Advertisement

Social Media Censorship vs. State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations

Case Study of the Arab Spring Uprising in Egypt
  • Joanna KuleszaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 13)

Abstract

The chapter presents the contemporary international consensus on the limits of the right to free speech online. The author examines state-imposed online filtering in terms of its compliance with international law, especially with human rights treaties granting freedom of expression and access to information. The White House implemented “Internet Freedom” program, whose aim is to introduce software enabling the circumvention of local content control in “filtering countries”, is thus subject to thorough analysis. The analysis covers recent (2011) events in Egypt, where the world’s first successful attempt at shutting down the Internet within state borders was completed. Although enforced through legitimate state actions this first-ever Internet shutdown was circumvented with technology offered by U.S.-based Google. This technology and its use seemed to meet the goals of the “Internet Freedom” program, introduced by the White House a few months prior to the Egypt events. In the course of the argument, the author discusses international responsibility for the possible breach of their international obligations by both: Egypt and the U.S. She provides for the assessment of the legality of the actions of Egyptian authorities’ executing a nationwide ban on Internet that constitutes an infringement of freedom of expression, as well as the responsibility of the United States for their failure to halt a U.S. legal entity enabling users to circumvent Egyptian blocking.

Keywords

Internet Free speech State responsibility International law Internet governance Sovereignty Proportionality Access to information Human rights Due diligence 

References

  1. Agence France-Presse. (2012). India defends internet censorship. The Jakarta Globe, August 24. http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/archive/india-defends-internet-censorship/. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  2. Associated Press. (2011). American sentenced to prison for Thai royal insult. 3 News, December 8. http://www.3news.co.nz/American-sentenced-to-prison-for-Thai-royal-insult/tabid/417/articleID/235841/Default.aspx. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  3. Bratspies, R. M., & Miller, R. A. (Eds.). (2006). Transboundary harm in international law: lessons from the Trail Smelter arbitration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brownlie, I. (1983). System of the law of nations, part I: State responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chilling Effects Clearinghouse. (2013). The chilling effects clearinghouse homepage. http://www.chillingeffects.org/
  6. Clinton, H.R. (2010). Remarks on internet freedom. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  7. Clinton, H.R. (2011). Internet rights and wrongs: Choices & challenges in a networked world, remarks. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/02/156619.htm. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  8. Coldewey, D. (2013). Syria goes dark again in widespread Internet blackout. NBC News, May 7. http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/syria-goes-dark-again-widespread-internet-blackout-6C9830083. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  9. Council of Europe. (1950). Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms as amended by protocols No. 11 and No. 14. Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 194.Google Scholar
  10. Council of Europe. (2003). Declaration of the committee of ministers on freedom of communication on the Internet.Google Scholar
  11. Council of Europe. (2007). Recommendation of the committee of ministers to member states on measures to promote the public service value of the Internet.Google Scholar
  12. Council of Europe. (2009). Internet governance and critical internet resources.Google Scholar
  13. Council of Europe. (2010). International and multi-stakeholder co-operation on cross-border Internet. Interim report of the Ad-hoc Advisory Group on Cross-border Internet to the Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services incorporating analysis of proposals for international. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/mc–s–ci/default_EN.asp. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  14. Council of Europe. (2011a). Declaration by the committee of ministers on internet governance principles.Google Scholar
  15. Council of Europe. (2011b). Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on the protection of freedom of expression and information and freedom of assembly and association with regard to Internet domain names and name strings.Google Scholar
  16. Council of Europe. (2011c). Recommendation of the committee of ministers to member states on the protection and promotion of the universality, integrity and openness of the Internet.Google Scholar
  17. Cowie, J. (2011). Egypt leaves the internet. Rensys, January 27. http://www.renesys.com/blog/2011/01/egypt–leaves–the–internet.shtml. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  18. Deibert, R. (Ed.). (2008). Access denied: the practice and policy of global Internet filtering. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Deibert, R., Palfrey, J. G., Rohozinski, R., & Zittrain, J. (Eds.). (2010). Access controlled: The shaping of power, rights, and rule in cyberspace. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Doe, J. (2004). A starting point: Legal implications of internet filtering. OpenNet Initiative. https://opennet.net/docs/Legal_Implications.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  21. Doe, J. (2004). Cisco announces IP next-generation network advancements for service providers. http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2004/prod_120604.html. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  22. Doe, J. (2008). Italy cracks down on Pirate Bay. New York Times, August 14. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/technology/14iht–webpirate.15301147.html. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  23. Doe, J. (2011a). Egypt crisis: Google launches ‘speak to tweet’ service. The Telegraph, February 1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8295219/Egypt-crisis-Google-launches-speak-to-tweet-service.html. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  24. Doe, J. (2011b). Thailand jails US man Joe Gordon for royal insult. BBC online, December 8. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16081337. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  25. European Court of Human Rights. (2001). VgT Verein Gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland. Case number 24699/94.Google Scholar
  26. European Court of Human Rights. (2008). Khurshid Mustafa And Tarzibachi v. Sweden. Case number 23883/06.Google Scholar
  27. European Court of Human Rights. (2012). Yıldırım v. Turkey. Case number 3111/10.Google Scholar
  28. European Court of Human Rights. (2013). Delfi v. Estonia. Case number 64569/09.Google Scholar
  29. European Court of Justice. (2010). Scarlet Extended SA v. Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM). Case number C-70/10.Google Scholar
  30. Evans, R. (2008). U.N. chief tells rights body drop rhetoric, blocs. Reuters, December 12. http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/12/us–un–rights–idUSTRE4BB67820081212. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  31. Human Rights Council. (2012). The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet. U.N. Doc. A/HRC/20/L.13.Google Scholar
  32. International Court of Justice. (1980). United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran.Google Scholar
  33. International Law Commission. (1992). Draft articles on state responsibility: Titles and texts of articles adopted by the drafting committee. U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/L.472.Google Scholar
  34. International Law Commission. (2001). Draft articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, with commentaries. U.N. Doc A/56/10.Google Scholar
  35. International Law Commission. (2006). Guiding principles with commentaries applicable to unilateral declarations of states capable of creating legal obligations. U.N. Doc. 61/10.Google Scholar
  36. Kleinwächter, W. (2005). Multistakeholderism and the IGF: Laboratory, clearinghouse, watchdog. In W. J. Drake (Ed.), Reforming Internet governance: perspectives from the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) (pp. 535–582). New York, NY: UN Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Krasner, S. D. (2004). The hole in the whole: Sovereignty, shared sovereignty, and international law. Michigan Journal of International Law, 25(4), 1075–1101.Google Scholar
  38. Kreijen, G. (2002). State, sovereignty, and international governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kulesza, J. (2012). International internet law. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. McNamee, J. (2013). MEPs propose web blocking yet again, Digital Civil Rights in Europe. EDRi-gram newsletter, April 24. http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.8/web-blocking-gambling-again. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  41. Newman, E. (2002). Humanitarian intervention, legality and legitimacy. International Journal of Human Rights, 6(4), 102–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Noman, H., York J.C. (2011). West censoring east: The use of western technologies by middle east censors, OpenNet Inititive. http://opennet.net/west-censoring-east-the-use-western-technologies-middle-east-censors-2010-2011. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  43. Open Net Initiatve. (2013). Open net initiative homepage. https://opennet.net/. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  44. Perrez, F. X. (2000). Cooperative sovereignty. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  45. Pisillo-Mazzeschi, R. (1992). The due diligence rule and the nature of international responsibility of states. German Yearbook of International Law, 35, 9–51.Google Scholar
  46. Privacy International, GreenNet Educational Trust (2003). Silenced, an international report on censorship and control of the internet. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/147504632/Silenced---an-international-report-on-censorship-and-control-of-the-internet. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  47. Reporters Without Borders. (2013). The list of Internet enemies. http://en.rsf.org/internet.html. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  48. Robertson, G. (2006). Crimes against humanity. New York, NY: The New Press.Google Scholar
  49. Rutzke, C. R. (1988). The Libyan asset freeze and its application to foreign government deposits in overseas branches of United States banks: Libyan Arab Foreign Bank v Bankers Trust Co. American University International Law Review, 3(1), 241–282.Google Scholar
  50. Sadurski, W. (2002). Freedom of speech and its limits. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. Thai National Administrative Reform Council. (1956). Order (No. 41) Full text available in English at: http://thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw50001.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  52. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. (2010). Microsoft Corporation v. John Does 1—27, case number 1_10CV156 (LMBIJFA).Google Scholar
  53. United Nations. (1945). United Nations Charter.Google Scholar
  54. United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. U.N. Doc. A/RES/(III).Google Scholar
  55. United Nations. (1966). International covenant on civil and political rights. U.N. Doc. A/6316.Google Scholar
  56. United Nations. (1999). Second report on international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law by Mr. P.S. Rao, Special Rapporteur, U.N. Doc A/CN.4/501.Google Scholar
  57. United Nations. (2005). Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance. www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  58. United Nations. (2009). Resolution adopted by the human rights council, freedom of opinion and expression. Un. Doc. A/HRC/RES/12/16.Google Scholar
  59. Vark, R. (2006). State responsibility for private armed groups in the context of terrorism. Juridica International, 11, 184–193.Google Scholar
  60. Weber, R. H. (2010). New sovereignty concepts in the age of internet. Journal of Internet Law, 8, 12–20.Google Scholar
  61. Weckert, J. (2000). What is so bad about internet content regulation? Ethics and Information Technology, 2(2), 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yutaka Arai, Y. (2002). The margin of appreciation doctrine and the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECHR. Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International Law and International RelationsUniversity of LodzLodzPoland

Personalised recommendations