Abstract
“The Internet has now become one of the principal means by which individuals exercise their right to freedom to receive and impart information and ideas.” (European Court of Human Rights, cited in Cengiz and Others v. Turkey). Are these rights merely window dressing for some countries? How is this connected to censorship? In many countries worldwide, regulating the Internet has become one of the top priorities on the political agenda, albeit with different solutions, from Australia through Germany and Canada to Poland and Hungary. The world has become acquainted with ‘fake news’, ‘deepfake’, ‘dis- and misinformation’ in recent years. Digital platforms providing services worldwide have so far not devoted significant resources – for the sake of their well-conceived business interest – to prevent these from spreading. Once again, quoting the ECtHR, we can state that “the expressive activities generated by users on the Internet are an unprecedented platform for exercising freedom of expression.” The Internet has been integrated so much in the political machinery that regulation is now seems to be an inevitability. The study examines the good and bad practice worldwide in recent years intending to understand how the States, in particular, are responding to the propagation of fake news, hate speech, content that promotes violence, and how to balance drastic measures with the need to ensure public safety and/or national security and freedom of expression. The paper – from a legal perspective – intends to show the ways States should not follow.
Presenters
Gergely GosztonyiAssistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Eötvös Loránd University, ELTE, Hungary
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
KEYWORDS
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, MEDIA, HUMAN RIGHTS, INTERNET SHUTDOWN, REGULATION, PRACTICE
