in Africa, laws requiring individuals to register their personal information with their network provider prior to activation of pre-paid SIM cards are reportedly facilitating the establishment of extensive databases of user information, eradicating the potential for anonymity of communications, enabling location-tracking, and simplifying communications surveillance. In the absence of data protection legislation, SIM users' information can be shared with Government departments and matched with other private and public databases, enabling the State to create comprehensive profiles of individual citizens. Individuals are also at risk of being excluded from use of mobile phone services (which may enable not only communication but also access to financial services) if they are unable or unwilling to provide identification to register.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- Exit polling, where voters are surveyed upon exiting a polling booth, are also considered risky when their results are reported while votes are being counted. Thus, many countries prevent the publication of exit polls until the conclusion of voting.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Protection must also counter a variety of contemporary threats. A leading one is surveillance. The ubiquitous use of digital electronics, alongside government capacity to access the data and footprints that all such devices leave behind, has presented serious challenges to confidentiality and anonymity of sources and whistle-blowers. The problem of unintended self-disclosure has been a recurrent feature in the leading cases involving journalistic sources in recent years, in which the Government of the United States of America discovered probable source identities through telephone and e-mail records. Writers themselves report concern that their ability to protect sources is much diminished in the face of surveillance. National and regional courts in Europe have appropriately criticized extralegal approaches to compromising confidentiality. The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, for example, protected the telephone records of a journalist because they were openly instrumental to the identification of those who had provided confidential information. The European Court of Human Rights emphasized the importance of providing "the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference" caused by surveillance. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommends that interception, surveillance and other digital searches "should not be applied if their purpose is to circumvent" source protection.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- Individuals are now also required to use their real names online in many States, and to provide official identification in order to establish their identity. In the Republic of Korea, the Information Communications Law, adopted in 2007, required users to register their real names before accessing websites with more than 100,000 visitors per day, ostensibly in order to reduce online bullying and hate speech. The law was recently overturned by the Constitutional Court on the basis that it restricted freedom of speech and undermined democracy. China recently adopted the Decision to Strengthen the Protection of Online Information, requiring Internet and telecommunications providers to collect personal information about users when they sign up for Internet access, landline, or mobile phone service. Service providers allowing users to publish online are required to be able to link screen names and real identities. These real name registration requirements allow authorities to more easily identify online commentators or tie mobile use to specific individuals, eradicating anonymous expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 86
- Paragraph text
- Many journalists continue to inform the Special Rapporteur that the systematic use of unjustified criminal prosecution or even civil tort prosecution with disproportionate financial sanctions paralyzes journalistic investigation and generates an atmosphere of intimidation, which constitutes a form of judicial harassment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- As well as having an obligation to prevent human rights violations against journalists, such as killings, ill-treatment or unlawful arrest, States also have a responsibility to ensure that their national legal systems do not permit impunity in cases when such violations take place. The issue of impunity is further discussed below.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- Combating impunity and ensuring the protection of journalists requires strengthening respect for the rule of law and ensuring that the domestic legal framework and institutions promote the right to freedom of expression and support the establishment of free, independent and pluralistic media. The Special Rapporteur notes with concern the continuing existence and application of domestic legislation which criminalize expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 95
- Paragraph text
- The presence of such risks deters journalists from continuing their work, or encourages self-censorship on sensitive matters. Consequently, society as a whole may not be able to access important information.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- Lastly, the circulation of false information has been considered in certain cases to be a violation in itself, especially where individuals or groups of individuals have been submitted to odium, stigmatization, public scorn, persecution or discrimination by means of public declarations by public officials.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- In addition to articles 19 of the Declaration and of the Covenant, which protect the right of journalists to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of any kind through any medium of communication, journalists are also protected under other provisions in international human rights law, including the right to life, freedom from torture and arbitrary arrests and detention, and the right to an effective remedy.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 107
- Paragraph text
- Journalists should not be held accountable for receiving, storing and disseminating classified data which they have obtained in a way that is not illegal, including leaks and information received from unidentified sources.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 102
- Paragraph text
- Necessary resources must be dedicated to preventing and investigating attacks, or bringing those responsible to justice. Special measures should be put in place to deal with attacks and to support journalists who are displaced by attacks.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 88
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur recommends that States, academic institutions and civil society organizations collaborate in establishing a system to regularly gather and analyse relevant data regarding patterns of hate speech to aid policy formulation and evaluation and to establish early warning mechanisms.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 50c
- Paragraph text
- [In any case, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that all hate speech laws should, at the very least, conform to the following elements outlined in the 2001 joint statement on racism and the media:] The right of journalists to decide how best to communicate information and ideas to the public should be respected, in particular when they are reporting on racism and intolerance;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- A special responsibility to denounce instances of hate speech continues to rest with public officials, however. Clear, formal rejections of hate speech by high-level public officials and initiatives to engage in interreligious or intercultural dialogue play an important role in alleviating tensions and building a culture of tolerance and respect without resorting to censorship. For example, following the publication by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005 of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a derogatory manner, 11 ambassadors from Muslim-majority countries requested a meeting with the Prime Minister. The request was not granted, however, meaning that an early and important opportunity to defuse tension and to prevent a spiral of violence was missed. In contrast, when Geert Wilders, a member of the parliament of the Netherlands, released his controversial online film, Fitna, on 27 March 2008, the Government acted swiftly to distance itself from the film and to reject the equation of Islam with violence, which was welcomed in the joint press statement issued on 28 March 2008 by the Special Rapporteur, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Interestingly, the film attracted little controversy.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 13
- Paragraph text
- Anyone with access to the Internet can now potentially disseminate information to a global audience. In situations where journalists have limited access, for example during times of humanitarian crises or natural disasters, images recorded on mobile phones or messages posted online by bloggers and social networking sites have played a key role in keeping the international community informed of the situation on the ground. Indeed, with the increased use of Web 2.0 platforms, information is no longer an exclusive preserve of professional journalists, since a far wider range of people take part in gathering, filtering and distributing news. "Crowdsourcing" is one example which exemplifies such a trend. At the same time, traditional communications media, such as television, radio and newspaper, can also use the Internet to expand their audiences at nominal cost. While the increasing relevance and reliance on amateur videos and first-hand account of events posted on the Internet have had a profound effect on the news industry, professional journalists continue to play an indispensable role in researching, organizing and providing analysis and context to news events. The Internet should thus be seen as a complementary medium to mass media that has been based on a one-way transmission of information.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- Broadband Internet access through mobile phones is also increasing rapidly. According to ITU statistics, by the end of 2010, the total number of mobile broadband subscriptions worldwide had reached 940 million. This number is expected to top 1 billion in 2011, from 73 million in 2005. One key reason for the growth in mobile broadband is that operators are offering both competitive and affordable data packages. This development is complemented and supported by new technologies, which are bringing more efficiency to networks. Singapore is one such example with a 100 per cent penetration rate for mobile phones, and with a majority of households having at least one mode of broadband access. In addition, in 2008 and 2009, the Government selected two companies to work on a coordinated nationwide roll-out of the network. As stipulated under the terms of the broadband deployment, one of these companies will waive all installation charges for home and building owners when the network first reaches their area. These companies are also to provide network connectivity to outdoor locations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 99
- Paragraph text
- In the aforementioned resolution, the Security Council also urges all parties involved in situations of conflict to respect the professional independence and rights of journalists, media professionals and associated personnel as civilians.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 117
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur expresses concern about the violence to which journalists and media professionals continue to fall victim.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Violence
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 92
- Paragraph text
- The high-risk conditions in which journalists carry out their work, as evidenced by the threats and assaults to which they constantly fall victim, are also a matter of concern.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 97
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur must also draw attention to the serious risk that exercising freedom of the press in a professional, objective and pluralistic manner constitutes in areas of conflict, where journalists have come to be seen by the parties to the conflict as just another target.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- Consequently, the Special Rapporteur encourages the mass media to ensure that they have a representative and diverse staff. He also urges the press and mass media to provide coverage that creates an atmosphere of respect for cultural diversity and multiculturalism.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 91
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur encourages the Security Council to continue to give priority to the issue of the protection of journalists in armed conflict, including by integrating the issue into the mandate of peacekeeping operations and other missions, as appropriate, in accordance with Security Council resolution 1738 (2006) and the aide-memoire (see S/PRST/2009/1).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur intends to submit a full thematic report to the Human Rights Council on the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet. However, in the present report, the Special Rapporteur would like to highlight the phenomenon of citizen journalism and the risks that non-professional journalists also encounter in exercising their legitimate right to freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- The obligation to protect is particularly important in relation to violence against journalists committed by non-State actors. Specifically, States have the obligation to take appropriate measures or to exercise due diligence to prevent any harm caused by private persons or entities, a failure of which can amount to a violation of article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- While the provisions under international humanitarian law are not applicable in situations of internal unrest accompanied by violence below the level of that which characterizes an armed conflict, journalists are afforded protection under international human rights law.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- The set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity, as updated in 2005 by the independent expert appointed for that purpose (A/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1), also spells out the obligations of States to inform society of what has happened and recognizes the inalienable right of every people to know the truth (principle 2), emphasizing also the preservation and facilitation of access to archives (principles 14 and 15).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- During times of conflict, journalists are at a heightened risk of being subjected to arbitrary detention and internment for alleged security reasons. In an international armed conflict, war correspondents, or representatives of the media who are accredited to, and accompany, the armed forces without being members thereof, are entitled to the status and treatment of a prisoner-of-war in case of capture. This is by virtue of the fact that they are formally authorized to accompany the armed forces and aim to keep the closest possible contact with the armed forces and thus inevitably share the fate of the armed forces. Hence, war correspondents benefit from all the protections of the Third Geneva Convention as supplemented by Additional Protocol I and customary international law. All other journalists who fall into the hands of a party to an international armed conflict benefit at least from the protections granted in article 75 of Additional Protocol I, which includes, inter alia, prohibition of violence to life, health or physical or mental well-being, humiliating and degrading treatment, and taking of hostages. They are also entitled to fair trial guarantees in the case of detention for penal offences. In addition, journalists in the hands of a party to the conflict or occupying power of which they are not nationals benefit from the protections granted by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 76
- Paragraph text
- Although the above examples of challenges and good practices relating to the protection of journalists in situations of widespread violence or impunity have been drawn from Latin America, this is not the only region in which these issues are a concern. The Special Rapporteur has sent communications to several countries regarding issues such as impunity, journalists reporting on violence and organized crime, as outlined in chapters II and III above.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Violence
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Another threat to the freedom of journalists and to press freedom is the increasing use of criminal law on defamation, slander or libel by public officials to silence criticism regarding their personal activities or public policies. The mere use of such "judicial harassment" generates a climate of fear and a "chilling effect" which encourages self-censorship. This issue is further explored under section D below on criminalization of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- Restrictions on political expression take a variety of forms - from defamation and slander laws, to blanket bans on critical expression relating to incumbent politicians, to the prohibition of whole media sources, outlets and websites - and impact not only the individuals or groups which might run afoul of them, but the media outlets or intermediaries that publish restricted, or what is considered to be illegal, political expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 117
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur welcomes the support for freedom of expression and the protection of journalists in different regional mechanisms, as well as measures taken, such as the establishment of Special Rapporteurs. In cases where regional actors have not yet set standards for the protection of journalists, the Special Rapporteur encourages them to do so in consonance with those already existing at the international level.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- State entities should also support civil society organizations that are expert in the areas of access to information, protection of journalists and their sources, and whistle-blower promotion and protection. Many such organizations may offer technical advice and training. States should ensure that civil society can participate fully in all efforts to adopt or revise source and whistle-blower laws, regulations and policies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 93
- Paragraph text
- For States emerging from conflict situations, United Nations entities should consider providing assistance to States to establish robust democratic institutions and effective judicial and administrative mechanisms which would enhance their ability to protect and guarantee the rights of all individuals, including journalists, and to create favourable conditions to promote and protect the right to freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- The censorship resilience of content delivery networks has also made them targets of disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression. In Egypt, the blocking of The New Arab website in August 2016 also disrupted access to content on other sites that, although unaffiliated, shared the same content delivery network, which led researchers to believe authorities had targeted that particular network. In China, a national filter has reportedly blocked EdgeCast content delivery network, which handles content for a number of large websites in the country.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- Shutdowns also affect areas beyond those of specific concern. In the lead up to the 2015 National Day Parade in Pakistan, mobile communications networks were allegedly cut off at the parade site as well as in surrounding areas that were not expected to experience any potential security threat. During the Pope’s visit to the Philippines in 2015, the shutdown of mobile networks for safety reasons affected areas well beyond the travel route. When specific services or platforms are disrupted, governments typically target those that are the most efficient, secure or widely used.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 9
- Paragraph text
- Shutdowns ordered covertly or without an obvious legal basis violate the requirement of article 19 (3) of the Covenant that restrictions be “provided by law”. In Chad, the failure of authorities to provide a meaningful public explanation for a series of Internet and social media shutdowns between February and October 2016 created the presumption that they were unlawful. In Gabon, total network outages were allegedly recorded every evening for almost two weeks during the 2016 election period, contrary to government assurances that such services would not be disrupted.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 13
- Paragraph text
- Observers have also noted the growing use of shutdowns to prevent cheating by students during national exams. Uzbekistan may have been the first to invoke this justification during university entrance exams in 2014. In 2016, authorities allegedly ordered shutdowns during exams in India, Algeria, Ethiopia and Iraq.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 9
- Paragraph text
- Notably, encryption protects the content of communications but not identifying factors such as the Internet Protocol (IP) address, known as metadata. Third parties may gather significant information concerning an individual's identity through metadata analysis if the user does not employ anonymity tools. Anonymity is the condition of avoiding identification. A common human desire to protect one's identity from the crowd, anonymity may liberate a user to explore and impart ideas and opinions more than she would using her actual identity. Individuals online may adopt pseudonyms (or, for instance, fake e-mail or social media accounts) to hide their identities, image, voice, location and so forth, but the privacy afforded through such pseudonyms is superficial and easily disturbed by Governments or others with the necessary expertise; in the absence of combinations of encryption and anonymizing tools, the digital traces that users leave behind render their identities easily discoverable. Users seeking to ensure full anonymity or mask their identity (such as hiding the original IP address) against State or criminal intrusion may use tools such as virtual private networks (VPNs), proxy services, anonymizing networks and software, and peer-to-peer networks. One well-known anonymity tool, the Tor network, deploys more than 6,000 decentralized computer servers around the world to receive and relay data multiple times so as to hide identifying information about the end points, creating strong anonymity for its users.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 83c
- Paragraph text
- [Accountability mechanisms are a crucial means of ensuring that regulatory frameworks are enforced and abuses of power are rectified. Impunity is a root cause of the lack of safety faced by journalists. In the context of promoting free expression during electoral processes, States should:] Call on journalists and the media to seek the highest standards of professionalism and ethics through the promotion of self-regulation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- Advances in technology have not only facilitated interception of and access to communications in specific cases, but have also enabled States to conduct widespread, even nationwide, filtering of online activity. In many countries, Internet filtering is conducted under the guise of maintaining social harmony or eradicating hate speech, but is in fact used to eradicate dissent, criticism or activism.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 109
- Paragraph text
- Journalists working both offline and online should be free to use diverse sources of information, including from those who do not wish to be identified. Journalists should never be forced to reveal their sources except for certain exceptional cases where the interests of investigating a serious crime or protecting the life of other individuals prevail over the possible risk to the source. Such pressing needs must be clearly demonstrated and ordered by an independent court.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 72
- Paragraph text
- All these factors have made the work of journalists as information providers increasingly challenging. If the media are to fulfil their primarily role of informing society, which is a crucial prerequisite in combating hate speech, a principled return to ethical journalism is urgently required. Moreover, it is essential that information regarding the media landscape of each country be made available publicly, including information on media ownership and sources of revenue.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- Another example of national strategies is that of Brazil, where in early 2008 a "Broadband in Schools" programme was launched in Brazil through a partnership involving the federal Government, the regulator National Telecommunications Agency (ANATEL) and several telecommunications operators. The project aims to connect 56,865 state schools nationwide, which would then benefit 37.1 million pupils, or 84 per cent of the Brazilian student population.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- In the Americas, there have been instances of incitement to racial and religious hatred and manifestations of religious intolerance. For example, in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, there has been violence against members of the Catholic and Jewish communities, while in the United States, there have been instances of religious hatred or intolerance towards Islam, including plans by members of a Floridian church, the Dove World Outreach Center, to burn copies of the Koran.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 97
- Paragraph text
- News organizations also have a responsibility to ensure that journalists and associated media personnel are provided with proper safety training and equipment in peacetime and in conflict so that they are prepared to confront the risks inherent in war zones, and to provide confidential professional counselling to journalists and media personnel who have experienced trauma and other forms of extreme stress in the course of their duties.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 86
- Paragraph text
- In order to combat impunity, the Special Rapporteur calls upon States to ensure that the domestic criminal justice system functions effectively and efficiently at all stages, from investigation, prosecution and trial to the enforcement of judgements. It is the view of the Special Rapporteur that putting an end to impunity is one of the most effective ways to guarantee the protection of journalists and press freedom in the long term.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- Moreover, in situations where journalists find themselves in the territory of another State, the host State is also obliged to respect, protect and fulfil their rights, including their right to freedom of opinion and expression. This obligation also applies to an occupying power in situations of occupation, as well as forces of a State party acting outside its territory, such as forces constituting a national contingent of a State party assigned to an international peacekeeping or peace enforcement operation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Movement
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 8
- Paragraph text
- And yet, despite the fact that intergovernmental organizations make much of the public work of their institutions available online, including legal instruments, resolutions, decisions of committees and monitoring bodies, field work and webcasts of public meetings, few organizations have access-to-information policies that enable the public, either on an individual basis or through the work of journalists and researchers, to make requests for information not otherwise disclosed. Organizations that do include such policies, including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Bank, the World Food Programme (WFP), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and a handful of others — mostly international financial institutions and funds — are discussed in section III below. Even if they entertain such requests, most organizations make little or no effort to publicize their willingness or to highlight the standards by which decisions to disclose information are made.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Environment
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 4
- Paragraph text
- There is evidently no formal process according to which a member of the public, let alone a special rapporteur, may seek such information from the United Nations. As a result, even if an intergovernmental organization has a good case for non-disclosure in a particular situation, that argument is not tested (see ST/SGB/2007/6). To address this point one must ask how are institutional decisions and analyses, and decision makers, to be put to the test when such information is so difficult to obtain? Instead of a formal process that would enable the submission of requests for information, public knowledge of the policies and actions of the United Nations and of other intergovernmental organizations is limited to only what those bodies choose to publish, while external evaluation typically depends on the efforts of journalists or researchers who develop access within such organizations. Within the United Nations, and most intergovernmental organizations, there appears to be no obligation on the part of any official source to provide reasons for refusing to disclose information.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 1
- Paragraph text
- The workings of international organizations, including the United Nations, are deeply opaque to most people. Apart from the work of their highest profile bodies, what they do and how they do it is largely hidden from public view. In such an environment, how does information of legitimate interest to the public get disclosed? How does the general public, including citizens, students, journalists, scholars, activists, parliamentarians and even representatives of Member States, keep track of how the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations operate and how international civil servants comply with their obligations? What policies, if any, direct international officials to share information? What standards do international officials rely upon when deciding whether to withhold information? In general, how do intergovernmental organizations ensure their own compliance with the human rights norm guaranteeing everyone the right to seek and receive information of all kinds, especially information held by public authorities?
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- The Guiding Principles seek to address the gaps in corporate accountability left because of a lack of national legislation or implementation. However, zealous enforcement of domestic law also poses human rights challenges in the digital access industry. For example, States may hold providers liable for, or otherwise pressure them to restrict, Internet content posted by users on their networks, under laws as varied as hate speech, defamation, cybercrime and lese-majesty. Yet such intermediary liability creates a strong incentive to censor: providers may find it safest not to challenge such regulation but to over-regulate content such that legitimate and lawful expression also ends up restricted. The pressure to assist in State censorship and surveillance also escalates when authorities harass, threaten or arrest employees, or attempt to tamper with the company’s networks or equipment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 14
- Paragraph text
- Network shutdowns invariably fail to meet the standard of necessity. Necessity requires a showing that shutdowns would achieve their stated purpose, which in fact they often jeopardize. Some governments argue that it is important to ban the spread of news about terrorist attacks, even accurate reporting, in order to prevent panic and copycat actions. Yet it has been found that maintaining network connectivity may mitigate public safety concerns and help restore public order. During public disturbances in London in 2011, for example, authorities used social media networks to identify perpetrators, disseminate accurate information and conduct clean-up operations. In Kashmir, police have reported on the positive role of mobile phones in locating people trapped during terrorist attacks.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 112
- Paragraph text
- Civil society associations, including journalists, should engage actively with Government initiatives to establish protection mechanisms.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- However, the Special Rapporteur would like to emphasize that, despite the changing nature of armed conflicts today, there are sufficient protection guarantees for journalists under existing legal standards, as outlined below.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 50d
- Paragraph text
- [In any case, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that all hate speech laws should, at the very least, conform to the following elements outlined in the 2001 joint statement on racism and the media:] No one should be subject to prior censorship;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 50a
- Paragraph text
- [In any case, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that all hate speech laws should, at the very least, conform to the following elements outlined in the 2001 joint statement on racism and the media:] No one should be penalized for statements that are true;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- It also bears noting that the United Nations itself has not provided strong communication security tools to its staff or to those who would visit United Nations websites, making it difficult for those under threat to securely reach the United Nations, human rights mechanisms online.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 89
- Paragraph text
- Individuals should be free to use whatever technology they choose to secure their communications. States should not interfere with the use of encryption technologies, nor compel the provision of encryption keys.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 14
- Paragraph text
- Everyone depends upon well-sourced stories in order to develop informed opinions about matters of public interest. Professional reporting organizations emphasize that named sources are preferable to anonymous ones. Nonetheless, reporters often rely upon, and thus promise confidentiality to, sources who risk retaliation or other harm if exposed. Without protection, many voices would remain silent and the public uninformed.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- The following subsections list common concerns regarding laws that allow State surveillance of communications surveillance in circumstances that threaten the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 80
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned that websites of human rights organizations, critical bloggers, and other individuals or organizations that disseminate information that is embarrassing to the State or the powerful have increasingly become targets of cyber-attacks.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- In New Zealand, a Government-funded programme, the Rural Broadband Initiative, aims to improve the availability of fibre backhaul links in less-urbanized parts of the country, as well as to provide country schools with reliable, high-speed connectivity.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Education
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 81
- Paragraph text
- When hate is expressed by politicians and public authorities, additional sanctions should be imposed, as recognized in article 4 (c) of the Convention. Such sanctions could include those of a disciplinary nature, such as removal from office, in addition to effective remedies for victims.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- Hardware firms design and manufacture the computer devices that connect individuals to the Internet. The range of devices equipped with personal computing functions is, however, ever-expanding and impossible to cap, given the avalanche of connectedness widely described as the "Internet of things", in which digital connection is enabled for all aspects of contemporary existence. Automobiles, refrigerators, televisions and watches are just a few examples of "smart" devices that today incorporate browser, messaging and other Internet-related functions.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- Service shutdowns and associated restrictions are a particularly pernicious means of enforcing content regulations. Such measures are frequently justified on the basis of national security, the maintenance of public order or the prevention of public unrest. In 2015, the Special Rapporteur, together with representatives of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organization of American States and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights condemned as unlawful Internet "kill switches". In one year alone, there were reports of shutdowns in Bangladesh, Brazil, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India and Pakistan. The Special Rapporteur confirmed instances of telecommunication service provider and service shutdowns in Tajikistan, during his official visit in March 2016.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- The European Court of Justice, in Google Spain v. Mario Costeja González, compelled Google under the Data Protection Directive of the European Union to delist search results based on web pages that identified González, even though the original publication of those pages was itself not subject to takedown. The decision has found an active life outside the European context. The scope and implementation of this approach raise questions about the appropriate balance between the rights to privacy and protection of personal data on one hand, and the right to seek, receive and impart information containing such data on the other.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- National security is also used to justify excluding information in the public interest from disclosure, with many Governments overclassifying vast amounts of information and documents and others providing limited transparency in the process and substance of classification. In the case of Japan, for instance, the Government adopted the Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets, which raised concerns about transparency, third-party oversight, the protection of journalists and their sources, and whistle-blowers. The United States enforces its Espionage Act in ways that ensure that national security whistle-blowers lack the ability to defend themselves on the merits of grounds of public interest.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- Certain States have passed laws that require real-name registration for online activity, a kind of ban on anonymity. In the Russian Federation, bloggers with 3,000 or more daily readers must register with the media regulator and identify themselves publicly, and cybercafe users reportedly must provide identification to connect to public wireless facilities. China reportedly announced regulations requiring Internet users to register real names for certain websites and avoid spreading content that challenges national interests. South Africa also requires real name registration for online and mobile telephone users.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- Likewise, Governments often require SIM card registration; for instance, nearly 50 countries in Africa require or are in the process of requiring the registration of personally identifiable data when activating a SIM card. Colombia has had a mandatory mobile registration policy since 2011, and Peru has associated all SIM cards with a national identification number since 2010. Other countries are considering such policies. Such policies directly undermine anonymity, particularly for those who access the Internet only through mobile technology. Compulsory SIM card registration may provide Governments with the capacity to monitor individuals and journalists well beyond any legitimate government interest.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- Acts of reprisals and other attacks against whistle-blowers and the disclosure of confidential sources must be thoroughly investigated and those responsible for those acts held accountable. When the attacks are condoned or perpetrated by authorities in leadership positions they consolidate a culture of silence, secrecy and fear within institutions and beyond, deterring future disclosures. Leaders at all levels in institutions should promote whistle-blowing and be seen to support whistle-blowers, and particular attention should be paid to the ways in which authorities in leadership positions encourage retaliation, tacitly or expressly, against whistle-blowers.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- Encryption and anonymity are especially useful for the development and sharing of opinions, which often occur through online correspondence such as e-mail, text messaging, and other online interactions. Encryption provides security so that individuals are able "to verify that their communications are received only by their intended recipients, without interference or alteration, and that the communications they receive are equally free from intrusion" (see A/HRC/23/40 and Corr.1, para. 23). Given the power of metadata analysis to specify "an individual's behaviour, social relationships, private preferences and identity" (see A/HRC/27/37, para. 19), anonymity may play a critical role in securing correspondence. Besides correspondence, international and regional mechanisms have interpreted privacy to involve a range of other circumstances as well.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- Two categories, for example, expand beyond officially recognized journalists. First, there are those who most closely reflect the professional engagement in collection and dissemination: members of civil society organizations who conduct research and issue findings, and researchers - academics, independent authors, freelance writers and others - who regularly participate in gathering and sharing information publicly. It is common for such people to adopt and publish methodologies that underscore the degree of professionalism upon which their work depends. Many non-governmental organizations are themselves publishers of well-sourced content that, in form and substance, is virtually identical to the work of the press, often the result of thorough research, in-the-field reporting and analysis. It is common for human rights researchers to rely upon sources who require confidentiality for safety. Recognizing a broad scope of protection, the European Court of Human Rights indicated that "non-governmental organisations, like the press, may be characterised as social 'watchdogs.' In that connection their activities warrant similar Convention protection to that afforded to the press". The Information Commissioner's Office in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland granted a non-governmental organization, Global Witness, an exemption from the national Data Protection Act because its work, and those of other non-media organizations, "constitutes a journalistic purpose even if they are not professional journalists and the publication forms part of a wider campaign to promote a particular cause". In Canada, a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec upheld a researcher's right to protect confidential information.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- Confidential sources rely on others to invoke the right to confidentiality on their behalf. Historically, States have enabled a professional class of journalists to invoke the right, but the revolution in the media and in information over the past 20 years demands reconsideration of such limitations. Article 19, which protects freedom of expression through any media, requires that States take into account a contemporary environment that has expanded well beyond traditional print and broadcast media. The protection available to sources should be based on the function of collection and dissemination and not merely the specific profession of "journalist". The practice of journalism is carried out by "professional full-time reporters and analysts, as well as bloggers and others who engage in forms of self-publication in print, on the Internet or elsewhere" (Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, para. 44).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- National laws should ensure that protections apply strictly, with extremely limited exceptions. Under Belgian law, journalists and editorial staff may be compelled by a judge to disclose information sources only if they are of a nature to prevent crimes that pose a serious threat to the physical integrity of one or more persons, and upon a finding of the following two cumulative conditions: (a) the information is of crucial importance for preventing such crimes; and (b) the information cannot be obtained by any other means. The same conditions apply to investigative measures, such as searches, seizures and telephone tapping, with respect to journalistic sources.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- National legal systems have also widely adopted the norm of protection of confidentiality. In a strong statement of legal protection, the 2010 Media Services Act of Estonia establishes that persons who are "processing information for journalistic purposes shall have the right not to disclose the information that would enable identification of the source of information" (sect. 15 (1)). The 1987 German Code of Criminal Procedure establishes a right to refuse to testify on professional grounds (sects. 53 (1(5)) and (2)). In Sweden, the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression of 1991 prohibits journalists from disclosing their sources and has criminalized the non-consensual disclosure of source identity (chap. 2, arts. 3-5). The Constitution of Cabo Verde guarantees that "no journalist shall be forced to reveal his sources of information" (art. 48 (8)). The laws of Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, India, Mozambique and the Philippines are among the many other States in which the principle of source protection is recognized.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 83a
- Paragraph text
- [Accountability mechanisms are a crucial means of ensuring that regulatory frameworks are enforced and abuses of power are rectified. Impunity is a root cause of the lack of safety faced by journalists. In the context of promoting free expression during electoral processes, States should:] Ensure that electoral authorities or independent oversight bodies are given sufficient financial and human resources, and enforcement powers to carry out their duties effectively, making all political entities accountable for irregularities, including all forms of abuse of political and economic powers;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 76
- Paragraph text
- During electoral processes, States must ensure that the right to freedom of expression is guaranteed to political candidates and their supporters, opposition groups, political lobbies and the whole spectrum of media actors, from news media to bloggers, commentators and analysts. Political communications must be unhindered by restrictions that hamper the fluid exchange of opinions, whether such restrictions come in the form of explicit prohibitions of certain political positions, or limitations that indirectly "chill" the expression of the opinions of political groups, such as controls of media content or on public demonstrations. At the same time, the absence of a regulatory framework to control political financing and spending, or to ensure accountability and redress for rights violations, also undermines the ability of voters, political groups and the media to exercise the right to freedom of expression during electoral processes.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- International bodies, recognizing the role played by the media in providing access to information, emphasize the importance of protecting "a free, uncensored and unhindered press or other media" (see general comment No. 34 of the Human Rights Committee, para. 13). The right to information is grounded in the public's right to know "information of public interest" (see A/68/362, para. 19). The Security Council has affirmed that the work of a free, independent and impartial media constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society (see Council resolutions 2222 (2015) and 1738 (2006)). The General Assembly in 2014 and 2015 called upon States to maintain a safe environment for journalists to work independently and without undue interference (see Assembly resolutions 68/163 and 69/185). The Human Rights Council in 2012, in its first resolution on the protection of journalists, highlighted the need to ensure greater protection for all media professionals and for journalistic sources (see Council resolution 21/12).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- Many States have dispensed with the need for law enforcement agencies to return to the court for ongoing supervision after an interception order is issued. Under the Kenyan Prevention of Terrorism Act 2012, for example, interception of communications can be conducted over an indefinite period of time, without any requirement that law enforcement agencies report back to a court or seek an extension. Some States impose time limits on the execution of interception orders but enable law enforcement authorities to renew such orders repeatedly and indefinitely.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- In addition to intercepting and tracking the content of individuals' communications, States may also seek access to communications data held by third party service providers and Internet companies. As the private sector collects progressively larger amounts of varied data that reveal sensitive information about peoples' daily lives, and individuals and businesses choose to store the content of their communications, such as voicemails, e-mails and documents, with third party service providers, access to communications data is an increasingly valuable surveillance technique employed by States.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- States are also increasingly acquiring software that can be used to infiltrate an individual's computer, mobile phone or other digital device. Offensive intrusion software, including so-called "Trojans" (also known as spyware or malware), can be used to turn on the microphone or camera of a device, to track the activity conducted on the device, and to access, alter or delete any information stored on the device. Such software enables a State to have complete control of the device infiltrated, and is virtually undetectable.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- In addition to technologies that facilitate filtering and censorship, many States are conducting manual Internet filtering, by creating online police forces and inspectors in order to physically monitor the content of websites, social networks, blogs and other forms of media. In some States, "cyber police forces" are tasked with inspecting and controlling the Internet, searching websites and critical nodes within websites (particularly online discussion forums) with a view to block or shut down websites whenever they contain content the Government disapproves of, including or criticism of the country's leadership. The burden of such policing is transferred to private intermediaries, such as search engines and social network platforms, through laws that widen liability for proscribed content from the original speaker to all intermediaries.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- States can track the movements of specific mobile phones, identify all individuals with a mobile phone within a designated area, and intercept calls and text messages, through various methods. Some States use off-the-air mobile monitoring devices called International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) catchers, which can be installed in a location temporarily (such as at a protest or march) or permanently (such as at an airport or other border crossings). These catchers imitate a mobile phone tower by sending and responding to mobile phone signals in order to extract the unique subscriber identification module (SIM) card number of all mobile phones within a certain territory.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- In many States, mandatory data retention is facilitating massive collection of communications data that can later be filtered and analysed. Technologies enable the State to scan phone calls and text messages to identify the use of certain words, voices or phrases, or filter Internet activity to determine when an individual visits certain websites or accesses particular online resources. "Black boxes" can be designed to inspect the data flowing through the Internet in order to filter through and deconstruct all information about online activity. This method, called "deep-packet inspection", allows the State to go beyond gaining simple knowledge about the sites that individuals visit, and instead analyse the content of websites visited. Deep-packed inspection, for example, has been reportedly employed by States confronted with recent popular uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa region.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- Another tool used regularly by States today is social media monitoring. States have the capacity physically to monitor activities on social networking sites, blogs and media outlets to map connections and relationships, opinions and associations, and even locations. States can also apply highly sophisticated data mining technologies to publicly available information or to communications data provided by third party service providers. At a more basic level, States have also acquired technical means to obtain usernames and passwords from social networking sites such as Facebook.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- By its resolution 65/196, the General Assembly proclaimed 24 March as the International Day for the Right to the Truth concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims, in recognition of the work and values of Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero of El Salvador, who was killed in 1980. In his message on the day in 2013, the Secretary-General emphasized the individual and collective dimension of the right to truth, noting that each victim had the right to know the truth about violations against them, but that the truth also had to be told more widely as a safeguard to prevent violations from happening again.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 107
- Paragraph text
- Government officials who release confidential information concerning violations of the law, wrongdoing by public bodies, grave cases of corruption, a serious threat to health, safety or the environment, or a violation of human rights or humanitarian law (i.e. whistle-blowers) should, if they act in good faith, be protected against legal, administrative or employment-related sanctions. Other individuals, including journalists, other media personnel and civil society representatives, who receive, possess or disseminate classified information because they believe that it is in the public interest, should not be subject to liability unless they place persons in an imminent situation of serious harm.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Environment
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur has highlighted the fact that, under no circumstances, may journalists, members of the media or members of civil society who have access to and distribute classified information on alleged violation of human rights be subjected to subsequent punishment. Equally, confidential sources and materials relating to the disclosure of classified information must be protected by law. In this context, journalistic self-regulatory mechanisms and codes can significantly contribute to drawing attention to eventual risks in the communication of complex and sensitive issues.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 76f
- Paragraph text
- [The core principles include:] Costs. Individuals should not be deterred by excessive cost from making requests for information;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- Notably, article 6 of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (known also as the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders), adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 53/144, expressly provides for access to information on human rights, stating that everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, (a) to know, seek, obtain, receive and hold information about all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including having access to information as to how these rights and freedoms are given effect in domestic legislative, judicial or administrative systems; and (b) as provided for in human rights and other applicable international instruments, freely to publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 115
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur encourages coordination between United Nations agencies and initiatives, such as the United Nations joint Plan of Action on the Protection of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity. Greater coordination between United Nations agencies, in terms of funding and programmes, may result in more efficient use of resources and less duplication of work. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the fact that civil society was consulted as part of the initiative and encourages strengthened links between United Nations agencies and civil society in the protection of journalists.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 83
- Paragraph text
- Defamation laws protect an individual's reputation from false and malicious attacks, and constitute valid grounds for restricting freedom of expression. Nearly all countries have some form of defamation legislation, although different terms are used, such as libel, calumny, slander, insult, desacato, or lèse majesté. However, the problem with defamation cases is that they frequently mask the determination of political and economic powers to retaliate against criticisms or allegations of mismanagement or corruption, and to exert undue pressure on the media.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- Most of the offline media have developed an online alternative, and given that the Internet has become an essential and economic medium for disseminating news to a global audience, leading to an emergence of "online journalists" - both professionals and so-called "citizen journalists" who are untrained, but who play an increasingly important role by documenting and disseminating news as they unfold on the ground. Such an expansion of individuals involved in spreading information has enriched the media landscape by increasing access to sources of information, stimulating informed analysis and promoting the expression of diverse opinions, particularly in moments of crises.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- Despite the existence of provisions in international human rights law which protect their right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, journalists across the world continue to face risks and challenges in carrying out their work. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that the problem with regard to continued and increasing violence against journalists is not a lack of legal standards, but the lack of implementation of existing norms and standards (A/65/284, para. 83). It is therefore essential that these existing norms and standards be implemented at the national level. The Special Rapporteur wishes to emphasize again that although the origin of the acts of violence may not initially be known, the primary responsibility of protecting journalists, fully investigating each case and prosecuting those responsible lies with Governments and State institutions (A/HRC/4/27).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 110
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur recognizes efforts in countries, such as Colombia and Mexico, to create bodies to offer, inter alia, greater protection to journalists. The Special Rapporteur underlines the importance of the willingness and ability of such bodies to take on a broad range and high number of cases and issues under its competency; to work with autonomy; to have their own and sufficient resources and to have the capacity to coordinate between different authorities. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur recommends that journalists and civil society organizations participate in the design, integration, functioning and evaluation of these bodies; that they have investigatory powers; that they have the competency to make recommendations to the Governments of their respective countries; that risk-assessment is prompt and efficient; that measures are implemented promptly; and that a contextual approach is adopted. Protection measures must be holistic, including a range of physical, legal, and political measures.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- With regard to discussion of history, the Special Rapporteur is of the view that historical events should be open to discussion and, as stated by the Human Rights Committee, laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression (CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 49). By demanding that writers, journalists and citizens give only a version of events that is approved by the Government, States are enabled to subjugate freedom of expression to official versions of events.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 90
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur emphasizes the importance of journalists' right to access information, which is part of the right to seek and receive information under articles 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights, respectively. He would like to stress that Governments should classify only those data which are proven to harm national security and other vital interests of the State. Moreover, there should be clear classification criteria and register of classified information, which is both established by law and accessible to everyone. Further, classified data should be subject to regular review and declassified if confidentiality is no longer necessary.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 78
- Paragraph text
- Given that blasphemy laws do not comply with the above-mentioned criteria, the Special Rapporteur urges States to repeal them and to replace them with laws protecting individuals' right to freedom of religion or belief in accordance with international human rights standards. In addition, any law that provides for disproportionate sanctions for the expression of opinions, such as the death penalty, should be repealed immediately. Similarly, the Special Rapporteur calls upon States to repeal laws that prohibit discussion of historic events. Just as religion, history should always be open to discussion and debate.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- Asia and the Middle East have seen killings of presidents of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan following a television broadcast during which two maulanas stated that the Ahmadiyya community was deserving of death; incitement by a Government-appointed imam in Saudi Arabia to eliminate all Shia believers in the world; incitement to and acts of violence against the Sufi community in Sri Lanka; increased radicalization and serious instances of incitement to racism in Israel against the Arab population, in addition to acts of violence by Jewish settlers against Muslims; and incitement to religious hatred against Jews in the occupied Palestinian territory.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 70
- Paragraph text
- While the swiftly evolving electronic media landscape has led to a dramatic increase in the volume of information available, the quality of information has not always kept pace. An objective, ethical and informative media therefore remains essential to informing society about contentious societal issues in a balanced manner and to preventing individuals from falling prey to promises of easy solutions and extremist rhetoric. Caution exercised by the media is also essential to preventing the drawing of any unnecessary attention to acts of an extremist individual that can spark violence. For example, when an obscure pastor in the United States threatened to burn the Koran in September 2010, the media played a negative role in unnecessarily drawing attention to the story. Had greater care been taken in reporting on the incident, some of the violence that ensued might have been averted.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- Cyber-attacks, or attempts to undermine or compromise the function of a computer-based system, include measures such as hacking into accounts or computer networks, and often take the form of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. During such attacks, a group of computers is used to inundate a web server where the targeted website is hosted with requests, and as a result, the targeted website crashes and becomes inaccessible for a certain period of time. As with timed blocking, such attacks are sometimes undertaken during key political moments. The Special Rapporteur also notes that websites of human rights organizations and dissidents are frequently and increasingly becoming targets of DDoS attacks, some of which are included in the first addendum to this report.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- In some economically developed States, Internet access has been recognized as a right. For example, the parliament of Estonia passed legislation in 2000 declaring Internet access a basic human right. The constitutional council of France effectively declared Internet access a fundamental right in 2009, and the constitutional court of Costa Rica reached a similar decision in 2010. Going a step further, Finland passed a decree in 2009 stating that every Internet connection needs to have a speed of at least one Megabit per second (broadband level). The Special Rapporteur also takes note that according to a survey by the British Broadcasting Corporation in March 2010, 79% of those interviewed in 26 countries believe that Internet access is a fundamental human right.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 70
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned by increasingly sophisticated blocking or filtering mechanisms used by States for censorship. The lack of transparency surrounding these measures also makes it difficult to ascertain whether blocking or filtering is really necessary for the purported aims put forward by States. As such, the Special Rapporteur calls upon States that currently block websites to provide lists of blocked websites and full details regarding the necessity and justification for blocking each individual website. An explanation should also be provided on the affected websites as to why they have been blocked. Any determination on what content should be blocked must be undertaken by a competent judicial authority or a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 30
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is also concerned by the emerging trend of timed (or "just-in-time") blocking to prevent users from accessing or disseminating information at key political moments, such as elections, times of social unrest, or anniversaries of politically or historically significant events. During such times, websites of opposition parties, independent media, and social networking platforms such as Twitter and Facebook are blocked, as witnessed in the context of recent protests across the Middle East and North African region. In Egypt, users were disconnected entirely from Internet access.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- The types of action taken by States to limit the dissemination of content online not only include measures to prevent information from reaching the end-user, but also direct targeting of those who seek, receive and impart politically sensitive information via the Internet. Physically silencing criticism or dissent through arbitrary arrests and detention, enforced disappearance, harassment and intimidation is an old phenomenon, and also applies to Internet users. This issue has been explored in the Special Rapporteur's report to the General Assembly under the section on "protection of citizen journalists" (A/65/284). Such actions are often aimed not only to silence legitimate expression, but also to intimidate a population to push its members towards self-censorship.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- Blocking refers to measures taken to prevent certain content from reaching an end-user. This includes preventing users from accessing specific websites, Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, domain name extensions, the taking down of websites from the web server where they are hosted, or using filtering technologies to exclude pages containing keywords or other specific content from appearing. For example, several countries continue to block access to YouTube, a video-sharing website on which users can upload, share and view videos. China, which has in place one of the most sophisticated and extensive systems for controlling information on the Internet, has adopted extensive filtering systems that block access to websites containing key terms such as "democracy" and "human rights". The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned that mechanisms used to regulate and censor information on the Internet are increasingly sophisticated, with multi-layered controls that are often hidden from the public.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- In the United States of America, the Senate unanimously passed the "Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act" in 2010. The Act seeks to ensure full access for users who are deaf, hard of hearing, late deafened or deaf-blind to evolving high-speed broadband, wireless and other Internet protocol technologies. Moreover, the Act stipulates that accessibility features are preserved when materials are offered online, that telephones used over the Internet must be compatible with hearing aids and that television programmes must also be captioned when delivered over the Internet.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- The right to freedom of opinion and expression includes the freedom for minority and excluded groups to give, receive and transmit information. Community-based media are effective ways to accomplish that, and it is the duty of Governments to assist and support them in doing so and to ensure equitable access. The Special Rapporteur reiterates the call to Governments, made in paragraph 3 of the relevant section of the Colombo Declaration, to "develop national policies that address access to, and participation in, information and communication for people living in poverty, including access to licenses and fair spectrum allocation".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Poverty
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- At the same time, as noted by the Working Group on Countering the Use of Internet for Terrorist Purposes, one of the nine working groups of the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force, the available means to suppress content deemed to be incitement to terrorism are often "clumsy or ineffective, or both", and thus it may be more effective to devise strategies that work with the Internet rather than against it, including the dissemination of rapid counter-narratives to extremist messages which constitute incitement to terrorism.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 88
- Paragraph text
- Given that in at least 4 of every 10 cases involving the murder of journalists, the victims receive threats before being killed, the Special Rapporteur urges all Governments to investigate such threats and ensure effective protection, for example through witness protection programmes. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur notes that detailed guidelines and recommendations have been set out in the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions (see A/63/313), the reports of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to the truth (A/HRC/12/19 and A/HRC/15/33) and the analytical study on human rights and transitional justice (A/HRC/12/18).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur would like to highlight the fact that, in addition to being afforded protection under international humanitarian law as civilians, journalists and other media professionals are protected under international human rights law even during armed conflict. Indeed, as emphasized by, inter alia, the Human Rights Committee, in situations of armed conflict, international humanitarian law and international human rights law are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. As such the obligation of States to respect, protect and fulfil the right of all individuals to freedom of expression, as well as their right to life, liberty and security (see section III.B above), continue to apply during armed conflict alongside international humanitarian law.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- In times of armed conflict, internal disturbance or natural disaster, ordinary citizens may become engaged in reporting activities. Such persons are usually referred to as "citizen journalists". While there is no universal definition of citizen journalism as such, the concept is usually understood as independent reporting, often by amateurs on the scene of an event, which is disseminated globally through modern media, most often the Internet (for example, through photo- or video-sharing sites, blogs, microblogs, online forums, message boards, social networks, podcasts, and so forth). New technologies have provided unprecedented access to means of global communication, and have therefore introduced new means of reporting on news and events around the world.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- In the case of non-international armed conflicts, there is no distinction between war correspondents and other journalists under international humanitarian law, and the protection for all journalists emanates from common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II). This includes, for example, protection from violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being, including torture, hostage-taking, humiliating and degrading treatment, as well as threats to commit such acts. They are also entitled to fair trial guarantees (articles 4, 5, 6 of Additional Protocol II). The Special Rapporteur would like to emphasize that violations of most of these provisions are punishable as war crimes.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- The obligation to fulfil or to facilitate the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression requires States to take positive and proactive measures, including, for example, allocating sufficient attention and resources to prevent attacks against journalists and taking special measures to address such attacks, including providing protection for journalists. It also encompasses the obligation to create conditions to prevent violations of the right to freedom of expression, including by ensuring that relevant national legislation complies with their international human rights obligations and is effectively implemented.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 90
- Paragraph text
- As restrictive national laws are used to justify harassment and interference with citizen journalists' freedom of expression, the Special Rapporteur urges States to fulfil their international human rights obligations by ensuring that legal provisions that criminalize freedom of expression, whether in the penal code, press law or elsewhere, are in conformity with international legal standards. When promulgating Internet-specific laws, States must ensure that they comply with article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- Most important, as civilians, journalists are protected against direct attacks unless and for such time as they take direct part in hostilities. Violations of this rule constitute a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, and an intentional attack against a civilian also amounts to a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in both international and non international armed conflicts. With regard to acts amounting to direct participation in hostilities, the Special Rapporteur would like to stress that, as clarified by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), three cumulative requirements must be met: (a) the act must be likely to adversely affect the military operations or military capacity of a party to an armed conflict or, alternatively, to inflict death, injury or destruction on persons or objects protected against direct attack (threshold of harm); (b) there must be a direct causal link between the act and the harm likely to result either from that act or from a coordinated military operation of which the act constitutes an integral part (direct causation); and (c) the act must be specifically designed to directly cause the required threshold of harm in support of a party to the conflict and to the detriment of another (belligerent nexus). Hence, journalists performing tasks in the conduct of their profession, such as recording videos, taking photographs or recording information solely for the purpose of informing the public, are not considered as direct participants in hostilities, and thus do not lose their protection as civilians under international humanitarian law.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- International humanitarian law protects journalists and other media professionals in times of armed conflict. In an international armed conflict, a journalist is entitled to all rights and protection granted to civilians, as stipulated in article 79 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I). The same protection also applies to non-international armed conflicts during which journalists are considered to be civilians by virtue of customary international law. Hence, although there are only two explicit references to media personnel under international humanitarian law (article 79 of Additional Protocol I, regarding journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions in areas of armed conflict, and article 4A(4) of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention), regarding, inter alia, war correspondents), all provisions related to the protection of civilians in the four Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols thereto are applicable to journalists.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- In addition, the Special Rapporteur emphasizes the importance for journalists to be alert to the danger of discrimination being furthered by the media, and to do the utmost to avoid facilitating such discrimination based on, inter alia, race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur notes that, in accordance with international human rights law, any expression of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence should be prohibited, as should the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur encourages journalists to promote, through their work, a deeper understanding of racial, cultural and religious diversity, and to contribute to developing better intercultural relationships.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- Journalists are understood to be individuals who are dedicated to investigating, analysing and disseminating information, in a regular and specialized manner, through any type of written media, broadcast media (television or radio) or electronic media. With the advent of new forms of communication, journalism has extended into new areas, including citizen journalism (see section V). The Special Rapporteur underscores that journalists should not be subject to conditions such as compulsory membership in professional associations or a university degree to practise journalism. When reference is made to journalists in the present report, the Special Rapporteur is also alluding by extension to other media professionals and associated personnel, given the fact that they are also often targeted because of their activities in gathering and disseminating information and for being part of "the press".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Sep 21, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- Where rule of law prevails, Governments and Government officials stay accountable to their citizens through a variety of mechanisms. Too often, however, accountability is a chimera, and nowhere is this more evident than in situations where authorities withhold information from the public. Without freedom to access information of all kinds — in particular when Governments withhold information from the public and its judicial, legislative and media mechanisms — abuses may take place, policies affecting the general welfare may not be tested and improved and overall public engagement and participation diminishes, often by design. By contrast, information-rich environments help promote good decision-making and meaningful public debate, building credibility for public institutions. Even if implementation may not always meet the highest standards, Governments have recognized this fundamental point, at the intersection of good, open government and the human right of access to information, recognizing that the credibility of public authorities depends on their willingness to engage with those who fund their work and elect their key officials — the members of the public.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur notes that, in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and which is officially and lawfully proclaimed in accordance with international law, a State may derogate from certain rights, including the right to freedom of expression. However, derogations are permissible only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation and only when and for so long as they are not inconsistent with its obligations under international law. Moreover, there are certain non-derogable rights, as outlined in article 4(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Hence, a journalist should never, under any circumstances, be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life, subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, imprisoned merely on the grounds of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation, held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence at the time when it was committed, denied recognition as a person before the law, or denied the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- Surveillance of human rights defenders in many countries has been well documented. On these occasions, human rights defenders and political activists report having their phone calls and e-mails monitored, and their movements tracked. Journalists are also particularly vulnerable to becoming targets of communications surveillance because of their reliance on online communication. In order to receive and pursue information from confidential sources, including whistleblowers, journalists must be able to rely on the privacy, security and anonymity of their communications. An environment where surveillance is widespread, and unlimited by due process or judicial oversight, cannot sustain the presumption of protection of sources. Even a narrow, non-transparent, undocumented, executive use of surveillance may have a chilling effect without careful and public documentation of its use, and known checks and balances to prevent its misuse.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- A key escrow system permits individual access to encryption but requires users to store their private keys with the Government or a "trusted third party". Key escrows, however, have substantial vulnerabilities. For instance, the key escrow system depends on the integrity of the person, department or system charged with safeguarding the private keys, and the key database itself could be vulnerable to attack, undermining any user's communication security and privacy. Key escrow systems, rejected (along with back-door access) after significant debate in the United States in the so-called Crypto Wars of the 1990s, are currently in place in several countries and have been proposed in others. In 2011, Turkey passed regulations requiring encryption suppliers to provide copies of encryption keys to government regulators before offering their encryption tools to users. The vulnerabilities inherent in key escrows render them a serious threat to the security to exercise the freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- The permissible limitations on the right to privacy should be read strictly, particularly in an age of pervasive online surveillance - whether passive or active, mass or targeted - regardless of whether the applicable standards are "unlawful and arbitrary" under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, "arbitrary" under article 12 of the Universal Declaration, "arbitrary or abusive" under article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights, or "necessary in a democratic society" under article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (see A/HRC/13/37, paras. 14-19). Privacy interferences that limit the exercise of the freedoms of opinion and expression, such as those described in this report, must not in any event interfere with the right to hold opinions, and those that limit the freedom of expression must be provided by law and necessary and proportionate to achieve one of a handful of legitimate objectives.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- In addition, the protection of personal data represents a special form of respect for the right to privacy. States parties are required by article 17(2) to regulate, through clearly articulated laws, the recording, processing, use and conveyance of automated personal data and to protect those affected against misuse by State organs as well as private parties. In addition to prohibiting data processing for purposes that are incompatible with the Covenant, data protection laws must establish rights to information, correction and, if need be, deletion of data and provide effective supervisory measures. Moreover, as stated in the Human Rights Committee's general comment on the right to privacy, "in order to have the most effective protection of his private life, every individual should have the right to ascertain in an intelligible form, whether, and if so, what personal data is stored in automatic data files, and for what purposes. Every individual should also be able to ascertain which public authorities or private individuals or bodies control or may control their files."
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- During the period of normative expansion in the establishment and work of human rights bodies, States were also adopting legislation to implement the right to information, while many incorporated a right to information as a matter of constitutional law. At the domestic level, States have increasingly opened up the workings of government as a matter of law, if not always achieving the best implementation practices. Nevertheless, the environment of confidentiality and withholding that tends to prevail within bureaucracies and in political leadership around the world remains difficult to eliminate. A prevailing exclusion of national security information from right-to-information legal frameworks encourages a tendency to look at disclosures, even those of the highest public interest without meaningful harm to governmental interests, as contrary to “the national interest”. Such attitudes put significant negative pressure on access-to-information laws, and they may have a spill-over effect beyond traditional national security environments. In short, while the legal framework for access to information has improved globally, open government still faces significant barriers in terms of overcoming attitudes and instilling implementation practices.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- International organizations must open themselves up to greater public scrutiny and participation if they are to thrive. Their leaders seem to recognize this, as is evident in their extensive websites, professional (if underresourced) communications offices and the public presence of a great number of officials of intergovernmental organizations in social, broadcast and print media. However, apart from a handful of exceptions noted herein, this recognition on their part does not generally lead to policies that promote and regularize the exercise of the right to information. Why this is so is not difficult to understand: with perhaps the exception of the work of the Security Council and the Secretary-General, and high-level ministerial meetings of Heads of State and Government, intergovernmental organizations generally conduct their day-to-day operations far from the media’s gaze, a situation that changes only in the event of scandal or abuse. The absence of that gaze, and the haze generated by large and difficult to penetrate bureaucracies, means that officials generally do not feel the pressure to release information. This, however, is a mistake.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- From the early days of the mandate’s work, Special Rapporteurs have elaborated on the right to information. In only the second report of the mandate, the Special Rapporteur highlighted the “vitally important” roles served by the right to information (E/CN.4/1995/32, para. 135), and the 1998 report emphasized that “the right to access to information held by the Government must be the rule rather than the exception”. The 1998 report also noted a specific right to information about “State security” and, in a notable statement, raised concerns about government prosecution of civil servants who disclose “information which has been classified”, adding that Governments “continue to classify far more information than could be considered necessary”. By this the Special Rapporteur meant that Governments should only withhold material in which “serious harm to the State’s interest is unavoidable if the information is made public and that this harm outweighs the harm to the rights of opinion, expression and information”. He concluded, “The tendency to classify or withhold information on the basis of, for example, ‘Cabinet confidentiality’ is too often the practice, which adversely affects access to information” (E/CN.4/1998/40, paras. 12 and 13).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- Like Governments, intergovernmental organizations should establish an explicit and comprehensive legal framework that recognizes a right to information applicable throughout the entire organization and its subsidiary organs. Any access policy should, explicitly or implicitly, promote disclosure of information in the public interest — that is, information to which the public has a right of access because of the benefit it would provide to understanding of the work of the organization. Information should be defined broadly to include all records, documents, data, analyses, opinions and processes, regardless of the media in which it is held, in keeping with the principle that individuals have a right to information and ideas of all kinds, subject only to narrow non-disclosure rules. The policy should be uniform across the organization, and should be written in plain language. It should also be binding, precluding the organization from withholding information on any basis found outside the policy itself. For instance, WFP generally recognizes a wide range of categories of information, capturing all sorts of media, and emphasizes the policy as a “directive” to be carried out by senior management.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 62b
- Paragraph text
- [Member States should:] Participate actively in the development of policies that advance everyone’s right to freedom of information;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- International human rights law establishes the right of everyone to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, and through any media of his or her choice (see Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 19; and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 19). The Human Rights Council and General Assembly have reiterated that the freedom of expression and other rights apply online (see Council resolutions 26/13 and 32/13; General Assembly resolution 68/167; and A/HRC/32/38). The Human Rights Committee, previous mandate holders and the Special Rapporteur have examined States’ obligations under article 19 of the Covenant. In short, States may not interfere with, or in any way restrict, the holding of opinions (see art. 19 (1) of the Covenant; and A/HRC/29/32, para. 19). Article 19 (3) of the Covenant provides that States may limit freedom of expression only where provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals (see Human Rights Committee general comment No. 34 (2011); A/71/373; and A/HRC/29/32).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- These competing considerations have led to variations in regulatory approaches. In India, public concern over Facebook’s Free Basics culminated in a ban on any arrangement that “has the effect of discriminatory tariffs for data services being offered or charged to the consumer on the basis of content”. Restrictions on zero rating are in effect in Chile, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Japan. In contrast, the United States, followed later by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), adopted guidelines involving a case-by-case approach. States that adopt a case-by-case approach should carefully scrutinize and, if necessary, reject arrangements that, among other things, zero-rate affiliated content, condition zero rating on payment or favour access to certain applications within a class of similar applications (for example, zero rating certain music streaming services rather than all music streaming). Additionally, States should require meaningful corporate disclosures about network traffic management practices. For example, Chile requires ISPs to disclose Internet access speeds, price or speed differentials between national and international connections, and related service guarantees.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- The industry’s human rights impacts are frequently global, affecting users even in markets beyond those served by the company concerned. For example, surveillance of a single Internet exchange point in the United States may capture large streams of communications among Americans and foreigners, and even those entirely among foreigners. Similarly, security vulnerabilities in network design affect all users who rely on the compromised network for digital access, including users located far away from the network. Accordingly, companies should identify and address the broader implications of their activities for freedom of expression generally, in addition to their impacts on customers or rights holders in the markets they operate. To be sure, the manner in which they account for their impacts may vary according to their size, resources, ownership, structure and operating context (Ibid., principle 14). For example, all providers should vet user data requests for compliance with a minimum set of formalities, regardless of the origin of the request or the user affected. But while a multinational provider may have dedicated teams vetting requests, a small or medium-size provider may task its legal or public policy teams to perform the same function.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- Direct access to Internet and telecommunications networks enables authorities to intercept and monitor communications with limited legal scrutiny or accountability. Technological advances have enhanced the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to obtain a direct connection to networks without the involvement or knowledge of the network operator. During the 2014 general election in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, intelligence authorities allegedly obtained direct access to the country’s major telecommunications networks to intercept the communications of over 20,000 people, including politicians, activists, government officials and journalists. Many targets were also sent a transcript of their phone calls. In India, it appears that authorities are developing a Central Monitoring System programme that would enable “electronic provisioning of target numbers by government agency without any manual intervention from telecommunications service providers on a secure network.” These activities do not appear to be provided by law, lacking both judicial authorization and external oversight. Furthermore, the risks they pose to the security and integrity of network infrastructure raise proportionality concerns.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- The right to privacy is often understood as an essential requirement for the realization of the right to freedom of expression. Undue interference with individuals' privacy can both directly and indirectly limit the free development and exchange of ideas. Restrictions of anonymity in communication, for example, have an evident chilling effect on victims of all forms of violence and abuse, who may be reluctant to report for fear of double victimization. In this regard, article 17 of ICCPR refers directly to the protection from interference with "correspondence", a term that should be interpreted to encompass all forms of communication, both online and offline. As the Special Rapporteur noted in a previous report, the right to private correspondence gives rise to a comprehensive obligation of the State to ensure that e-mails and other forms of online communication are actually delivered to the desired recipient without the interference or inspection by State organs or by third parties.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- States' use of blocking or filtering technologies is frequently in violation of their obligation to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, as the criteria mentioned under chapter III are not met. Firstly, the specific conditions that justify blocking are not established in law, or are provided by law but in an overly broad and vague manner, which risks content being blocked arbitrarily and excessively. Secondly, blocking is not justified to pursue aims which are listed under article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and blocking lists are generally kept secret, which makes it difficult to assess whether access to content is being restricted for a legitimate purpose. Thirdly, even where justification is provided, blocking measures constitute an unnecessary or disproportionate means to achieve the purported aim, as they are often not sufficiently targeted and render a wide range of content inaccessible beyond that which has been deemed illegal. Lastly, content is frequently blocked without the intervention of or possibility for review by a judicial or independent body.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- International criminal law prohibits direct and public incitement to commit genocide under article 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, article 25, 3 (e), of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, article 4, 3 (c), of the statute of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and article 2, 3 (c), of the statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Incitement to commit genocide has historically been justified as a criminal offence owing to the particularly reprehensible nature of genocide as "the crime of crimes". Indeed, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has repeatedly underscored the "utmost gravity" of the crime of direct and public incitement to genocide, and has stressed that the media as a key tool used by extremists in Rwanda to mobilize and incite the population to genocide, a view which led it to deny an application by Georges Ruggiu for early release.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is thus concerned that without Internet access, which facilitates economic development and the enjoyment of a range of human rights, marginalized groups and developing States remain trapped in a disadvantaged situation, thereby perpetuating inequality both within and between States. As he has noted previously, to combat situations of inequality it is critical to ensure that marginalized or disadvantaged sections of society can express their grievances effectively and that their voices are heard. The Internet offers a key means by which such groups can obtain information, assert their rights, and participate in public debates concerning social, economic and political changes to improve their situation. Moreover, the Internet is an important educational tool, as it provides access to a vast and expanding source of knowledge, supplements or transforms traditional forms of schooling, and makes, through "open access" initiatives, previously unaffordable scholarly research available to people in developing States. Additionally, the educational benefits attained from Internet usage directly contribute to the human capital of States.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- Intermediaries are increasingly required to assess the validity of State requests and private complaints against general legal criteria, and remove or delink such content based on such assessments. For example, the Cybercrime Act, 2015 of the United Republic of Tanzania only exempts hyperlink providers from liability for information linked provided that they "immediately remove[ ] or disable[ ] access to the information after receiving an order to do so from the relevant authority". In the context of copyright, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of the United States of America exempts providers of "online services and network access" from liability for third party content only if they respond "expeditiously to remove, or disable access to the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity" upon notice of such infringement. These notice and takedown frameworks have been criticized for incentivizing questionable claims and for failing to provide adequate protection for the intermediaries that seek to apply fair and human rights-sensitive standards to content regulation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- In many countries, existing legislation and practices have not been reviewed and updated to address the threats and challenges of communications surveillance in the digital age. Traditional notions of access to written correspondence, for example, have been imported into laws permitting access to personal computers and other information and communications technologies, without consideration of the expanded uses of such devices and the implications for individuals' rights. At the same time, the absence of laws to regulate global communications surveillance and sharing arrangements has resulted in ad hoc practices that are beyond the supervision of any independent authority. Today, in many States, access to communications data can be conducted by a wide range of public bodies for a wide range of purposes, often without judicial authorization and independent oversight. In addition, States have sought to adopt surveillance arrangements that purport to have extra-territorial effect.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur considers that the Tshwane Principles provide a key tool for States to ensure that national laws and practices regarding the withholding of information on national security grounds fully comply with international human rights standards.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- States, international organizations, corporations and civil society groups should promote online security. Given the relevance of new communication technologies in the promotion of human rights and development, all those involved should systematically promote access to encryption and anonymity without discrimination. The Special Rapporteur urgently calls upon entities of the United Nations system, especially those involved in human rights and humanitarian protection, to support the use of communication security tools in order to ensure that those who interact with them may do so securely. United Nations entities must revise their communication practices and tools and invest resources in enhancing security and confidentiality for the multiple stakeholders interacting with the Organization through digital communications. Particular attention must be paid by human rights protection mechanisms when requesting and managing information received from civil society and witnesses and victims of human rights violations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 57a
- Paragraph text
- [Among steps that I would encourage are the following:] Review and, where necessary, revise national laws. National legislation increasingly adopts overly broad definitions of key terms, such as terrorism, national security, extremism and hate speech, that fail to limit the discretion of executive authorities. Legislation often limits the role of judicial or independent and public oversight. Proponents often give limited demonstration of how new legal rules are necessary to protect legitimate interests and proportionately address specific threats, and the legislative process often limits public engagement and debate. I would urge all States considering new legislation to ensure that their laws meet these requirements, and I encourage States to implement regular public oversight of laws that implicate freedom of expression to ensure that they meet the tests of legality, legitimacy and necessity. Where possible, States should not only adopt legal frameworks but also implement training, particularly among independent oversight bodies, of the principles of freedom of expression;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur notes that multi-stakeholder initiatives are essential to deal effectively with issues related to the Internet, and the Global Network Initiative serves as a helpful example to encourage good practice by corporations. Although only three corporations, namely Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, have participated in this initiative so far, the Special Rapporteur welcomes their commitment to undertake a human rights impact assessment of their decisions, including before entering a foreign market, and to ensure transparency and accountability when confronted with situations that may undermine the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Google's Transparency Report is an outcome of such work, and provides information on Government inquiries for information about users and requests for Google to take down or censor content, as well as statistical information on traffic to Google services, such as YouTube. By illustrating traffic patterns for a given country or region, it allows users to discern any disruption in the free flow of information, whether it is due to Government censorship or a cable cut.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 70
- Paragraph text
- In the case of sexual exploitation, for example, advances in technology, including faster Internet connections and new ways of transmitting material that circumvent Internet service providers, have facilitated the sharing of images involving child abuse. Cybergrooming also involves the use of the Internet, this time to "befriend" and facilitate online sexual contact or a physical meeting with a child or young person for the purpose of committing sexual abuse. Offenders often use online forums such as chat rooms, social networking sites and instant messaging for this purpose; these "deconstruct traditional boundaries of privacy" and result in children being exposed to risks. Lastly, cyberbullying is understood as the psychological bullying and hazing by adults or other children through information and communications technologies. Cyberbullying can take various forms, including threats and intimidation, harassment, cyberstalking, vilification and defamation, exclusion or peer rejection, impersonation, unauthorized publication of private information or images, and manipulation. This is particularly problematic for groups that are already considered vulnerable in society.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Youth
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- State demands to remove content are often based on such rationales as defamation, blasphemy, election-related regulations, harassment or hate speech, incitement, intellectual property, obscenity and indecency, terrorist recruitment or "glorification", the protection of national security and public safety, child protection and the prevention of gender-based attacks. Problems long connected to freedom of expression but increasingly complicated in the digital age have also attracted State regulation, including the "right to be forgotten" and pluralism and diversity (for example, network neutrality). Intermediaries themselves establish and enforce terms of service designed to address many of these concerns, for legal, commercial and other reasons. Many of these issues raise questions about the appropriate balance between freedom of expression and other human rights (for example, privacy, non-discrimination). While content regulations are often restrictive in nature, they may also require the transmission of Government-mandated or approved messages, or prohibit differential pricing for content and content delivery services.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 102
- Paragraph text
- The effectiveness of national legislation on the right to information depends on the establishment and implementation of procedures that ensure that access is rapid, inexpensive and not unduly burdensome.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- There are, however, some encouraging initiatives to promote broadband Internet connection at the national level. Sweden, for example, was the first European country to develop a broadband policy in 1999, with the Government aiming to provide broadband in rural and remote areas where there is no market incentive to do so. In Brazil, the Government has been active in developing programmes that make broadband Internet access available to people in lower income brackets. For example, the e-government citizens' support service (GESAC) was set up in early 2002 for the purpose of increasing social inclusion by promoting digital inclusion, with the use of wireless technologies, such as satellite and WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access), to roll out broadband to poorly served areas. The Government also operates a network of community telecentres that offer Internet access free of charge. Through GESAC, the Government aims to ensure that all of Brazil's 5,565 municipalities have at least one broadband access point.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- Described below are the principles developed to guide the design and implementation of national legislation on access to information, in addition to common obstacles to the implementation of such laws.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- Under article 2 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, States parties must ensure that persons whose rights under the Covenant have been violated have an effective remedy. The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights anticipate that corporations should provide remedial and grievance mechanisms that are legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, rights-compatible, transparent, based on dialogue and engagement, and a source of continuous learning. There is limited guidance, however, as to how these elements should be operationalized or assessed in the context of information and communications technology. For example, improper removal of web links from search results might require the search engine to reinstate such links. It is, however, unclear how complaint or appeals mechanisms should be designed and implemented to ensure that such removals are effectively flagged, evaluated and remedied. A search engine's highly dispersed customer base further complicates design issues. It is also unclear whether companies should provide additional remedies, like financial compensation for lost revenue during the period of removal, or guarantees of non-repetition.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Corporations in a variety of sectors play roles in advancing or interfering with privacy, opinion and expression, including encryption and anonymity. Much online communication (and virtually all of it in some countries) is carried on networks owned and operated by private corporations, while other corporations own and manage websites with substantial user-generated content. Others are active players in the surveillance and spyware markets, providing hardware and software to Governments to compromise the security of individuals online. Others develop and provide services for secure and private online storage. Telecommunications entities, Internet service providers, search engines, cloud services and many other corporate actors, often described as intermediaries, promote, regulate or compromise privacy and expression online. Intermediaries may store massive volumes of user data, to which Governments often demand access. Encryption and anonymity may be promoted or compromised by each of these corporate actors.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- The need for a vibrant and critical debate, with no restrictions on the form or content of political expression, has been explored in depth by the European Court of Human Rights, which has emphasized that "the limits of permissible criticism are wider with regard to the Government than in relation to a private citizen, or even a politician". The State authorities may adopt, "in their capacity as guarantors of public order", penalties for defamation that are proportionate to the injury but only where the accusations are "devoid of foundation or formulated in bad faith". The reference to public order suggests that discretion of a government to restrict potentially defamatory statements against it should be limited to situations in which public order is threatened: While freedom of expression is important for everybody, it is especially so for an elected representative of the people. He represents his electorate, draws attention to their preoccupations and defends their interests. Accordingly, interferences with the freedom of expression of an opposition member of parliament, like the applicant, call for the closest scrutiny on the part of the Court.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 76g
- Paragraph text
- [The core principles include:] Open meetings. In line with the notion of maximum disclosure, legislation should establish a presumption that meetings of governing bodies are open to the public;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- In addition, the Special Rapporteur emphasizes that due to the unique characteristics of the Internet, regulations or restrictions which may be deemed legitimate and proportionate for traditional media are often not so with regard to the Internet. For example, in cases of defamation of individuals' reputation, given the ability of the individual concerned to exercise his/her right of reply instantly to restore the harm caused, the types of sanctions that are applied to offline defamation may be unnecessary or disproportionate. Similarly, while the protection of children from inappropriate content may constitute a legitimate aim, the availability of software filters that parents and school authorities can use to control access to certain content renders action by the Government such as blocking less necessary, and difficult to justify. Furthermore, unlike the broadcasting sector, for which registration or licensing has been necessary to allow States to distribute limited frequencies, such requirements cannot be justified in the case of the Internet, as it can accommodate an unlimited number of points of entry and an essentially unlimited number of users.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Families
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 101
- Paragraph text
- National laws should establish the right to lodge complaints or appeals to independent bodies in cases in which requests for information have not been dealt with properly or have been refused.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Some States and regional courts have moved towards imposing responsibilities on Internet service providers and media platforms to regulate online comments by anonymous users. Ecuador, for instance, in its Organic Communications Law, requires intermediaries to generate mechanisms to record personal data to allow the identification of those posting comments. In Delfi v. Estonia (application No. 64569/09), the European Court of Human Rights upheld an Estonian law that imposes liability on a media platform for anonymous defamatory statements posted on its site. Such intermediary liability is likely to result either in real-name registration policies, thereby undermining anonymity, or the elimination of posting altogether by those websites that cannot afford to implement screening procedures, thus harming smaller, independent media. The recently adopted Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, drafted by a coalition of civil society organizations, provide a sound set of guidelines for States and international and regional mechanisms to protect expression online.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 13
- Paragraph text
- The "dark" side of encryption and anonymity is a reflection of the fact that wrongdoing offline takes place online as well. Law enforcement and counter-terrorism officials express concern that terrorists and ordinary criminals use encryption and anonymity to hide their activities, making it difficult for Governments to prevent and conduct investigations into terrorism, the illegal drug trade, organized crime and child pornography, among other government objectives. Harassment and cyberbullying may rely on anonymity as a cowardly mask for discrimination, particularly against members of vulnerable groups. At the same time, however, law enforcement often uses the same tools to ensure their own operational security in undercover operations, while members of vulnerable groups may use the tools to ensure their privacy in the face of harassment. Moreover, Governments have at their disposal a broad set of alternative tools, such as wiretapping, geo-location and tracking, data-mining, traditional physical surveillance and many others, which strengthen contemporary law enforcement and counter-terrorism.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- The Internet has profound value for freedom of opinion and expression, as it magnifies the voice and multiplies the information within reach of everyone who has access to it. Within a brief period, it has become the central global public forum. As such, an open and secure Internet should be counted among the leading prerequisites for the enjoyment of the freedom of expression today. But it is constantly under threat, a space - not unlike the physical world - in which criminal enterprise, targeted repression and mass data collection also exist. It is thus critical that individuals find ways to secure themselves online, that Governments provide such safety in law and policy and that corporate actors design, develop and market secure-by-default products and services. None of these imperatives is new. Early in the digital age, Governments recognized the essential role played by encryption in securing the global economy, using or encouraging its use to secure Government-issued identity numbers, credit card and banking information, business proprietary documents and investigations into online crime itself.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 84
- Paragraph text
- In some cases, the continued use of parallel national laws and regulations justifying multiple grounds for secrecy, some predating the adoption of the laws regulating access to information, continues to hamper information access.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 100
- Paragraph text
- Alternative laws establishing additional grounds for secrecy must be revised or revoked in order to ensure that they meet the norms on access to information.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities outlines general principles to which States that have ratified the Convention should adhere, including full and effective participation and inclusion in society and accessibility (article 3, paras. (c) and (f)). The Convention further stipulates that States should "promote the availability and use of new technologies, including information and communications technologies, mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies, suitable for persons with disabilities, giving priority to technologies at an affordable cost" (article 4, para. 1 (g)), and "promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and communications technologies and systems, including the Internet" (article 9, para. 2 (g)). To ensure fulfilment of these obligations, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has recommended the following principles for ICT accessibility: equal access, functional equivalency, accessibility, affordability and design for all.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- Persons with disabilities
- Year
- 2011
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- The Inter-American Court has recently has found that violations of the right to know the truth can be a breach of the right to access information set forth in article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which recognizes freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 8
- Paragraph text
- The "duties and responsibilities" under article 19 (3) appear nowhere else in the Covenant. Only in the preamble is it emphasized that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the Covenant. The language in the Covenant and in article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not identify duties or responsibilities of individuals to the State, but to other individuals and the communities in which they live, an acknowledgement that the only legitimate restrictions are those demonstrably grounded in and necessary for the protection of the rights of other individuals or a specific public interest. It is not unusual for States to highlight an individual's duty in order to bolster expansive limitations on the right to freedom of expression. However, the phrase "duties and responsibilities" adds nothing to claims for support of a State's powers of restriction. By no measure does the language prioritize the State over the rights enjoyed by individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- Several States penalize sedition or treason in their laws, targeting critics. Malaysia, for instance, has continued to defend its ongoing prosecution of individuals on the basis of a law that criminalizes seditious words or tendencies, arguing that the law promotes "national harmony". In practice, however, dozens of individuals have been detained or subject to prosecution under the Sedition Act merely for expression critical of the Government. Swaziland detained activists on sedition charges following criticism of the monarchical system of government. India has pursued charges against individuals, including a folk singer accused of writing lyrics critical of local government, on the grounds of section 124 A of its Penal Code, which prohibits expression that may cause "hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection" towards the Government. The Gambia has prosecuted a journalist on the grounds of "sedition" and the "publication of false news with intent to cause fear and alarm to the public" under Gambian law. Jordan has detained and prosecuted an academic for allegedly posting anti-Government comments on his Facebook page on the grounds of "undermining the political regime in the Kingdom".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 108
- Paragraph text
- Only if the information released is related to the above principles should the person be considered a whistle-blower and, therefore, bear no liability.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- Generally, legislation has not kept pace with the changes in technology. In most States, legal standards are either non-existent or inadequate to deal with the modern communications surveillance environment. As a result, States are increasingly seeking to justify the use of new technologies within the ambits of old legal frameworks, without recognizing that the expanded capabilities they now possess go far beyond what such frameworks envisaged. In many countries, this means that vague and broadly conceived legal provisions are being invoked to legitimize and sanction the use of seriously intrusive techniques. Without explicit laws authorizing such technologies and techniques, and defining the scope of their use, individuals are not able to foresee - or even know about - their application. At the same time, laws are being adopted to broaden the breadth of national security exceptions, providing for the legitimization of intrusive surveillance techniques without oversight or independent review.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- Human rights law places a high value on the individual's ability to hold beliefs and practise religious faith. The Human Rights Council has raised concerns about discrimination and violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief (see Council resolution 16/18). Yet neither article 18, on freedom of religion, conscience or belief, article 19 nor article 20 (2) of the Covenant protects religions, institutions or beliefs as such. The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has noted that the right to freedom of religion or belief has sometimes been misperceived as protecting religions or belief systems in themselves (see A/HRC/31/18, para. 13), when it in fact protects individuals holding or expressing those beliefs. In paragraph 48 of its general comment No. 34, the Human Rights Committee emphasized that prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with article 19. Nor, the Committee noted, would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Although reporting from situations of armed conflict significantly increases the risks to their lives, more journalists are, in fact, killed in non-conflict situations than are killed during armed conflict. Indeed, the Special Rapporteur would like to underscore the fact that the majority of casualties are not international war correspondents, but local journalists working in their own countries, mostly in peacetime, covering local stories. As highlighted in the joint statement issued by the Special Rapporteur and the three regional rapporteurs on freedom of expression, the Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that journalists reporting on social problems, including organized crime or drug trafficking, voicing criticism of Government or the powerful, or reporting on human rights violations or corruption are at particular risk. Another factor that often places journalists at risk is reporting on environmental matters, electoral processes, demonstrations or civil disorder. The Special Rapporteur also notes that in at least 4 of every 10 cases in which journalists were murdered, the victims had reported receiving threats before they were killed.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with individuals' enjoyment of rights. While article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permits States to impose certain limitations on the right to freedom of expression, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that, all too often, States invoke this provision to justify undue interference with journalists' right to freedom of expression to prevent them from exposing corruption or misconduct by the Government or powerful private entities, or from reporting on other politically sensitive issues. Even though such limitations may be provided by law as required by article 19(3), in many cases the provisions are vague and ambiguous and are accompanied by harsh sentences, including imprisonment, and disproportionate fines. The Special Rapporteur would like to remind States that limitations on the right to freedom of expression must be the exception, rather than the rule. Further details regarding the criteria which must be met when States attempt to limit the right to freedom of expression are set out in the Special Rapporteur's most recent report to the Human Rights Council.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- The UNDP information disclosure policy provides a good example of how to approach exceptions. Its policy, which notes that the organization operates in contexts of “crisis, conflict or humanitarian disasters” that pose challenges to UNDP operations and Member State interests, identifies several categories of information deemed confidential and “not available to the public”. Not all of the categories of exceptions are entirely appropriate, such as “[c]ommercial information where disclosure would harm either the financial interests of UNDP or those of third parties involved” or “[i]nformation which, if disclosed, in UNDP’s view would seriously undermine the policy dialogue with Member States or implementing partners”. (These exceptions are found in the policies of other intergovernmental organizations as well.) Both categories seem overbroad and subject to undue discretion of the organization. Nonetheless, recognizing this potential for overbreadth and potentially illegitimate non-disclosure in paragraph 12 of its information disclosure policy, UNDP provides that it could disclose even “confidential” information “if it determines that the overall benefits and public interest of such disclosure outweighs the likely harm to the interest(s) protected by the exception(s)”. Such authority rests not only in UNDP itself but in the independent panel created to oversee such decisions.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- Access information policy at UNEP is focused on a policy of maximum disclosure and openness. Its policy defines the type of information it can disclose, which is any information relating to UNEP and in its possession, and includes established exceptions, consistent with relevant rules and practices of the United Nations, for example, how to handle sensitive information and classification. UNEP has a specific information request mechanism that includes information on how to frame a request, and to whom. Furthermore, it specifies that if there is an exception of concern, the officer handling the request shall seek guidance from a senior legal officer. UNEP has a timeline for handling requests, indicating that receipt of a request must be acknowledged within 5 days, a response within 30 days, and a response to an information appeal within 60 days. The policy contains a fee structure, under which most information is released free of charge, except for printing costs. It requires a reason for the denial of a request for information and establishes an appeals mechanism, made up of a panel of two members of UNEP and one outside representative. In addition, the policy includes a public interest override test according to which UNEP will release information if the benefits of disclosure outweigh potential harm.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 63a
- Paragraph text
- [Civil society organizations, the media and members of the public should:] Engage directly and seek a formal role with intergovernmental organizations in the process of development of access to information policies, including by identifying for them the key areas of interest in information;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 62c
- Paragraph text
- [Member States should:] Focus on ensuring the broadest possible access to information, only seeking to protect from disclosure State-generated information that could be withheld under international human rights law, in particular article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 63c
- Paragraph text
- [Civil society organizations, the media and members of the public should:] Share information with other organizations and with the Special Rapporteur about the experience of engaging with intergovernmental organizations in the development of access policies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- It bears re-emphasizing that article 19 of the International Covenant guarantees everyone the right to seek and receive information of all kinds, regardless of frontiers. At a minimum, States are obligated not to stand in the way of members of the public receiving information from organizations like the United Nations and its departments and agencies, absent a demonstration of the legitimate application of the limitations found in article 19 (3) of the Covenant. One can go a step further and highlight the broad consensus that States are obligated not only to avoid illegitimate restrictions on access to information but that they should create enabling environments for all rights under article 19 of the Covenant. While intergovernmental organizations clearly enjoy an independent personality under international law, their main policies and legal norms are often the result of the decisions of their Member States. As such, States should encourage the creation of environments that include access to information not merely because of some legalistic approach to intergovernmental organizations and the responsibility of the United Nations but because their citizens — all citizens, everywhere — should enjoy the right to information of all kinds regardless of frontiers, including information about intergovernmental organizations and the United Nations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- Not every organization with an access-to-information policy deals with exceptions in the same way, but a fundamental problem with many is that they do not provide a basis for disclosure in the public interest (which UNDP does provide). For instance, while the policy of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) largely follows along the lines of UNDP, it fails to include a public interest test to provide for disclosure, even in situations where non-disclosure may be permitted. UNESCO has recently adopted a policy that, while noting a commitment to transparency (and despite its role in the United Nations system in promoting access to information), includes similar restrictions as UNDP. However, like UNFPA, it does not provide a public interest override, such that material normally subject to non-disclosure could be released. If an organization does not provide a public interest test, its exceptions appear rigid and likely to result in barriers to transparency. As part of any public interest test, organizations should include a strong presumption that information about threats to the environment, health or human rights and information revealing corruption should be released because of heightened public interest in such information. This would be consistent with emerging norms governing State access to information policies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 63b
- Paragraph text
- [Civil society organizations, the media and members of the public should:] Make requests for information from intergovernmental organizations as soon as possible, even before the development of access policies, in order to determine the way in which they currently handle such formal requests;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- Public disclosure should also involve the following points: first, the institutions themselves should engage on a regular basis with members of the public, typically through civil society organizations, to ensure that they are making public all relevant and valuable information. For instance, in its submission for the present report, the International Service for Human Rights highlighted the kinds of information that it believes to be in the public interest and how OHCHR could improve its proactive disclosures. Regular dialogue with civil society organizations would enable all intergovernmental organizations to be efficient in the disclosure of information, and would likely reduce the resources devoted to such requests. Second, disclosed information must be shared in a way that is easily searched and analysed. Third, in an age of surveillance and information insecurity, all organizations must take steps to ensure both the security of their information systems and of the individuals who may be seeking access to them. I have already raised the issue of digital insecurity at OHCHR, including in my 2015 report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/29/32, para. 37). The OHCHR website, and the website of the United Nations itself, remain unencrypted (as do many other institutions), potentially deterring those concerned about the privacy of their online searches from seeking information.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- Transparency within intergovernmental organizations advances the same objectives that underlie the expansion of freedom of information and open government initiatives. As noted in the submission of the Centre for Law and Democracy, such organizations are public institutions, performing governmental functions, much as States do. Members of the public can only seriously engage with the critical issues pursued by intergovernmental organizations when they have access to information about them. In the context of multilateral institutions, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly noted that for “civil society to engage effectively in global decision-making, the right to access information is indispensable” (A/69/365, para. 15). In countries where intergovernmental organizations do extensive work, whether it involves peacekeeping or development assistance or human rights, to name a few areas, genuine engagement and participation means the ability to gain current information about the work of such missions. It means having mechanisms of public accountability so that individuals can determine whether the organizations are serving their interests or those of the organization itself, including, possibly, corporations, local leaders or corrupt participants in public life.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Sixteen institutions made submissions for the compilation of the present report, which I supplemented with interviews and consultations. Despite extensive outreach, dozens of intergovernmental organizations and agencies within the United Nations system did not respond to the mandate’s call for submission. I was particularly disappointed not to receive a submission from the Secretariat of the United Nations Headquarters in New York. While organizations that did not make any submission may have some kind of access-to-information policy in place, 10 organizations that made submissions have formal access-to-information, disclosure or transparency policies; two are currently drafting policies; one does not have a formal access-to-information policy but provides access through an array of its policies; and three do not have any information access policies. Based on research, it appears that most international organizations lack binding policies to protect and promote the right of access to information. Put another way, based on my research, with a few notable exceptions, intergovernmental organizations have failed to create mechanisms that can penetrate their opacity and enable easy access to their operations. Most egregiously, 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 for response to access-to-information requests.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- The government actions described below often fail to meet the standards of human rights law. Moreover, a lack of transparency pervades government interferences with the digital access industry. Failures of transparency include vague laws providing excessive discretion to authorities, legal restrictions on third party disclosures concerning government access to user data and specific gag orders. The lack of transparency undermines the rule of law as well as public understanding across this sector.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- IXPs enable the exchange of Internet traffic between and among networks managed by different providers within a country or region. This form of interconnection prevents local or regional Internet traffic from taking long and circuitous international routes, thus enhancing the speed and efficiency of Internet connectivity. IXPs may be established by Internet infrastructure companies as part of a broader suite of services sold to providers or operated as non-profit or volunteer organizations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 81
- Paragraph text
- The intersection of State behaviour and corporate roles in the digital age remains somewhat new for many States. One profitable way forward, at both the international and domestic levels, would involve the development of national action plans on business and human rights in order to establish meaningful avenues for all categories of the digital access industry to identify and address their respective human rights impacts.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Zero rating arrangements may provide users with limited Internet access in areas that would otherwise completely lack access. However, broader Internet access may still remain out of reach for users, trapping them in permanently walled online gardens. The assumption that limited access will eventually ripen into full connectivity requires further study. It may be dependent upon factors such as user behaviour, market conditions, the human rights landscape and the regulatory environment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Environment
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- A growing number of providers are establishing arrangements with media and other content-producing companies that threaten net neutrality and are lobbying intensely for concessions on net neutrality standards. For example, as European regulators were developing net neutrality guidelines, 17 major providers in the region issued the “5G Manifesto”, warning that “excessively prescriptive” guidelines would delay their investment in 5G, the next generation of mobile Internet connection.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- Due diligence processes enable a digital access provider to identify, prevent and mitigate the human rights impacts of its activities (see A/HRC/17/31, annex, principle 19). While one-size-fits-all due diligence approaches are neither possible nor advisable, human rights impact assessments provide a means of assessing and addressing risks to freedom of expression and privacy. Due diligence involves at least the following.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- Companies should be quick to adapt due diligence processes to changes in circumstances or operating context. For example, risk assessment should continue after the design phase and at regular intervals throughout the life cycle of the product or service, taking into account factors such as technology and infrastructure changes and associated security vulnerabilities, alterations in consumer behaviour, and modifications of the legal, political and social environment where companies operate.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- Companies have an interest in operating in a legal environment that is human rights compliant, consistent due process and rule of law norms. Companies should explore all legal options for challenging requests that are excessively intrusive — such as requests for shutdowns of entire services or platforms, website takedowns that are clearly targeted at criticism or dissent or customer data requests that cover broadly unspecified users.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- Remedies may include both financial and non-financial means (Ibid., principle 27). When freedom of expression is impaired, appropriate remedies may include access to grievance mechanisms and information about the violation and guarantees of non-repetition. Users whose accounts have been wrongly suspended may want the satisfaction of being heard and provided with explanations and assurances of non-repetition.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- The failure to explain or acknowledge shutdowns creates the perception that they are designed to suppress reporting, criticism or dissent. Reports of repression and State-sanctioned violence in the wake of network disruptions have led to allegations that some States exploit the darkness to commit and cover up abuses. In Sudan, for example, Internet access was shut down for several hours during a deadly crackdown on demonstrators protesting fuel price hikes in September 2013.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Due diligence processes should critically examine at least applicable local and international laws and standards, including potential conflicts between local laws and human rights; freedom of expression and privacy risks embedded in the company’s products and services; strategies to mitigate and prevent these risks; limits on the effectiveness of these strategies given the company’s legal, regulatory or operating environment; and the potential to promote human rights throughout the company’s operations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- To operationalize its human rights commitments, the digital access industry should allocate appropriate resources to at least the practices described below. Although these principles are evaluated in the context of digital access, they also bear relevance to other sectors of the digital economy, such as social media, commerce, surveillance and search.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- Duration and geographical scope may vary, but shutdowns are generally disproportionate. Affected users are cut off from emergency services and health information, mobile banking and e-commerce, transportation, school classes, voting and election monitoring, reporting on major crises and events, and human rights investigations. Given the number of essential activities and services they affect, shutdowns restrict expression and interfere with other fundamental rights.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 80
- Paragraph text
- The protective role that States may exercise over the private sector can only go so far. They should not be promoting the economic gain of private entities over users’ rights to freedom of opinion and expression. Thus, States should prohibit attempts to assign priority to certain types of Internet content or applications over others for payment or other commercial benefits.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 30
- Paragraph text
- International legal instruments do not explicitly address how States and other actors should maintain a free and open Internet, nor may regulation by law always be an appropriate approach. Indeed, Internet governance is not the sole province of specialized bodies or Governments. Most recently, the World Summit on the Information Society emphasized the continuing importance of a governance approach that integrates government, corporate and civil society, academic and technical stakeholders and expertise (see General Assembly resolution 70/125). In the context of global trade, non-discrimination principles established under international agreements administered by the World Trade Organization may require States to restrict or otherwise regulate non-neutral services. The World Intellectual Property Organization has also faced growing demands from member States for advice on legislative frameworks that enable them to implement treaty obligations in digital environments. Regional bodies, such as the African Union, the European Commission and the Organization of American States seek to ensure that global Internet policy is formulated and implemented in a manner that takes into account the laws, particularities and concerns of their respective regions.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- While the present report does not draw conclusions about corporate responsibilities for communication security, it is nonetheless clear that, given the threats to freedom of expression online, corporate actors should review the adequacy of their practices with regard to human right norms. At a minimum, companies should adhere to principles such as those laid out in the http://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdfGuiding Principles http://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdfon Business and Human Rights, the Global Network Initiative's Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy, the European Commission's ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue Guiding Principles. Companies, like States, should refrain from blocking or limiting the transmission of encrypted communications and permit anonymous communication. Attention should be given to efforts to expand the availability of encrypted data-centre links, support secure technologies for websites and develop widespread default end-to-end encryption. Corporate actors that supply technology to undermine encryption and anonymity should be especially transparent as to their products and customers.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- The debate on this issue highlights a critical point: requiring encryption back-door access, even if for legitimate purposes, threatens the privacy necessary to the unencumbered exercise of the right to freedom of expression. Back-door access has practical limitations; the exploitation of intentional weaknesses could render encrypted content susceptible to attack, even if access is provided with the sole intention of allowing government or judicial control. Governments certainly face a dilemma when their obligation to protect freedom of expression is in conflict with their obligations to prevent violations of the right to life or bodily integrity, which are put at risk by terrorism and other criminal behaviour. But other recourses are available to States to request the disclosure of encrypted information, such as through judicial warrants. In such situations, States must demonstrate that general limitations on the security provided by encryption would be necessary and proportionate. States must show, publicly and transparently, that other less intrusive means are unavailable or have failed and that only broadly intrusive measures, such as backdoors, would achieve the legitimate aim. Regardless, measures that impose generally applicable restrictions on massive numbers of persons, without a case-by-case assessment, would almost certainly fail to satisfy proportionality.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- Necessity also implies an assessment of the proportionality of the measures limiting the use of and access to security online. A proportionality assessment should ensure that the restriction is "the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve the desired result". The limitation must target a specific objective and not unduly intrude upon other rights of targeted persons, and the interference with third parties' rights must be limited and justified in the light of the interest supported by the intrusion. The restriction must also be "proportionate to the interest to be protected". A high risk of damage to a critical, legitimate State interest may justify limited intrusions on the freedom of expression. Conversely, where a restriction has a broad impact on individuals who pose no threat to a legitimate government interest, the State's burden to justify the restriction will be very high. Moreover, a proportionality analysis must take into account the strong possibility that encroachments on encryption and anonymity will be exploited by the same criminal and terrorist networks that the limitations aim to deter. In any case, "a detailed and evidence-based public justification" is critical to enable transparent public debate over restrictions that implicate and possibly undermine freedom of expression (see A/69/397, para. 12).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- Article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows for restrictions on the freedom of expression (but not on the freedom of opinion under article 19 (1)). According to article 19 (3), any restriction, to be legitimate, must be provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others or the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. Any restriction must be precise enough and publicly accessible in order to limit the authorities' discretion and provide individuals with adequate guidance (see the Human Rights Committee's general comment No. 34 (2011) on article 19: freedoms of opinion and expression). To be necessary, a restriction must be more than merely useful, reasonable or desirable. It is also well established that necessity requires an assessment of proportionality (see A/HRC/29/32). Proportionality requires demonstrating that restrictive measures are the least intrusive instrument among those which might achieve their protective function and proportionate to the interest to be protected (see general comment No. 34). When restrictions fail to meet the standard of article 19 (3), individuals enjoy the right to an effective remedy under article 2 (3) of the Covenant.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- Encryption and anonymity provide individuals and groups with a zone of privacy online to hold opinions and exercise freedom of expression without arbitrary and unlawful interference or attacks. The previous mandate holder noted that the rights to "privacy and freedom of expression are interlinked" and found that encryption and anonymity are protected because of the critical role they can play in securing those rights (A/HRC/23/40 and Corr.1). Echoing article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifically protects the individual against "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence" and "unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation", and provides that "everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks". The General Assembly, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and special procedure mandate holders have recognized that privacy is a gateway to the enjoyment of other rights, particularly the freedom of opinion and expression (see General Assembly resolution 68/167, A/HRC/13/37 and Human Rights Council resolution 20/8).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- Basic structural gaps in international organizations leave whistle-blowers at risk in ways that those who report wrongdoing in national systems may avoid. In particular, nearly all international organizations are opaque to the public, which has limited access to information, and few have effective policies on access to information. As bureaucratically dominated organizations, they avoid the strict scrutinization by the press that is often found in national contexts, and they are naturally isolated from direct contact with members of the public or the press. They are, moreover, subject to reputational demands in order to maintain financial and political support of Governments. Furthermore, persons who report wrongdoing have limited access to independent systems of justice. They generally lack access to national courts when complaining about retaliation, and the human rights bodies are unlikely to apply protection in the face of retaliation. The immunities enjoyed by international organizations in national and other external jurisdictions result in minimal legal pressure on the organizations to respond effectively to allegations of wrongdoing. The mechanisms themselves generally face substantial problems of independence because of those structural barriers.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- Yet States often treat national security or public order as a label to legitimate any restriction. The Human Rights Council recognized this problem in 2008 in its resolution 7/36, stressing the need to ensure that invocation of national security, including counter-terrorism, is not used unjustifiably or arbitrarily to restrict the right to freedom of opinion and expression. One way to resist unjustifiable or arbitrary invocation of either justification is to insist that Governments demonstrate the risk that specific expression poses to a definite interest in national security or public order, that the measure chosen complies with necessity and proportionality and is the least restrictive means to protect the interest, and that any restriction is subject to independent oversight. In 2016, I shared with a federal judge in the United States of America how article 19 may be used to assess proposals to gain access to the content of encrypted personal digital devices. In my letter to the Court, I noted that alternative measures were available to the Government to conduct its investigation into the 2015 massacre in San Bernardino, California, and that the proposed order would implicate the security and freedom of expression of what would likely be a vast number of people (and would thus be disproportionate).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- Despite multiple reform attempts, transparency concerning government requests is still lacking. While there has been some improvement in transparency reporting concerning government requests for user information, there is far less information available about the volume and nature of government requests to restrict or remove content. It is unclear whether such statistics are even retained. State restrictions on private disclosures of relevant information can be a major obstacle to corporate transparency. Several States prohibit disclosures concerning government requests for content removal or access to user data. India, for example, prohibits online intermediaries from disclosing details of government orders to block access to Internet content, as well as any action they take in response to such orders. The British Investigative Powers Bill would prohibit telecommunication service providers from disclosing, among other things, "the existence and contents" of government orders to retain customers' communications data. In other States, ambiguous laws and regulations make it difficult for corporations to determine what kinds of information they are permitted to disclose. In South Africa, for example, private disclosures of government requests for customers' data are prohibited, but it is unclear whether the same restriction extends to content removal requests.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- Perhaps most concerning is that Governments often fail to provide measures of protection and accountability that can deter attacks on journalists. The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights presented alarming statistics involving killings, kidnappings and other forms of aggression against journalists in the Americas, with extremely limited accountability despite some efforts to create special mechanisms for the protection of journalists. Messages from the most senior leadership matter, as I have pointed out in the wake of threatening comments made by the leaders of Thailand and the Philippines. The widespread failure to hold perpetrators accountable for attacks on journalists suggests the absence of concern for the role that journalists play in democratic societies. My communications have highlighted reports and allegations of the failure of accountability in, among other places, South Sudan, where journalists have been killed and disappeared; Mexico, where journalists have been murdered and accountability is inconsistent; the Philippines, which after nearly seven years has not concluded its investigations and prosecutions against those responsible for the massacre of journalists in Maguindinao; and the Russian Federation, where there are multiple reports of journalists who have been murdered and the perpetrators not held to account.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- Closely related to these grounds are charges under lese-majesty laws and both criminal and civil defamation. Thailand, for instance, regularly detains and prosecutes people on the grounds of criticizing the royal family, imposing sentences that may reach to decades. The Government argues that the law "gives protection to the rights or reputations" of members of the royal family "in a similar way libel law does for commoners", without acknowledging the high value placed on expression directed towards matters of politics, governance and public life. National laws also allow such prosecutions in other societies with royal families, such as in the Netherlands. Just as such laws that criminalize criticism of government officials or royalty are manifestly inconsistent with freedom of expression, and unjustifiable under article 19 (3), so too are laws that criminalize insults or criticism of foreign officials. In 2016, the Representative on Freedom of the Media of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe urged Governments to repeal laws that shield foreign leaders from criticism solely because of their function or status. I share the concern of the Human Rights Council with respect to the "abuse of legal provisions on defamation and criminal libel" (see Council resolution 12/16) and believe that any criminal penalties or excessive civil penalties for defamation are generally inconsistent with article 19 and should be repealed.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- The right to freedom of expression under article 19 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expands upon the Universal Declaration's already broad guarantee, protecting the "freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". A significant accumulation of jurisprudence, special procedure reporting, and resolutions within the United Nations and regional human rights systems underscores that the freedom of expression "is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights and freedoms and constitutes a fundamental pillar for building a democratic society and strengthening democracy" (Human Rights Council resolution 25/2). The Human Rights Council, the General Assembly and individual States regularly assert that individuals enjoy the same rights online that they enjoy offline. The present report will not repeat all the elements of this consensus. In the context of encryption and anonymity, three aspects of the text deserve particular emphasis (see paras. 23-26 below).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- Since the Special Rapporteur reported on the importance of encryption and anonymity for protecting freedom of opinion and expression, government pressure on corporations to compromise the security of their customers' digital devices, communications and information has grown. A range of private entities, from hardware manufacturers to e-mail services to messaging services, have been taking measures to develop and implement technologies that enhance user security, anonymity and privacy. These measures include end-to-end encryption for digital communications, disk encryption and timely software updates to close security loopholes. In response, States are seeking to compel companies to create or exploit technical loopholes in their products and services on their behalf. In the United States, for example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation applied to a federal court to compel Apple to create software that facilitates access to a suspect's iPhone in a terrorism investigation. The Investigative Powers Bill introduced before the British Parliament on 1 March 2016 would authorize intelligence services to apply for a warrant that requires private entities to "secure interference with any equipment for the purpose of obtaining communications […] equipment data and any other information".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- Government repression of artists of all sorts persists. For instance, the mandate holder has sent communications to the Islamic Republic of Iran pertaining to the detention of a graphic artist who made a drawing in protest against the banning of family planning, the detention and flogging sentence of human rights defenders for collections of poetry, the detention of two musicians and a film-maker for "propaganda against the State" and "insulting the sacred" through the production of underground music, and the detention of individuals for appearing in a video protesting a State ban on women watching sports in stadiums. The Egyptian Penal Code provides a basis for restricting artists in its article 98, which subjects to penalties "whoever exploits and uses the religion in advocating and propagating orally, in writing or by any other method, extremist thoughts with the aim of instigating sedition or division, or disdaining and contempting any of the heavenly religions or prejudicing national unity and social peace". Qatar detained a poet for criticizing the Amir of Qatar and praising the Tunisian revolution in poems. Saudi Arabia imposed the death sentence, later commuted, on a poet for apostasy. In Cuba, an artist was detained on the basis of a charge of intending to release two pigs named after Raul and Fidel Castro during an artistic demonstration.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Women
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- Some States have implemented or proposed implementing so-called back-door access in commercially available products, forcing developers to install weaknesses that allow government authorities access to encrypted communications. Some Governments have developed or purchased tools to allow such access for domestic surveillance purposes. Senior officials in the United Kingdom and the United States appear to advocate requiring back-door access. States supporting such measures often claim that a legal framework for back-door access is necessary to intercept the content of encrypted communications. Governments proposing back-door access, however, have not demonstrated that criminal or terrorist use of encryption serves as an insuperable barrier to law enforcement objectives. Moreover, based on existing technology, intentional flaws invariably undermine the security of all users online, since a backdoor, even if intended solely for government access, can be accessed by unauthorized entities, including other States or non-State actors. Given its widespread and indiscriminate impact, back-door access would affect, disproportionately, all online users.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- States often assert vague prohibitions on "advocacy of hatred" that do not amount to incitement under article 20 of the Covenant or meet the requirement of necessity under article 19 (3) thereof (see A/67/357). In an exchange with the Government of Pakistan, I raised concerns that recent legislation aims to limit "extremism" and "hate speech" without specifically defining either term. The Government responded as follows: "We firmly believe that for combating extremism, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, should be prohibited by law." While that statement accurately reflects article 20, the legislation itself would penalize the dissemination of information "that advances or is likely to advance inter-faith, sectarian or racial hatred", seemingly regardless of whether such dissemination constitutes incitement. European human rights law also fails to define hate speech adequately, a point emphasized in the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Sajó and Tsotsoria in the Delfi v. Estonia judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 2015. The dissenting judges stated that even in the context of the prohibition of incitement, there is a very real risk that States will regulate online expression without demonstrating that the elements of incitement have been met in an online environment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- Discussions of encryption and anonymity have all too often focused only on their potential use for criminal purposes in times of terrorism. But emergency situations do not relieve States of the obligation to ensure respect for international human rights law. Legislative proposals for the revision or adoption of restrictions on individual security online should be subject to public debate and adopted according to regular, public, informed and transparent legislative process. States must promote effective participation of a wide variety of civil society actors and minority groups in such debate and processes and avoid adopting such legislation under accelerated legislative procedures. General debate should highlight the protection that encryption and anonymity provide, especially to the groups most at risk of unlawful interferences. Any such debate must also take into account that restrictions are subject to strict tests: if they interfere with the right to hold opinions, restrictions must not be adopted. Restrictions on privacy that limit freedom of expression - for purposes of the present report, restrictions on encryption and anonymity - must be provided by law and be necessary and proportionate to achieve one of a small number of legitimate objectives.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- Encryption and anonymity, separately or together, create a zone of privacy to protect opinion and belief. For instance, they enable private communications and can shield an opinion from outside scrutiny, particularly important in hostile political, social, religious and legal environments. Where States impose unlawful censorship through filtering and other technologies, the use of encryption and anonymity may empower individuals to circumvent barriers and access information and ideas without the intrusion of authorities. Journalists, researchers, lawyers and civil society rely on encryption and anonymity to shield themselves (and their sources, clients and partners) from surveillance and harassment. The ability to search the web, develop ideas and communicate securely may be the only way in which many can explore basic aspects of identity, such as one's gender, religion, ethnicity, national origin or sexuality. Artists rely on encryption and anonymity to safeguard and protect their right to expression, especially in situations where it is not only the State creating limitations but also society that does not tolerate unconventional opinions or expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- Through any media: Articles 19 of the Universal Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were drafted with the foresight to accommodate future technological advances (A/HRC/17/27). The States parties to the Covenant chose to adopt the general phrase "through any other media" as opposed to an enumeration of then-existing media. Partly on this basis, international mechanisms have repeatedly acknowledged that the protections of freedom of expression apply to activities on the Internet. Regional courts have likewise recognized that protections apply online. The European Court of Human Rights, in discussing the similar protection of expression in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, has indicated that the forms and means through which information is transmitted and received are themselves protected, since any restriction imposed on the means necessarily interferes with the right to receive and impart information. In this sense, encryption and anonymity technologies are specific media through which individuals exercise their freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Public order is often used by States to justify measures to counter violent extremism. The measures adopted are rarely drawn narrowly enough to satisfy the necessity or proportionality criteria. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism has urged Governments to address the problems of extremism with precise definition and proportionate measures. He criticized Human Rights Council resolution 30/15 on human rights and preventing and countering violent extremism as it may "allow some Governments to qualify non-violent actions that are critical of the Government as violent extremism" (see A/HRC/31/65, para. 27). In 2016, in an annual joint declaration, United Nations and regional freedom of expression experts expressed deep concerns that programmes to counter violent extremism fail to meet international standards. Legislation recently adopted in the Russian Federation broadly criminalizes statements conveying support for "the ideology and practices of terrorism". In Kyrgyzstan, article 11 of the Law on Countering Extremist Activity prohibits the dissemination of extremist materials that call for or justify activities that, among other things, are defined as a "breach of national dignity" or "the carrying out of mass disorders".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- A full exploration of the role of corporations to protect their users' security online is beyond the scope of the present report, which is focused on State obligations. However, it remains important to emphasize that "the responsibility to respect human rights applies throughout a company's global operations regardless of where its users are located, and exists independently of whether the State meets its own human rights obligations" (see A/HRC/27/37, para. 43). At a minimum, corporations should apply principles such as those laid out in the http://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdfGuiding Principles http://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdfon Business and Human Rights, the Global Network Initiative's Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy, the European Commission's ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue Guiding Principles, which encourage corporations to commit to protect human rights, undertake due diligence to ensure the positive human rights impact of their work and remediate adverse impacts of their work on human rights. In the future, the Special Rapporteur will focus on the roles corporations should play in preserving individual security to exercise freedom of opinion and expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- Article 2 (1) of the Covenant requires States to ensure the protection of individuals in the face of such assaults by non-State actors on rights, obligated as they are to respect and ensure respect for all human rights. However, States also need to be cautious not to provide any kind of support in their own laws and actions for the effort to strike down those who hold contrary beliefs. Yet many States still adopt or implement laws that permit them to punish individuals for expression seen to criticize belief. In 2015, for instance, Myanmar amended the Criminal Code to penalize "speech intended to cause religious outrage which insults, or attempts to insult, religion or religious belief" (see A/HRC/31/71, annex I). Saudi Arabia has harshly punished individuals for expression of religious beliefs contrary to national legislation. In 2014, Brunei Darussalam enacted a law that would subject those who insult Islam to capital punishment, which the Government did not deny in its response. Blasphemy and apostasy laws worldwide not only restrict expression but give support to those who would attack others for religious views. Such laws exist not only in the Middle East and South and South-East Asia, where they are prevalent, but also in Europe and the Americas.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- Whistle-blowing does not always involve specific individual wrongdoing, but it may uncover hidden information that the public has a legitimate interest in knowing. International authorities and States often provide a general protection for the disclosure of information in the public interest, or disclosure of specific categories of information, or both. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers recommends that States adopt protections for those who report threats or harms to the public interest, which it says "should, at least, include violations of law and human rights, as well as risks to public health and safety and to the environment". Zambian law provides an extensive definition that covers a range of maladministration, abuse of public trust, criminal and disciplinary offences and waste or fraud. The legislation of the United States specifies violations of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; and a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. While the term "public interest" may appear capacious as a basis for whistle-blower protection, a State might define "public interest" as involving information that contributes to public debate, promotes public participation, exposes serious wrongdoing, improves accountability or benefits public safety.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- Where other mechanisms to disclose information about wrongdoing are unavailable or ineffective, the whistle-blower may disclose information of alleged wrongdoing to external entities, either the media or others in civil society, or by self-publishing. The public-disclosure whistle-blower in such circumstances should be protected. The European Court of Human Rights weighs six factors in assessing the legitimacy of restrictions imposed on those who make public disclosure. Those factors are whether the whistle-blower had available any "competent authority" to which he or she could make disclosure, or "any other effective means of remedying the wrongdoing"; the public interest in the information, which "can sometimes be so strong as to override even a legally imposed duty of confidence"; the information's authenticity, requiring a person to "carefully verify, to the extent permitted by the circumstances, that it is accurate and reliable"; the damage that the public institution may suffer by public disclosure, including whether it outweighs the public's interest in knowing the information; the motive and good faith of the whistle-blower, which could implicate the "level of protection" available; and an evaluation of the proportionality of the penalty imposed upon the whistle-blower.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Most disturbingly, child protection arguments are being used to block access to information on, for example, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues and thereby legitimize discrimination against sexual minorities. In the Russian Federation, amendments to the administrative code and law protecting children from harmful information entered into force in July 2013, outlawing "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations" among children. The Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association publicly expressed concern about that law in a joint statement with other mandate holders. The child protection rationale for the Russian anti-homosexuality law has also been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights in its 2011 case Alekseyev v. Russia. Despite the criticism, other countries have followed suit. In Ukraine, in 2013, it was recommended that a draft law prohibiting "propaganda of homosexual relations" aimed at children be considered by the parliament. In the draft law "propaganda" is defined as any public action aimed at spreading information about same-sex relations. In June 2014, the human rights committee of the parliament of Kyrgyzstan approved a bill criminalizing the dissemination of information "aimed at forming positive attitudes towards non-traditional sexual relations".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- LGBTQI+
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- In many States, communication service providers are being compelled to modify their infrastructure to enable direct surveillance, eliminating the opportunity for judicial oversight. For example, in 2012 the Colombian Ministries of Justice, and Information and Communication Technologies, issued a decree that required telecommunication service providers to put in place infrastructure allowing direct access to communications by judicial police, without an order from the Attorney General. The above-mentioned Uganda's Regulation of Interception of Communications Act 2010 (s3) provides for the establishment of a monitoring centre and mandates that telecommunications providers ensure that intercepted communications are transmitted to the monitoring centre (s8(1)(f)). The Government of India is proposing to install a Centralized Monitoring System that will route all communications to the central Government, allowing security agencies to bypass interaction with the service provider. Such arrangements take communications surveillance out of the realm of judicial authorization and allow unregulated, secret surveillance, eliminating any transparency or accountability on the part of the State.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Similar wording is found in the Windhoek Declaration on Promoting Independent and Pluralistic Media (1991): "an independent, pluralistic and free press is essential to the development and maintenance of democracy in a nation."
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 88
- Paragraph text
- States should pay particular attention to the removal of authoritarian norms and practices within education systems given the centrality of schools in the promotion of children's agency.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- Other Special Procedures mandate holders considered the issue of interferences with the right to privacy. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism studied developments in surveillance practices and technologies that have adversely affected the right to privacy using the justification of combating terrorism. The Special Rapporteur underscored that these measures have not only led to violations of the right to privacy, but have also had an impact on due process rights and the rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of expression. He urged Governments to articulate in detail how their surveillance policies uphold the principles of proportionality and necessity, in accordance with international human rights standards, and what measures have been taken to protect against abuse. The Special Rapporteur also called for the adoption of comprehensive data protection and privacy laws and the establishment of strong independent oversight bodies mandated to review the use of intrusive surveillance techniques and the processing of personal information. He further called for research and development resources to be devoted to privacy-enhancing technologies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 94
- Paragraph text
- Regular attention to violations of the right of children to freedom of expression should be paid by all international human rights protection mechanisms. In particular, the Committee on the Rights of the Child could pursue articles 13 and 17 systematically in its recommendations to States.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- Paragraph 1 of the article accords to the child who is capable of forming his or her views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting him or her, and the subsequent right to have those views given due weight in accordance with his or her age and maturity. Paragraph 2 asserts the right of the child to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting him or her.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- In recommendations arising from its day of general discussion on "The child and the media", the Committee affirmed the importance of budgetary support from the State to ensure the production and dissemination of books, magazines, music, theatre and other forms of expression for children, and of assistance through international cooperation (CRC/C/15/Add.65, para. 256). Investments in community and public broadcasting often play a central role in the promotion of access to information from a diversity of sources and in the inclusion of children's voices in the media. In Argentina, for example, the Law on Communication and Audiovisual Services establishes the obligation for public broadcasting entities to dedicate programming time to children and other sectors of the population not contemplated by commercial broadcasting. The public entity tasked with overseeing the implementation of the law promotes public hearings, including with children, to discuss communication and audiovisual services. It has also recently supported the promotion of radio activities led by students within their own schools. Moreover, the Ministry of Education of Argentina has supported the establishment of a channel aimed at promoting child-sensitive educational programming, including through the active participation of children in the production of the content.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 95
- Paragraph text
- States should ensure that communications data collected by corporate actors in the provision of communications services meets the highest standards of data protection.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- Accordingly, the Inter-American Court has said, restrictions on political expression during electoral processes undermine the right to freedom of opinion and expression: "everyone must be allowed to question and investigate the competence and suitability of the candidates, and also to disagree with and compare proposals, ideas and opinions, so that the electorate may form its opinion in order to vote."
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 63
- Paragraph text
- Governments often do not acknowledge the use of such technologies to conduct surveillance, or argue that such technologies are being legitimately employed under the ambit of existing surveillance legislation. Although it is clear that many States possess offensive intrusion software, such as Trojan technology, the legal basis for its use has not been publicly debated in any State, with the exception of Germany. In that context, the province of North Rhine-Westphalia passed legislation in 2006 authorizing the "secret access to an information technology system" (§ 5.2 no. 11, North Rhine-Westphalia Constitution Protection Act), which was understood to be technical infiltration which is effected either by installing a spy programme or taking advantage of the security loopholes of the system. The German Federal Constitutional Court quashed the law in February 2008, ruling that such measures would only be in conformity with human rights if they were subject to judicial authorization and review, and occurred only in situations where there might be a concrete danger to a predominantly important legal interest.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- It is essential to the protection of freedom of expression during electoral processes that political parities and candidates are free to express ideas and communicate about any issue that they see fit. Unregulated expression and access to information are at their most crucial during times of political change, and any restrictions upon political expression can seriously threaten the democratic process. The European Court of Human Rights has previously spoken out against restraints on political speech, particularly prior restraints. Accordingly, campaign speech should not be regulated or restrained, unless it falls within a well-recognized understanding of restricted expression as recognized under international human rights law. The United Nations Technical Team on the Malawi Referendum has noted that, in order to ensure free political expression during electoral processes, any restrictions on expression must be exceptional and "should not be so vague or broadly defined as to leave an overly wide margin of discretion to the authorities responsible for enforcing the law, since uncertainty over legal boundaries has a dampening effect on the exercise of this right [to freedom of expression] and may encourage discrimination in ... [the restrictions'] application".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- States may find it appropriate to apply specific rules to public national security disclosures. To be consistent with article 19 (3), they should nonetheless strictly adhere to the standard that restrictions be necessary and proportionate to protect national security. National security exclusions have traditionally involved information about ongoing defence plans, weapons systems and communications, critical infrastructure and intelligence operations, sources and methods. States have also long protected sensitive security-related diplomatic activity. National security restrictions on disclosure should apply only in such situations, and disclosure should not be limited in the absence of the Government's showing of "a real and identifiable risk of significant harm to a legitimate national security interest". Law should clearly define what may be withheld from disclosure. A "legitimate national security interest" must be genuine, not a cover for "protection of government or officials from embarrassment or exposure of wrongdoing; concealment of information about human rights violations, any other violation of law, or the functioning of public institutions; strengthening or perpetuating a particular political interest, party, or ideology; or suppression of lawful protests".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- The right to receive information is closely linked to the provisions of article 28, according to which States parties recognize the right of the child to education, and article 29, in which it is emphasized that education of the child shall, inter alia, aim at the development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- Even when judicial authorization is required by law, often it is de facto an arbitrary approval of law enforcement requests. This is particularly the case where the threshold required to be established by law enforcement is low. For example, the Ugandan Regulation of Interception of Communications Act 2010 only requires law enforcement authorities to demonstrate that "reasonable" grounds exist to allow the interception to take place. In such instances, the burden of proof to establish the necessity for surveillance is extremely low, given the potential for surveillance to result in investigation, discrimination or violations of human rights. In other countries, a complex array of laws authorizes access to and surveillance of communications under a range of different circumstances. In Indonesia, for example, the Psychotropic Law, Narcotics Law, Electronic Information and Transaction Law, Telecommunications Law and the Corruption Law all contain communications surveillance components. In the United Kingdom, over 200 agencies, police forces and prison authorities are authorized to acquire communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000. As a result, it is difficult for individuals to foresee when and by which State agency they might be subjected to surveillance.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 89
- Paragraph text
- States should actively promote the right of children to freedom of expression, including access to information, in all settings. Traditional authoritarian attitudes towards children in all spheres, including the home, school and society in general, can be challenged. In particular, the State should pay attention to the creation of channels for child-led activism.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- Effective access to information begins with how Governments categorize, or classify, information as secret or otherwise not subject to disclosure. Over-classification occurs when officials deem material secret without appropriately assessing the public's interest in access to it or determining whether disclosure would pose any risk to a legitimate interest. Secrecy should be imposed only on information that would, if disclosed, harm a specified interest under article 19 (3); even in the event of a risk of harm, a process should be in place to determine whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs that risk. Processes that allow for evaluation of classification decisions, within institutions and by the public, including penalties for over-classification, should be considered and adopted in order to ensure the greatest possible access to information in the public interest. The Swedish Constitution and its Freedom of the Press Act provide perhaps a welcomed translation of the principle of maximum disclosure when it comes to access to information held by public bodies, protecting the right of all public officials to communicate information and, except for specified situations, prohibiting public officials from sanctioning others for communicating information outside their institutions.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- A number of the surveillance capabilities listed above fall outside of existing legal frameworks, but have nevertheless been widely adopted by States. Offensive intrusion software such as Trojans, or mass interception capabilities, constitute such serious challenges to traditional notions of surveillance that they cannot be reconciled with existing laws on surveillance and access to private information. These are not just new methods for conducting surveillance; they are new forms of surveillance. From a human rights perspective, the use of such technologies is extremely disturbing. Trojans, for example, not only enable a State to access devices, but also enable them to alter - inadvertently or purposefully - the information contained therein. This threatens not only the right to privacy and procedural fairness rights with respect to the use of such evidence in legal proceedings. Mass interception technology eradicates any considerations of proportionality, enabling indiscriminate surveillance. It enables the State to copy and monitor every single act of communication in a particular country or area, without gaining authorization for each individual case of interception.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- Children's access to cultural activities may also be censored without justification. In the 1993 case Dunduzu Chisiza Jr. v. Minister Kate Kainja, a judge in Malawi upheld the complaint of an actor who had challenged a ban on all plays and other performances by independent groups in public schools as violating freedom of expression. There are also reports of some schools banning music lessons for religious reasons.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 93
- Paragraph text
- States should establish independent oversight mechanisms capable to ensure transparency and accountability of State surveillance of communications.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- In addition to banning information outright, some school curricula present biased accounts of history or prejudiced views of certain groups, such as girls, sexual or ethnic minorities or children with disabilities, which can negatively affect children's freedom to form their own views and instead perpetuate discrimination - a situation raised by various United Nations treaty bodies in their recommendations to States.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Girls
- Persons with disabilities
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- The scope of the right to freedom of expression is quite wide. According to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, article 13 of the Convention confers a right that can be exercised not only against the State, but also within the family, in the community, at school, in public policy decisions and in society.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 90
- Paragraph text
- States should not retain or require the retention of particular information purely for surveillance purposes.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- States have long sought to keep secret information that, if disclosed, could undermine efforts to protect the public from grave harms such as terrorism or armed conflict. The protection of confidential information is a necessary by-product of some government activity, and article 19 (3) recognizes the legitimacy of limitations to protect specific interests such as national security. Institutions that operate in national security, such as institutions of defence, diplomacy, internal security and law enforcement, and intelligence, may have a greater claim not to disclose information than other public bodies, but they have no greater claim to hide instances of wrongdoing or other information where the value of disclosure outweighs the harm to the institution. Yet whistle-blower protections are often weak, or simply unavailable, in the area of national security and intelligence. Those who disclose wrongdoing in national security institutions are often subject to retaliation, such as job loss or transfer, denial or revocation of security clearance, and investigation, prosecution and harsh sentencing, and they lack redress because of legal doctrines that support an infrastructure of secrecy. Whistle-blowing’s main function thus loses all force, and while the lack of protection ultimately denies members of the public access to critical information about their Government, national security institutions also lose a tool of accountability.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 99
- Paragraph text
- Human rights mechanisms should further assess the obligations of private actors developing and supplying surveillance technologies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- Transparency of political financing is a critical prerequisite for any effective democratic process, and a key means of ensuring the equitable protection of free expression rights. Political finance may come either from private financing, in the form of individual campaign contributions or contributions from the private sector, or from public financing, where the Government contributes. Increasingly, States are focusing on regulating political finance to ensure transparency and to attempt to achieve an equal playing field for political parties. There is a general regulatory trend towards the restriction of private financing and the prohibition of donations from foreign States or companies, public authorities and anonymous persons. This is particularly the case given the rise of third-party financing, where individuals, or more often groups or corporate entities, campaign for or against a political party to which they are ostensibly unrelated. Whereas third-party financing can be an important means for private sector groups or civil society organizations to promote their chosen candidates or parties, it can also make it difficult for the voting public to know what interests are exerting influence on particular political parties and candidates.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- This issue has also been addressed by the European Committee of Social Rights, which in 2009 found that the Croatian school curriculum covering sex education discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. The Committee asserted that some statements in the curriculum stigmatized homosexuals and were based upon negative, distorted, reprehensible and degrading stereotypes.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- LGBTQI+
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- Children face particular hurdles to the realization of their right to freedom of expression as a result of entrenched paternalistic attitudes that often overstate the risks of allowing children to communicate freely and underestimate their agency. In addition, the rights of children are also affected by all the barriers hampering the freedom of expression of adults.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- However, the media must be encouraged to put in place mechanisms to ensure that all media actors adhere to the highest ethical standards of objective reporting, and guarantee equal coverage of political parties in a way that facilitates broad voter education and ensures all parties across the political spectrum are heard.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- Third, restrictions on access to information must not be left to the sole discretion of authorities. Restrictions must be drafted clearly and narrowly, designed to give guidance to authorities, and subjected to independent judicial oversight (see A/HRC/29/32, paras. 29-33). Layers of internal governmental oversight should ensure that restrictions on access to information meet the standards of article 19 and related national laws.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- State-owned or public media broadcasters bear an extra responsibility to ensure that the political platforms of all candidates and parties across the political spectrum are given coverage. Furthermore, public media sources have an important role in ensuring critical analysis and the availability of countervailing viewpoints. Several national courts have ruled that State-run media have a responsibility to publish replies by critics of the Government to government statements on controversial issues. The Supreme Court of India, for example, recognized the right of reply to political statements in the columns of a government-owned publication. The Court held that a public-sector agency publishing an in-house journal, owing to its status as an instrument of government, had a duty of fairness to its readers, and demanded that both viewpoints be placed before its readers, however limited be their number, to enable them to draw their own conclusions. The media guidelines issued by UNTAC also set out the duty of balance and impartiality in detail. Guideline 8 provides: "Media outlets should give parties, groups or individuals whose views have been misrepresented or maligned by a publication or broadcast the 'right of response' in the same media outlet".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 84
- Paragraph text
- States must never forget to keep the goal of the best interest of the child at the forefront of all their public policies. This includes establishing regulatory norms to protect children from harm and, at the same time, ensuring that all norms comply with the international standards related to the right to freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- In some domains, there may be legitimate and understandable concerns for children's safety and well-being in gaining access to some types of information. For example, many countries regulate broadcasting, and television in particular, with a view, among other things, to protecting children. National regulations often include some kind of watershed system, for example, and establish independent bodies to enforce that system. Content generally considered unsuitable for children includes sexually explicit content, violence and offensive language. Regulations can, however, have a significant impact on freedom of the media. Moreover, the definition of what constitutes harmful information is subjective. Accordingly, any regulations aimed at protecting children and the mechanisms adopted to enforce them should be reviewed regularly, in an open and transparent way, in order to prevent the imposition of disproportionate or arbitrary restrictions that curtail the rights of both adults and children. Furthermore, it is crucial to ensure the independence of the bodies tasked with enforcing these regulations - rules regarding membership, for example, should be defined so as to protect them against any interference, in particular by political forces or economic interests.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 94
- Paragraph text
- States should raise public awareness on the uses of new communication technologies in order to support individuals in properly assessing, managing, mitigating and making informed decisions on communications-related risks.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- The enjoyment of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral processes can be jeopardized through numerous overlapping legal and practical State measures. In the present section some of the primary threats to freedom of opinion and expression during electoral processes are identified.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 97
- Paragraph text
- States must take measures to prevent the commercialization of surveillance technologies, paying particular attention to research, development, trade, export and use of these technologies considering their ability to facilitate systematic human rights violations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Environment
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- Additionally, in another review, the Committee encouraged the State to thoroughly investigate and prosecute, where appropriate, the use during election campaigns of statements by politicians that would incite racial hatred against persons of minority ethnic origin.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Ethnic minorities
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- The dynamic nature of technology has not only changed how surveillance can be carried out, but also "what" can be monitored. In enabling the creation of various opportunities for communication and information-sharing, the Internet has also facilitated the development of large amounts of transactional data by and about individuals. This information, known as communications data or metadata, includes personal information on individuals, their location and online activities, and logs and related information about the e-mails and messages they send or receive. Communications data are storable, accessible and searchable, and their disclosure to and use by State authorities are largely unregulated. Analysis of this data can be both highly revelatory and invasive, particularly when data is combined and aggregated. As such, States are increasingly drawing on communications data to support law enforcement or national security investigations. States are also compelling the preservation and retention of communication data to enable them to conduct historical surveillance.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Tensions also exist between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression, for example, when information considered to be private is disseminated through the media. In this sense, article 19 (3) provides for restrictions on freedom of expression and information to protect the rights of others. However, as it happens for all permissible limitations to the right to freedom of expression (see below), the principle of proportionality must be strictly observed, since there is otherwise danger that freedom of expression would be undermined. Particularly in the political arena, not every attack on the good reputation of politicians must be permitted, since freedom of expression and information would otherwise be stripped of their crucial importance for the process of forming political opinions, advocating for transparency and combating corruption The international jurisprudence at regional level indicates that in situations of conflict between privacy and freedom of expression, reference should be made to the overall public interest on the matters reported.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- In paragraph 8 of its general comment No. 1, on the aims of education, the Committee on the Rights of the Child stated: Children do not lose their human rights by virtue of passing through the school gates. Thus, for example, education must be provided in a way that respects the inherent dignity of the child and enables the child to express his or her views freely in accordance with article 12 (1) and to participate in school life.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 90
- Paragraph text
- States should encourage the use of diverse forms of communication by children in schools, including oral, written and all forms of art. Schools curricula should impart knowledge on social communications, media and journalism.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- In many cases, national intelligence agencies also enjoy blanket exceptions to the requirement for judicial authorization. For example, in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act empowers the National Security Agency to intercept communications without judicial authorization where one party to the communication is located outside the United States, and one participant is reasonably believed to a member of a State-designated terrorist organization. German law allows warrantless automated wiretaps of domestic and international communications by the State's intelligence services for the purposes of protecting the free democratic order, existence or security of the State. In Sweden, the Law on Signals Intelligence in Defense Operations authorizes the Swedish intelligence agency to intercept without any warrant or court order all telephone and Internet traffic that take place within Sweden's borders. In the United Republic of Tanzania, the Intelligence and Security Service Act 1996 enables the country's intelligence services to conduct any investigations and investigate any person or body which it has reasonable cause to consider a risk or a source of risk or a threat to the State security.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- The Human Rights Committee analysed the content of the right to privacy (art. 17) in its General Comment No. 16 (1988), according to which article 17 aims to protect individuals from any unlawful and arbitrary interferences with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence, and national legal frameworks must provide for the protection of this right. This provision imposes specific obligations relating to the protection of privacy in communications, underlining that "correspondence should be delivered to the addressee without interception and without being opened or otherwise read. "Surveillance, whether electronic or otherwise, interceptions of telephonic, telegraphic and other forms of communication, wire-tapping and recording of conversations, should be prohibited." The General Comment also indicates that "the gathering and holding of personal information on computers, data banks and other devices, whether by public authorities or private individuals or bodies, must be regulated by law." At the time this General Comment was adopted, the impact of advances in information and communications technologies on the right to privacy was barely understood.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 105
- Paragraph text
- Public bodies and officials who wilfully obstruct access to information must be held accountable and, when appropriate, sanctioned. The quality of the responses of public bodies to information requests should be monitored periodically.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 96
- Paragraph text
- In this regard, and based on previous considerations, the Special Rapporteur wishes to recall a number of recommendations that should continue to guide State efforts in the consolidation of norms and practices concerning the realization of the right to information.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 79
- Paragraph text
- Unreasonable delays in responding to requests for information are a very frequent concern. National laws often establish the requirement for public institutions to respond to a request without delay, setting in some cases a maximum time frame for response. These deadlines, however, are sometimes not enforced.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Moreover, there must be recourse to a review of a refusal to provide information in national legislation. This review must include a prompt, comprehensive and efficient judicial review of the validity of the restriction by an independent court or tribunal (A/HRC/14/23, para. 79; see also A/HRC/16/48, para. 39).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- The overarching notion is that all information in the possession of the State belongs to the public, with limited and qualified exceptions that must be justified by State authorities. Nonetheless, the application of limitations to the right to access information on human rights violations raises a number of specific issues that require greater analysis.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur would like to underscore that given that the causes of violence, as well as of impunity, vary in each context, strategies or protection mechanisms established to protect journalists must be tailored to local needs with context-specific consideration of the differing needs of journalists.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur has, in previous reports, examined limitations to the right to freedom of opinion and expression and proposed a set of general principles for determining the conditions that must be satisfied for a limitation or a restriction to freedom of expression to be permissible, which he considers to be generally applicable (A/HRC/14/23, para. 79, and A/67/357, paras. 41-46).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- The right to truth and the right to access information are clearly interrelated. The right to seek and receive information on human rights violations is not limited to past grave and/or systematic violations; countries that have experienced such situations have, however, faced particular challenges in that regard and, in a number of cases, developed processes and norms to address them.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 80
- Paragraph text
- The absence of any response by the public authorities responsible for the provision of information is also critical. The lack of mechanisms to monitor independently the compliance of public bodies with regulations on access to information and the lack of specific sanctions for wrongful denial of access or the destruction of information by public officials certainly contribute to the limited enforcement of some national laws.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 63
- Paragraph text
- Additionally, the Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned by harassment of online journalists and bloggers, such as illegal hacking into their accounts, monitoring of their online activities, arbitrary arrests and detention, and the blocking of websites that contain information that are critical of authorities. Such actions constitute intimidation and censorship.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- Human rights bodies at the global and regional levels have in a number of instances concluded that States should carry out investigations and provide information on serious human rights violations to victims or their family members and, in particular, ensure that those responsible do not go unpunished and that the victims obtain redress through the courts.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Families
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- For a restriction to be necessary, it must be based on one of the grounds for limitations recognized by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and address a pressing public or social need. Any restriction must also be proportionate to the aim invoked and must not be more restrictive than is required for the achievement of the desired purpose or protected right.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- States are also responsible for ensuring that legal measures, such as anti-terrorism or national security laws, are not used to limit freedom of expression by leading to the arrest and detention, or to fear of arrest and detention, among journalists. The issue of criminalization of freedom of expression, which has a direct impact on the ability of journalists to carry out their work, is further examined below.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2012
- Date modified
- Feb 14, 2020
Paragraph