Hello. Thank you all for join­ing here at this of point in the pro­gram. I know it’s nev­er very easy to draw a crowd when you announce that you’ll be talk­ing about legal stuff. But I’ll try to make to make this inter­est­ing for you. As was just men­tioned, I’m the legal direc­tor of the Media Legal Defense Initiative, short MLDI. We have a London-based NGO that works world­wide to help jour­nal­ists and blog­gers defend their rights. We have about a hundred-odd cas­es going on at any one time, in between forty and fifty dif­fer­ent juris­dic­tions. So that gives us a basi­cal­ly a good overview of what’s hap­pen­ing glob­al­ly in the field of jour­nal­ism, and also online.

We all know that a lot of speech is mov­ing online these days, either by choice because it’s a cheap and acces­si­ble way of pub­lish­ing, or by neces­si­ty which is some­thing that we see a lot in in our prac­tice. I think of coun­tries such as Vietnam and Ethiopia, where peo­ple basi­cal­ly can only express dis­sent­ing views online as it’s not pos­si­ble to do so in tra­di­tion­al media. 

At the same time we see an increase in attempts to con­trol free speech online, in what should actu­al­ly be a space in which infor­ma­tion can flow freely. And that is what I’ll be talk­ing about today.

As I dis­cuss some of these restric­tions on online speech, I want you to keep in mind the 2009 Internet Manifesto which con­sists of a sev­en­teen dec­la­ra­tions on how jour­nal­ism works today. And I will read this out because I know some peo­ple will be lis­ten­ing to the audio stream and some may have for­got­ten their read­ing glass­es. Principle num­ber four of the sev­en­teen dec­o­ra­tions says that the free­dom of the Internet is invi­o­lable and it says that

The Internet’s open archi­tec­ture con­sti­tutes the basic IT law of a soci­ety which com­mu­ni­cates dig­i­tal­ly and, con­se­quent­ly, of jour­nal­ism. It may not be mod­i­fied for the sake of pro­tect­ing the spe­cial com­mer­cial or polit­i­cal inter­ests often hid­den behind the pre­tense of pub­lic inter­est. Regardless of how it is done, block­ing access to the Internet endan­gers the free flow of infor­ma­tion and cor­rupts our fun­da­men­tal right to a self-determined lev­el of information.
Internet Manifesto

So think of this idea of a free flow of infor­ma­tion as I dis­cuss a num­ber of the restric­tions that we find on online to online speech. And the four that I will be dis­cussing are the block­ing of online plat­forms; copy­rights and oth­er leg­isla­tive loop­holes that are used to cur­tail free speech; lia­bil­i­ty for user com­ments; and the right to be forgotten. 

The first exam­ple of the block­ing of online plat­forms comes from India, which has an IT Act, and Article 69A of that IT act allows the Indian gov­ern­ment or any of its agents to order the block­ing with­in sev­en­ty two hours if it’s con­sid­ered to be nec­es­sary in the view of the gov­ern­ment for the pro­tec­tion of friend­ly rela­tions with for­eign states, nation­al secu­ri­ty, the defense of the state, and all sorts of oth­er kind of vaguely-defined cri­te­ria. If this is order is not com­plied with, this poten­tial­ly leads to seven-year prison sen­tence or a fine for the intermediary. 

There’s no appeal pos­si­ble to such a deci­sion or such an order to block a web site. There’s only some sort of inter­nal review process by a gov­ern­ment pan­el, and that review process basi­cal­ly con­sists of check­ing whether or not Article 69A has been applied. So it’s kind of an inter­est­ing cir­cu­lar reasoning. 

The lan­guage of Article 69A is over­ly broad. It’s very vague. It speaks of neces­si­ty with­out actu­al­ly explain­ing what nec­es­sary” means. It lists a num­ber of gen­er­al terms under which this block­ing can be ordered and there­fore it’s very prone to abuse. It can be inter­pret­ed in many dif­fer­ent ways.

In December 2014, over six­ty web sites have been blocked on Article 69A, and as I men­tioned there’s no appeal pos­si­ble so peo­ple can actu­al­ly chal­lenges it. Sites that were blocked under this pro­vi­sion, some of them are list­ed here. Dailymotion, Vimeo, SourceForge, and Github. A great num­ber of of web sites that are used for cit­i­zen jour­nal­ism, also.

Even though I just said that the pro­vi­sions are over­ly broad and there­fore prone to abuse, the Supreme Court of India very recent­ly decid­ed that there was noth­ing wrong with this pro­vi­sion. There was a chal­lenge brought at the con­sti­tu­tion­al court there which chal­lenged a num­ber pro­vi­sions from the IT Acts, includ­ing the noto­ri­ous Article 66A, which is the arti­cle under which the two girls who made some posts on Facebook were pros­e­cut­ed, and I’m sure some of you will have heard of that case. But the Indian Supreme Court in its deci­sion called Article 69A narrowly-defined and a con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly sound arti­cle. So I’m afraid of we’ll have to deal with it for a lit­tle while to come.

Imperfect as the sit­u­a­tion in India may be, at least there is some sort of legal frame­work, which is not the sit­u­a­tion in Pakistan, where YouTube has been blocked since September 2012, even if the video that led to its block­ing The Innocence of Muslims is no longer avail­able on it. 

But YouTube is not the only web site that gets blocked by Pakistan Telecommunication Authority. What basi­cal­ly hap­pens is that gov­ern­ment min­istries can con­tact the PTA say­ing that they are unhap­py with cer­tain online con­tents, and the PTA just pulls the plug on those web sites. There’s no law, there’s no decree, there’s no legal frame­work, and there’s also no reg­u­la­to­ry frame­work by which peo­ple can actu­al­ly chal­lenge those block­ing decisions.

The Pakistani NGO Bytes for All has chal­lenged the block­ing of YouTube, but has not only chal­lenged the block­ing of YouTube but it has also asked for high court of Lahore to order that a prop­er reg­u­la­to­ry mech­a­nism is estab­lished. So a prop­er form of due process will actu­al­ly be cre­at­ed for that. The case has been ongo­ing for quite some time. The last hear­ing on this mat­ter was in November last year, where the high court in Lahore said that they were very much inclined to unblock YouTube but it was impos­si­ble for them at this point as there is a Supreme Court order which sev­er­al years ago ordered the block­ing of a site called UTube, so not you” but UTube, at the request of a gov­ern­ment offi­cial who had sent a let­ter to the court basi­cal­ly, and the court then ordered the block­ing of the web site. So in order for the high court to order the unblock­ing, first clar­i­fi­ca­tion needs to be request­ed from the Supreme Court. So that is a pend­ing mat­ter at the moment.

Before mov­ing on to the next top­ic I just want to men­tion two exam­ples that are a lit­tle bit clos­er to home. The first one is Turkey, where as we all know a lot of block­ing of online plat­forms is tak­ing place. An exam­ple there was the block­ing off of Google Sites a num­ber of years ago, and this is actu­al­ly the block­ing of the entire plat­form because the gov­ern­ment want­ed to take one par­tic­u­lar site offline as a pre­ven­ta­tive mea­sure. This case was actu­al­ly appealed all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights, which very clear­ly said that this was a dis­pro­por­tion­ate mea­sure. They could have just focused on this one spe­cif­ic site but instead decid­ed to block the entire plat­form. And that the legal frame­work in Turkey to chal­lenge these things is actu­al­ly also very much lack­ing. So this was a win at the inter­na­tion­al lev­el but there are still many more instances in which web sites get blocked. Twitter bans on grounds of nation­al secu­ri­ty are a fre­quent occur­rence. So this is a remain­ing prob­lem in Turkey.

The sec­ond exam­ple I want­ed to men­tion here is France. After the Charlie Hebdo attacks a decree was adopt­ed there that allows the Interior Minister to order to block­ing of con­tent online with­in twenty-four hours if it’s con­sid­ered to be ter­ror­ist or pro-jihadist. We don’t real­ly have any num­bers on how many sites have been blocked under this decree at this point in time, but anec­do­tal evi­dence sug­gests that the basi­cal­ly the decree is being used in a rather heavy-handed way. Also parts of web sites that actu­al­ly have no links with ter­ror­ism what­so­ev­er are being blocked. The review process, there is some sort of way in which ISPs can actu­al­ly appeal these deci­sions, but the bur­den lies very much with them. So it’s not exact­ly a sit­u­a­tion in which you have equal­i­ty of arms. And it’s sad­ly part of a wider pat­tern in the coun­try which reflects a crack­down on free speech after the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

So mov­ing on to to copy­rights and oth­er leg­isla­tive loop­holes. Copyright is a double-edged sword. It has a pro- and it has a contra- free­dom of expres­sion com­po­nent. It is intend­ed as an incen­tive to bring good ideas and images, etc. into the mar­ket. And at the same time it restricts its cir­cu­la­tion. And the exam­ple that I list­ed here from the USA, I’m sure we are all famil­iar with this image.

This is from the video of the shoot­ing of Walter Scott, an unarmed black man who was shot in the back by a police­man recent­ly. This was a video­tape by passer­by on their their phone, and them cir­cu­lat­ed wide­ly in the media. And in April a let­ter start­ed to emerge that was sent out by a a pub­lic­i­ty com­pa­ny to news out­lets world­wide, basi­cal­ly ask­ing peo­ple to cease and desist or to stop using this footage and these images as the per­son who shot the video claimed to have copy­right of this.

There’s always a loop­hole there, right? For news out­lets there’s Fair Use. If some­thing has news val­ue, you should be able to kind of not have to com­ply with these copy­right oblig­a­tions. And it’s inter­est­ing that there’s actu­al­ly a dis­cus­sion on this point in the US as to whether or not some­thing that was news at some point could no longer be deemed news after a cer­tain time­frame, mean­ing that copy­right laws would kick in. I would say that this is news now and will remain news, but we’ll have to see how that debate unfolds.

We then returned to India. The doc­u­men­tary India’s Daughter is a nice exam­ple of the var­i­ous cre­ative of ways that can be used to make sure that cer­tain ideas don’t get into cir­cu­la­tion. As we all have heard in the news, the Indian gov­ern­ment was­n’t very much in favor of this doc­u­men­tary being broad­cast, and they tried sev­er­al things. The first attempt was by accus­ing the direc­tor of breach of con­tract, because they said that there actu­al­ly was an agree­ment with the direc­tor that the film should­n’t be pro­duced for com­mer­cial pur­pos­es. That did­n’t work. So then they pro­ceed­ed to a claim of con­tempt of court. The grounds for that were that the death penal­ty that the peo­ple por­trayed in the film had been con­vict­ed to was still under appeal at a high­er court. Then the third attempt to sup­press the film was on the grounds of hate speech. They used a pro­vi­sion in the Indian penal code which actu­al­ly is aimed at pre­vent­ing hate speech between dif­fer­ent reli­gious groups, as to apply to some of the things that the lawyers of the defen­dants in the film had said, which was real­ly misog­y­nist com­ments. So they kind of gave it a twist as hate speech towards women. This also did­n’t work. BBC in the end has broad­cast the doc­u­men­tary, and that in turn led to a copy­right dis­pute. They ordered YouTube to take the film down. So this doc­u­men­tary has almost every sin­gle pos­si­ble a legal action aimed at it.

Italy is anoth­er real­ly good exam­ple of copy­right being used very effec­tive­ly in remov­ing con­tent from the Internet. As of May 2014, 450 sites were blocked in Italy due to copy­right rea­sons. AGCOM, which is the tele­com reg­u­la­tor, has an inter­nal admin­is­tra­tive pan­el that out of its own ini­tia­tive can decide that cer­tain web sites vio­late copy­right rules and then order the host­ing provider to take the web site down with­in seventy-two hours. And if they don’t do that, they can order the ISP to do so with­out a court order. So there’s no actu­al judi­cial review for any of these decisions.

The leg­isla­tive basis for this has been referred to the Italian Constitutional Court and this will actu­al­ly be the first con­sti­tu­tion­al court in Europe to con­sid­er the impact of admin­is­tra­tive mea­sures on the right to free­dom of expres­sion [on] copy­rights infringe­ment grounds. The case isn’t mov­ing very quick­ly. It will be heard in October 2015 and it’s expect­ed to take a lit­tle bit longer for the Constitutional Court to reach a deci­sion, but it will be very inter­est­ing to watch out for, so keep that in mind if you like.

So, the third points, lia­bil­i­ty for user com­ments. Delfi is an Estonian news por­tal, and at some point it pub­lished an arti­cle about a fer­ry com­pa­ny that had changed its fer­ry roots. Apparently this was a very sen­si­tive issue in the Estonian com­mu­ni­ty, because it elicit­ed an enor­mous storm of com­ments, a lot of which were very insult­ing and unpleas­ant towards the major share­hold­er of the fer­ry com­pa­ny. The lawyers of the share­hold­er then noti­fied Delfi say­ing, Look there are all these com­ments online, we’re not hap­py with them. Please them off and also please pay dam­ages to our client.” Delfi com­plied with the request to remove the com­ments but refused to pay the dam­ages because they said that they weren’t liable for com­ments that were made by third par­ties on their web site. 

This was tak­en to court by the share­hold­er’s lawyers, and the nation­al courts basi­cal­ly said, Well, you actu­al­ly can con­trol the con­tents. See, you could take it away tak­en offline. So there­fore you are liable and you can­not hide behind the e‑commerce direc­tive,” which is the direc­tive with­in the EU that pro­vides a safe har­bor for web sites that act as, as they say, as a mere con­duit, so they are pas­sive in pass­ing on the news and infor­ma­tion that is pub­lished on those web sites.

The European courts I would say fool­ish­ly upheld this deci­sion by the nation­al court, but I would say it’s a rather short-sighted deci­sion. They com­plete­ly failed to take into account the frame­work that has been devel­oped very care­ful­ly by the court of jus­tice of the European Union regard­ing the e‑commerce direc­tive and did­n’t look at any oth­er juris­dic­tions and how they reg­u­late lia­bil­i­ty of web sites for user com­ments. Fortunately the mat­ter has been referred to Grand Chamber, so it’s basi­cal­ly on appeal with­in the European Court system.

Our orga­ni­za­tion inter­vened in that actu­al­ly, togeth­er with a coali­tion of twenty-eighth press free­dom and media orga­ni­za­tions, argu­ing this point that the court to take into account what the case law was devel­oped in the con­text of the e‑commerce direc­tive. Also pre­sent­ing with com­par­a­tive law exam­ples from the US, which has a much more lib­er­al sys­tem for lia­bil­i­ty, basi­cal­ly leav­ing it to self-regulation in the mar­ket. And also show­ing best prac­tices. For a lot of news web sites, it’s very com­mon prac­tice to kind of make sure that the read­ers get engaged with new sto­ries. It’s some­thing that you want, that peo­ple com­ment on news pieces. And web sites each have their own way to kind of encour­age good com­ments, so to speak, and fil­ter out the ones that form a less pos­i­tive con­tri­bu­tion to the cir­cu­la­tion of news. So deci­sion there is pend­ing. A hear­ing was held ear­li­er this year. So we’ll have to wait and see what the European Court does with that.

Then a final point I want­ed to flag is the right to be for­got­ten. I think we’ve all heard of the Court of Justice of the European Union judg­ment in the case of Google Spain ver­sus the Spanish Data Protection Authority. The court found that search engine activ­i­ty amount­ed to the pro­cess­ing of per­son­al data, and that the activ­i­ty of a search engine in that case had to be equat­ed with that of a controller.

The most inter­est­ing fea­ture from a free­dom of expres­sion point of view of this case is the fact that the court did not real­ly men­tion the right to free expres­sion at all in its judg­ment. The court does say explic­it­ly that fun­da­men­tal rights should be tak­en into account when inter­pret­ing the direc­tive on data pro­tec­tion. But the only rights it actu­al­ly men­tions are the right to pri­va­cy and the right to pro­tec­tion of per­son­al data. The court kind of hints at an aspect of the right to free expres­sion, which is the right to actu­al­ly access infor­ma­tion, but calls this an inter­est” and not even a rights. And that is while there is a very explic­it arti­cle in the European Charter which the court is sup­posed to apply, which is Article 11, which deals with the right to free speech. So this is kind of puzzling. 

Based on this deci­sion, infor­ma­tion does not get removed from the Internet, it just gets dein­dexed. And then the ques­tion is a lit­tle bit, well the con­tent exists, it’s still online… So what’s the prob­lem then, basi­cal­ly? The two main fac­tors here are that a very fun­da­men­tal ele­ment of the right to free speech is not only the rights to dis­sem­i­nate and share ideas and views, but also to access them. And this is the part that gets tak­en away from you if you can­not access infor­ma­tion online as eas­i­ly because it’s been removed by cer­tain of search engines.

Another issue is trans­paren­cy. Google is of course the main search engine the we all know, and since the March 2014 deci­sion, 307,000 links were dein­dexed by the lat­est data that I have. This num­ber will have increased since then, and the ques­tion is, how did this hap­pen? What are the cri­te­ria that are being applied? Google always indi­cates a num­ber of gen­er­al fac­tors that they take into account with these deci­sions. But they’re pret­ty broad, so we don’t exact­ly know what hap­pens in these deci­sions on an indi­vid­ual basis. So that leaves a lot to guess. 

There is some light at the hori­zon, though. National courts have been pret­ty good in actu­al­ly fol­low­ing up on this deci­sion from the from the Court of Justice of the European Union. One exam­ple is from the Netherlands. A recent rul­ing basi­cal­ly said that this could not be applied to any­thing that was should be con­sid­ered news. And also the Spanish courts have hand­ed down some more restric­tive inter­pre­ta­tions of this rul­ing. So that is a pos­i­tive devel­op­ment in and of itself.

When you look at all of this, the sit­u­a­tion may look pret­ty grim and also depress­ing. You may also won­der why I’m telling you all this. And I want to go back to to the man­i­festo that I men­tioned ear­li­er at the begin­ning of this talk. And I want to com­bine it with the old say­ing that that knowl­edge is pow­er. If you want the Internet to remain what what it is, or to become what we want it to be, I’m refer­ring back to what Ethan Zuckerman also men­tioned in his open­ing talk today, you know, the web we want. And if you want to make sure it’s a place where infor­ma­tion can flow freely, we also need to know what the pos­si­ble imped­i­ments are for this. What are the pit­falls that you need to navigate?

And it also requires you to be a bit flex­i­ble and a lit­tle bit cre­ative. So, if your web site gets blocked in a cer­tain juris­dic­tion, one of the things that you could do is set up an IP proxy or get some­one else to host a mir­ror site for you. If you get a copy­right claim (first of all I would advise you as a lawyer to make sure that you pro­vide prop­er accred­i­ta­tion when you use some­one else’s images) but there are also oth­er ways you can you can change the work so that it kind of falls out­side the realm of copy­right pro­tec­tion. If your con­tent gets dein­dexed because some­one claims that they have a right to be for­got­ten, make sure that it gets known. Tweet about it, write about it, make sure that the infor­ma­tion that you want­ed to share gets out there and that peo­ple know that peo­ple have pre­vent­ed you from actu­al­ly try­ing to pub­lish on these issues.

These are just things that I would wish for those who pub­lish on the Internet think of before­hand. If you have some­thing to say, it’s good to have a Plan B, and it’s also good to kind of be pre­pared to be a bit flex­i­ble in how you share your infor­ma­tion when it comes down to it, and if you’re you’re challenged.

And if every­thing goes wrong you can always get in touch with us. I’m very hap­py to to take ques­tions from the floor if we have time for that. Also feel free to come and talk to me whenever.

Further Reference

Presentation page at the Re:publica site.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.