Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 185 entities
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 79g (iv)
- Paragraph text
- [The Special Rapporteur proposes the following principles for determining the conditions that must be satisfied in order for a limitation or restriction on freedom of expression to be permissible:] Any restrictions imposed on the exercise of a right must be "necessary", which means that the limitation or restriction must: Be proportionate to that aim and be no more restrictive than is required for the achievement of the desired purpose. The burden of demonstrating the legitimacy and the necessity of the limitation or restriction shall lie with 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- Governments should take the necessary legislative and administrative measures to improve access to public information for everyone. There are specific legislative and procedural characteristics that any access-to-information policy must have, including: observance of the principle of maximum disclosure; the presumption of the public nature of meetings and key documents; broad definitions of the type of information that is accessible; reasonable fees and time limits; independent review of refusals to disclose information; and sanctions for noncompliance.
- 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
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- Accordingly, the Special Rapporteur considers that, in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, the right of access to electronic communications and freedom of opinion and expression in general must be guaranteed. It is therefore necessary to reduce the digital divide and the gap in technological progress between developed and developing nations, in line with the recommendations contained in the Millennium Declaration (General Assembly resolution 55/2, para. 20). In particular, target 5 of goal 8 states: "in cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- In accordance with resolution 7/36 of the Human Rights Council, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur includes reporting on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination, as well as formulating recommendations and making suggestions concerning methods of promoting and protecting the right to freedom of opinion and expression in all its forms. Accordingly, as a contribution to the consideration of this issue, in this report the Special Rapporteur proposes a series of principles that will help to determine what constitutes a legitimate restriction or limitation on the right of freedom of opinion and expression and what constitutes an "abuse" of that 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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. 38
- Paragraph text
- The most common method of restricting the types of prohibited expression on the Internet is through the blocking of content (see III.A above). In this regard, the Special Rapporteur reiterates the recommendations made in his most recent report to the Human Rights Council that States should provide full details regarding the necessity and justification for blocking a particular website, and determination of what content should be blocked should be undertaken by a competent judicial authority or a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences to ensure that blocking is not used as a means of 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
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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. 64
- Paragraph text
- Public and private policies aimed at extending Internet access have substantially increased the presence of Internet facilities in developing States. Yet despite these efforts, Internet usage is still lagging in developing States, perpetuating the "digital divide", a term that refers to the gap between people with effective access to digital and information technologies, in particular the Internet, and those with very limited or no access at all. In his previous report, the Special Rapporteur expressed concern 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 perpetrating the existing socio-economic disparities both within and between 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)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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. 82
- Paragraph text
- With regard to technical measures taken to regulate the above-mentioned type of prohibited expression, such as the blocking of content, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that States should provide full details regarding the necessity and justification for blocking a particular website and that the determination of what content should be blocked must be undertaken by a competent judicial authority or a body that is independent of any political, commercial or other unwarranted influences in order to ensure that blocking is not used as a means of 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
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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. 84
- Paragraph text
- Enabling individuals to effectively use the content made available via the Internet requires a number of elements, including the skills to use the technology. The Special Rapporteur thus recommends that States include Internet literacy skills in school curricula and support similar learning modules outside of schools. In addition to basic skills training, modules should clarify the benefits of accessing information online and of responsibly contributing information. Training can also help individuals learn how to protect themselves against harmful content, such as the potential consequences of revealing private information on the Internet, as well as against undue restrictions by States or corporations through the use of encryption or circumvention technology.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 24a
- Paragraph text
- [As set out in article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, there are certain exceptional types of expression which may be legitimately restricted under international human rights law, essentially to safeguard the rights of others. This issue has been examined in the previous annual report of the Special Rapporteur. However, the Special Rapporteur deems it appropriate to reiterate that any limitation to the right to freedom of expression must pass the following three-part, cumulative test:] It must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to everyone (principles of predictability and transparency); and
- 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
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 24b
- Paragraph text
- [As set out in article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, there are certain exceptional types of expression which may be legitimately restricted under international human rights law, essentially to safeguard the rights of others. This issue has been examined in the previous annual report of the Special Rapporteur. However, the Special Rapporteur deems it appropriate to reiterate that any limitation to the right to freedom of expression must pass the following three-part, cumulative test:] It must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, namely (i) to protect the rights or reputations of others, or (ii) to protect national security or of public order, or of public health or morals (principle of legitimacy); and
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 24c
- Paragraph text
- [As set out in article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, there are certain exceptional types of expression which may be legitimately restricted under international human rights law, essentially to safeguard the rights of others. This issue has been examined in the previous annual report of the Special Rapporteur. However, the Special Rapporteur deems it appropriate to reiterate that any limitation to the right to freedom of expression must pass the following three-part, cumulative test:] It must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity and 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)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- However, while a notice-and-takedown system is one way to prevent intermediaries from actively engaging in or encouraging unlawful behaviour on their services, it is subject to abuse by both State and private actors. Users who are notified by the service provider that their content has been flagged as unlawful often have little recourse or few resources to challenge the takedown. Moreover, given that intermediaries may still be held financially or in some cases criminally liable if they do not remove content upon receipt of notification by users regarding unlawful content, they are inclined to err on the side of safety by over-censoring potentially illegal content. Lack of transparency in the intermediaries' decision-making process also often obscures discriminatory practices or political pressure affecting the companies' decisions. Furthermore, intermediaries, as private entities, are not best placed to make the determination of whether a particular content is illegal, which requires careful balancing of competing interests and consideration of defences.
- 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
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur believes that censorship measures should never be delegated to a private entity, and that no one should be held liable for content on the Internet of which they are not the author. Indeed, no State should use or force intermediaries to undertake censorship on its behalf, as is the case in the Republic of Korea with the establishment of the Korea Communications Standards Commission, a quasi-State and quasi-private entity tasked to regulate online content (see A/HRC/17/27/Add.2). The Special Rapporteur welcomes initiatives taken in other countries to protect intermediaries, such as the bill adopted in Chile, which provides that intermediaries are not required to prevent or remove access to user-generated content that infringes copyright laws until they are notified by a court order. A similar regime has also been proposed in Brazil.
- 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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- Given that Internet services are run and maintained by private companies, the private sector has gained unprecedented influence over individuals' right to freedom of expression and access to information. Generally, companies have played an extremely positive role in facilitating the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. At the same time, given the pressure exerted upon them by States, coupled with the fact that their primary motive is to generate profit rather than to respect human rights, preventing the private sector from assisting or being complicit in human rights violations of States is essential to guarantee 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
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- While States are the duty-bearers for human rights, private actors and business enterprises also have a responsibility to respect human rights. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur highlights the framework of "Protect, Respect and Remedy" which has been developed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. The framework rests on three pillars: (a) the duty of the State to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business enterprises, through appropriate policies, regulation and adjudication; (b) the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which means that business enterprises should act with due diligence to avoid infringing the rights of others and to address adverse impacts with which they are involved; and (c) the need for greater access by victims to effective remedy, both judicial and non-judicial.
- 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
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- While blocking and filtering measures deny access to certain content on the Internet, States have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned by discussions regarding a centralized "on/off" control over Internet traffic. In addition, he is alarmed by proposals to disconnect users from Internet access if they violate intellectual property rights. This also includes legislation based on the concept of "graduated response", which imposes a series of penalties on copyright infringers that could lead to suspension of Internet service, such as the so-called "three-strikes-law" in France and the Digital Economy Act 2010 of the United 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- At the national level, the Special Rapporteur notes that a number of initiatives have also been taken by States to address the digital divide. In India, Common Service Centres, or public "e-Kiosks", have been established by the Government in collaboration with the private sector as part of the National E-Governance Plan of 2006. As of January 2011, over 87,000 centres have reportedly been established, although the Special Rapporteur notes that the majority of the country's population still remains without Internet access. In Brazil, the Government has launched a "computers for all" programme which offers subsidies for purchasing computers. Additionally, over 100,000 publicly sponsored Internet access centres, known as "Local Area Network (LAN) Houses" with fast broadband Internet connections, have been established. Such public access points are particularly important to facilitate access for the poorest socio-economic groups, as they often do not have their own personal computers at home.
- 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
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that there should be as little restriction as possible to the flow of information via the Internet, except in few, exceptional, and limited circumstances prescribed by international human rights law. He also stresses that the full guarantee of the right to freedom of expression must be the norm, and any limitation considered as an exception, and that this principle should never be reversed. Against this backdrop, the Special Rapporteur recommends the steps set out 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)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur commends the work undertaken by organizations and individuals to reveal the worldwide status of online impediments to the right to freedom of expression. He encourages intermediaries in particular to disclose details regarding content removal requests and accessibility of websites. Additionally, he recommends corporations to establish clear and unambiguous terms of service in line with international human rights norms and principles and to continuously review the impact of their services and technologies on the right to freedom of expression of their users, as well as on the potential pitfalls involved when they are misused. The Special Rapporteur believes that such transparency will help promote greater accountability and respect for 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
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 79
- Paragraph text
- To prevent any abusive use of hate speech laws, the Special Rapporteur recommends that only serious and extreme instances of incitement to hatred be prohibited as criminal offences. The Special Rapporteur thus calls upon States to establish high and robust thresholds, including the following elements: severity, intent, content, extent, likelihood or probability of harm occurring, imminence and context. Such examination must be performed on an ad hoc basis, taking context into consideration.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 83
- Paragraph text
- To help to provide further guidance to States, the Special Rapporteur recommends that the international human rights mechanisms renew their engagement with States on the issue of hate speech, including ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and review of any reservations relating to incitement to hatred. Non-State actors should also be involved. In addition, the Human Rights Committee could consider adopting a general comment on article 20 of the Covenant. The Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination could also discuss the relationship between article 20 of the Covenant and article 4 of the 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)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 45g
- Paragraph text
- [The threshold of the types of expression that would fall under the provisions of article 20 (2) should be high and solid. An important contribution in determining the appropriate threshold has been made by ARTICLE 19, a non-governmental organization, which has proposed a seven-part test using the following elements:] Context, including consideration of the speaker or author, audience, intended harm, existence of barriers in establishing media outlets, broad and unclear restrictions on content of what may be published or broadcast; absence of criticism of Government or wide-ranging policy debates in the media and other forms of communication; and the absence of broad social condemnation of hateful statements on specific grounds when they are disseminated.17
- 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
- 2012
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 18
- Paragraph text
- The right to seek and receive information is an essential element of the right to freedom of expression. It is, as noted in a previous report of the Special Rapporteur, a right in and of itself and one of the rights upon which free and democratic societies depend (E/CN.4/2000/63, para. 42). Accordingly, the Special Rapporteur has, since the establishment of the mandate, carried out a number of studies regarding certain aspects of its implementation (see, for example, E/CN.4/1999/64, E/CN.4/2000/63, E/CN.4/2003/67, E/CN.4/2005/64 and Corr.1, A/HRC/11/4 and A/HRC/17/27). In more recent reports, the Special Rapporteur has focused on rights and limitations regarding access to the Internet, which are in numerous respects closely linked to the right to seek and receive information (A/HRC/17/27, sects. II to VI, and A/66/290, sects. III to V).
- 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
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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. 26
- Paragraph text
- In its General Comment No. 34 (2011) on the right to freedom of expression, the Human Rights Committee indicated that States parties should take account of the extent to which developments in information and communication technologies have substantially changed communication practices. The Committee also called on States parties to take all necessary steps to foster the independence of these new media. The General Comment also analyses the relationship between the protection of privacy and freedom of expression, and recommends that States parties respect that element of the right of freedom of expression that embraces the limited journalistic privilege not to disclose information 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
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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. 29f
- Paragraph text
- [In this regard, the Special Rapporteur takes the position that the right to privacy should be subject to the same permissible limitations test as the right to freedom of movement, as elucidated in General Comment 27. The test as expressed in the comment includes, inter alia, the following elements:] Restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality, they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function, they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve the desired result, and they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected (paras. 14-15).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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. 49
- Paragraph text
- In this sense, restrictions on anonymity have a chilling effect, dissuading the free expression of information and ideas. They can also result in individuals' de facto exclusion from vital social spheres, undermining their rights to expression and information, and exacerbating social inequalities. Furthermore, restrictions on anonymity allow for the collection and compilation of large amounts of data by the private sector, placing a significant burden and responsibility on corporate actors to protect the privacy and security of such data.
- 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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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. 66
- Paragraph text
- In delivering services to their users, communications service providers give subscribers' devices or network an Internet Protocol (IP) address that changes periodically. Information about an IP address can be used to ascertain the identity and location of an individual and track their online activity. Mandatory data retention laws force communications service providers to keep records of their IP address allocations for a certain period of time, allowing the State greater ability to require communications service providers to identify an individual on the basis of who had a given IP address at a particular date and time. Some States are also now seeking to compel third party service providers to collect and retain information that they would not normally collect.
- 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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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. 76
- Paragraph text
- States' human rights obligations require that they not only respect and promote the rights to freedom of expression and privacy, but protect individuals from violations of human rights perpetrated by corporate actors. In addition, States should exercise adequate oversight in order to meet their international human rights obligations when they contract with, or legislate for, corporate actors where there may be an impact upon the enjoyment of human rights. Human rights obligations in this regard apply when corporate actors are operating abroad.
- 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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 13
- Paragraph text
- International human rights standards do not provide detailed models for regulating political communications. However, some core principles can be identified: efforts must be deployed to promote the pluralism of the media and ensure a plural political debate, ensure transparency in the promotion and financing of political campaigns, and guarantee accountability and fair enforcement of political regulations to prevent those in power from taking advantage of domestic regulatory regimes to dominate and manipulate public 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
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- The importance of ensuring access to the media as part of the electoral process is also well-established in a number of regional human rights instruments. The South African Development Community Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections, for example, reiterate that, in the conduct of democratic elections, all political parties should have access to State media (principle 2.1.5). The same principle is enshrined in article 17 of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, on the importance of ensuring access by political candidates and parties to State-controlled media during elections. The Declaration of Principles of Freedom of Expression in Africa also affirms that "the public service ambit of public broadcasters should be clearly defined and include an obligation to ensure that the public receive adequate, politically balanced information, particularly during election periods" (art. VI).
- 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
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph