Search Tips
sorted by
60 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 added
- 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 added
- 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 added
- 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 added
- 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 added
- 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 added
- 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 added
- 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 added
- 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 added
- 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 added
- 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 added
- 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 added
- 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 added
- 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 added
- 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 added
- 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 added
- Dec 19, 2023
Document
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector 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
- 2016
- Document code
- A/HRC/32/38
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to 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
- 2013
- Document code
- A/HRC/23/40
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists
- 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
- 2010
- Document code
- A/HRC/14/23
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression 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
- 2015
- Document code
- A/HRC/29/32
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The role of digital access providers
- 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
- 2017
- Document code
- A/HRC/35/22
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
Contemporary challenges 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
- 2016
- Document code
- A/71/373
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The right to access information
- 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
- 2013
- Document code
- A/68/362
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
Protection of journalists and media 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
- 2012
- Document code
- A/HRC/20/17
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
Hate speech and incitement to hatred
- 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
- 2012
- Document code
- A/67/357
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers
- 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
- 2015
- Document code
- A/70/361
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
Access to information in international organizations
- 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
- 2017
- Document code
- A/72/350
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
Protection of journalists and press 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
- 2010
- Document code
- A/65/284
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts
- 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
- 2014
- Document code
- A/HRC/26/30
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The right of the child 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
- 2014
- Document code
- A/69/335
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet
- 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
- 2011
- Document code
- A/HRC/17/27
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet
- 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
- 2011
- Document code
- A/66/290
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Document
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 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. 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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
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 added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph