On the one hand, Internet

empowers freedom of expression

by providing individuals with
new means and platforms of
expression.
On the other hand, the free flow
of information has raised issues of
content regulation to protect
vulnerable like minors, the users
from abuse and crimes.
 The Internet paved a new world
of interaction whereby people
communicate with each other to
do business or other social affairs.
 The video/voice calling service Skype
started in 2003,
 Facebook in 2004,
 Twitter in 2006,
 Instagram in 2010,
 Google in 2011,
 TikTok in 2017.
 Billions of people now have access
to the internet at their fingertips
wherever they go.
 All in all, 4.95 billion people around
the world actively use internet.
 Do you think all these people use
Internet for legitimate purpose
 People become connected in all parts of
the world using Internet.
 Questions are answered within seconds
on Google.
 And the internet is about to democratize
the entire world.
 The Arab Spring 2010, starting in
Tunisia, was termed a Facebook
revolution
 the Sudan uprising 2019 would not have
been possible without social media.
 People come together and organize for a
common cause by digital means.
 Online media have sprung up and
multiplied, bloggers started blogging,
everyone is able to have her or his say.
 HOWEVER, AUTHORITARIAN
governments also discovered the
potential of the new technology and
learnt to use it for their purposes: to
propagate their own version of ―the
truth‖ unchecked by professional media,
to influence public opinion in their
favour, to keep track of and clamp down
on opposition voices, or shut down
access altogether.
 General users also abuse the technology:
there is a rising flood of hate speech and
cyber-mobbing, of misinformation,
disinformation and conspiracy myths.
 Of course, all of these are not new
phenomena, but they are infinitely easier
to set in motion at the click of a button
or the touch on a screen in the faceless
anonymity of the net.
 Digital rights that closely interwoven with
freedom of expression and privacy, are those
that allow people to access, create and publish
digital media, as well as access and use
computers, other electronic devices and
communications networks.
 Digital rights are an extension of human
rights for the Internet age.
 The Declaration of principles on Freedom of
Expression and Access to Information in
Africa was adopted by the African
Commission on Human and People‘s Rights
(AU declaration) in 2002 and updated in 2019
to include digital rights.
 It states that the ―universal, equitable,
affordable and meaningful access to
the internet is necessary for the
realization of freedom of expression,
access to information and the
exercise of other human rights‖.
 In 2012, the United Nations Human Rights
Council established an important basic
principle: Human rights apply equally online
and offline, digital rights are human rights.
 All people have the right to access, use,
create and publish information freely, to enjoy
and exercise freedom of expression,
information and communication as long as
they do not violate the rights of others.
 Similarly, it is the right of everyone to access,
use, create, share and publish information via
digital media, blogs, websites and the like;
again: as long as the rights of others are
respected.
 how to realize
digital rights equally for all and how to protect
them against interference by the states as well
as misuse
 Is a fundamental human right that allows
individuals to express their opinions and
ideas freely without interference or
retaliation from the government.
 The freedom for all to express
themselves. It is the right to speak, to be
heard, and to participate in political,
artistic, and social life.
Importance: Freedom of expression is a
foundational right that is essential for the
enjoyment and protection of all human
rights. It enables dialogue, builds
understanding, and increases public
knowledge.
 When individuals can freely exchange
ideas and information, their knowledge
improves, which benefits their
communities and societies.
Online expression: Freedom of
expression also applies to online
expression, including the freedom to
express oneself online and to access
information and the opinions and
expressions of others.
 Public authorities have a duty to respect
and protect this freedom, and any
restrictions to this freedom must not be
arbitrary.
 Freedom of expression is closely
connected to freedom of thought and is a
precondition for individuals self-
expression and self-fulfillment.
 It enables an open debate about political,
social and moral values, and encourages
artistic and scholarly endeavor free of
inhibitions.
 It is enshrined under Art.19 of UDHR,
  I. Freedom to hold Opinion: the state must not
try to indoctrinate its citizens nor make
distinctions between those holding specific
opinions and others.
 The freedom gives citizens the right to
What criticize the government and form opposition.
 II. Freedom to impart information and ideas:
freed which give citizens the right to distribute
information and ideas through all possible
lawful sources .
oms  III. Freedom to receive information: which
includes the right to gather information and to

are try to get information through all possible

lawful sources.
 IV. Freedom of the Press: closely linked to the
prote public‗s right to know.
 V. Freedom of Radio and Broadcasting:

cted? subject to certain licensing procedures,

citizens should have the freedom to establish
and express views on TV and radio
broadcasting.
  Freedom of expression(both in the online and
offline world) are not absolute: have
restrictions for various rationales.
 Art.10(2) of the European Convention on

Admi Human Rights declared that there are three

main categories where restricting freedom of
expression could be legitimate.

ssible  1.Protection of public interest (national

security, territorial integrity, public safety,
prevention of disorder or crime, protection of
Restri health or morals).
 2.Protection of other individual rights

ction (protection of the reputation or rights of

others, prevention of the disclosure of
information received in confidence).

s  3.Necessity of maintaining the authority and

impartiality of the judiciary.
 In other words, the justifications of restriction
we discussed on the 3 rd chapter – on privacy-
―necessity, proportionality and legality‖
requirements shall be satisfied.
  Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to
freedom of opinion and expression, argued in
his influential 2011 report that, in analogy to
Admi offline content, any restriction of online
content to be imposed as an exceptional
ssible measure must pass a three-part, cumulative
test:

Restri  1.- it must be provided by law, to meet the

principles of predictability and transparency,

ction  2. – it must pursue one of the purposes

envisaged in Article 19 of the ICCPR, i.e. to

s protect the rights or reputation of others, or to

protect national security or public order, health
or morals, and
 3. – it must be necessary and also the least
restrictive means to achieve the respective
objective (principle of proportionality
  We are now in an age of Information
where the technology is challenging
established legal institutions, social
practices , and human rights of an
Digital individual including freedom of
speech and expression.
Speech  Freedom of speech and expression
Manag refers to the right to express one's
ideas and opinions freely through
ement: speech and other forms of media
Filterin communication but not at the cost of
causing damage to reputation of
g and others and not being against the law
by means of false , misleading or
Rankin mischievous statements.
g  Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, said
"Freedom of Speech has no meaning
if there is no freedom after speech‖.
  Filtering refers to the use of
technology to block or limit access to
certain types of content on the
internet.
Digital  This can include blocking websites or
Speech specific web pages, filtering out
certain types of content such as
Manag pornography or hate speech, or
limiting access to certain types of
ement: websites such as social media or
Filterin gaming sites.
 Filtering can be done by internet
g service providers, governments, or
private companies, and can be used
for a variety of reasons such as
protecting children from harmful
content or preventing the spread of
hate speech
  However, filtering can also be used to
limit access to constitutionally protected
speech and can compromise freedom of
expression and human rights.
Digital  Filters are often unreliable because
computer code and algorithms are still
Speech unable to accurately filter content, and
blocking/filtering decisions usually
Manag lack transparency and are rarely
ement: ordered by a court.
 There is debate over whether algorithmic
Filterin curation of online forums should be
considered government speech or private
g speech, and some argue
emphasizing user speech rights in
that
algorithmically curated online forums is
necessary to protect against filter
bubbles and ensure access to diverse
viewpoints
 Ranking refers to the process of
ordering search results by
relevance to a particular query.
Digital When someone performs a
search, search engines scour their
Speech index for highly relevant content
Manag and then order that content in the
hopes of solving the searcher's
ement: query.
ranking Ranking is a complex process that
involves algorithms that look at a
variety of signals to determine
whether a page is relevant and of
high enough quality to show
when someone types a query into
the search bar.
 Factors that can influence ranking
include keyword density, the
quality and quantity of website
traffic, and the number and
Digital quality of links to a page.
Speech Google's PageRank algorithm is
Manag one example of a ranking
algorithm used by search engines
ement: to determine the relevance and
ranking importance of web pages.
The goal of ranking is to provide
the pieces of content that will best
answer a searcher's query, which
means that results are ordered by
most relevant to least relevant
  Filtering and ranking are types of
active interference with the exercise
of users' freedom of speech and
Filtering practices.
&  Content filtering, deleting, blocking,
suspending, and ranking can
Ranking compromise freedom of speech &
Vis-à-vis expression rights and limit access to
Freedom constitutionally protected speech.
of  Research has shown that filters often
Expressio block adults and minors from
accessing a wide range of
n constitutionally protected speech, and
are unreliable because computer code
and algorithms are still unable to
accurately filter content.
  While the government speech doctrine
states that the government is able to
determine the contents of its speech
without being restricted by the Freedom
Filtering of Speech clauses, there is debate over
whether algorithmic curation of online
& forums should be considered
Ranking government speech or private speech.
Vis-à-vis  Some argue that emphasizing user
speech rights in algorithmically curated
Freedom online forums is necessary to protect
against filter bubbles and ensure access
of to diverse viewpoints.
Expressio  Others argue that internet filtering is
n necessary to protect against harmful
content, but that it should be
implemented in a transparent and
accountable manner.
  The key precondition for online freedom
of expression is access to Internet.
 To enjoy online freedom of expression
two things needs to be satisfied.
Regulating  I. Access to the Internet/Connectivity:
Problemati Internet is an enabler of human rights.
c Content: Internet (the physical or infrastructure
Hate dimension) should be available to
Speech & exercise freedom of expression online.
II. Access to Online Content: the right to
Pornograph obtain unfiltered access to online
y content.
 Thus, Internet as a facilitator of human
rights needs first connectivity and
unfiltered access to content.
 Denial of either connectivity or content
raises the issue of freedom of expression
online..
  Regulating online content can be
justified by the same justifications for
limiting freedom of expression.
 The need to ensure public interest, the
The protection of the rights & freedoms of
other fellow human beings and the
Need desire to safeguard the works of the
judiciary can justify regulation.
for  Besides, as the content of the Internet
Regulat can be accessed freely minors can also
access a content not beneficial for their
ing age.
 In regulating the content the principles
Online of being provided by law, necessary in a
democratic society for the pursuit of a
Conten legitimate goal and proportionate (i.e.
t appropriate and avoiding unjustified
discrimination)
  Inherently not all speech need to be
protected online.
 To be exact, three categories of
expression needs to be regulated to
What safeguard the public and private
Sorts of interests alike including the right to
freedom of expression itself.
Speech  A. Expressions that constitutes an
offence under international law and
is can be prosecuted criminally;
Unprot  B. Expression that is not criminally
punishable but may justify a
ected restriction and a civil suit; and
Online?  C. Expression that does not give rise
to criminal or civil sanctions, but still
raises concerns in terms of tolerance,
civility and respect for others)
  States are obliged to prohibit content
falling under category
 (a). The category includes expression
that is prohibited by international law:
What  images of sexual exploitation of children
(to protect the rights of children);
Sorts of  advocacy of national, racial or religious
Speech hatred amounting to incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence (to
is protect the rights of others, such as the
right to life) E.g. Bigotry, extremism.
Unprot direct and public incitement to commit
genocide (to protect the rights of
ected affected communities); and incitement
to terrorism.
Online  States should also have a national law to
? ward off the rest two categories of
expressions in their legal system.
  If states try to control content that is NOT
illegal, but be it potentially harmful, offensive
or objectionable or just undesirable, must not
be the target of state censorship.
 In the case of Handyside V. the United
What Kingdom(7 December 1976) App.No.5493/72,
the ECHR decided that "Freedom of
Sorts of expression... is applicable not only to
'information' or 'ideas' that are favorably
Speech received or regarded as inoffensive or as a
matter of indifference, but also to those that
is offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector
of the population"
Unprot  Thus, only expressions that are precisely
shocking, offending and disturbing ideas that
ected need protection.
 What about online hate speech? Should it be
Online? tolerated?.
  A deliberate dissemination of hate
speech that promotes hatred,
discrimination or attack against a person
or an discernable group of identity,
What based on ethnicity, religion, race, gender
or disability.
Sorts of  See Art.2(2) of the Hate Speech and
Disinformation prevention and
Speech Suppression Proclamation,
is No.1185/2020.
 According to Weber, hate speech is any
Unprot form of expression that is propagated to
incite, promote or justify racial hatred,
ected xenophobia, anti-Semitism, or other
forms of hatred rooted in intolerance,
Online? including intolerance expressed by
nationalism and aggressive
ethnocentrism, discrimination and
hostility towards minorities and
migrants.
 Racism, xenophobia, anti-
Semitism, aggressive
nationalism and discrimination
What against minorities and
Sorts of immigrants are present online
Speech as well.
is  In the past offline world, it was
usually politicians and the
Unprot media who play the central role
ected in fostering offline hate, but the
Online? Internet has enabled anyone to
become the author of visible
hate speech, even anonymously
  As per Art.2 par.1 of the Additional Protocol
to the Convention of Cybercrime, Racist or
xenophobic content is ― any written material,
any image or any other representation of ideas
or theories, which advocates, promotes or
What incites hatred, discrimination or violence,
against any individual or group of individuals,
Sorts of based on race, colour, descent or national or
ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as a
Speech pretext for any of these factors‖
 It is subject to criminal(serious) punishment in
is most jurisdictions.
 Ethiopia also has a law that aims to combat
Unprot hate speech proclamation though some
commentators feared that it would create a
ected room for suppression of rights and freedoms
of citizens who oppose the political elites.
Online?  See the UN‗s concern on Bloomberg and
Human Rights Watch‗s concern
  Freedom of expression may at times
impart ideas unsuitable to some age
groups like children.
 It may have to be subjected to more
Protectio stringent limits when the speech could
n of come in contact with children.
 As children are vulnerable because of
Children their age, the law needs to protect them.
in light  States shall thus come up with laws that
strike a balance between freedom of
of expression and protection of children
Freedom online. The following can be measures:
of  Criminalizing obscene acts in the
criminal legislation
Expressio  Owners of Web sites should have an age
n Online checks on the free preview page.
 Use precautionary measures like ex post
moderation of content as inappropriate
for young users.
• Digital rights, closely linked to freedom of
expression and privacy, are those that allow
people to access, use, create and publish digital
media, as well as access and use computers,
other electronic devices and communications
networks.
• Citizens‘ digital rights include the rights of
privacy, security, information self-
determination and neutrality, giving citizens a
choice about what happens to their digital
identity, who uses their data online, and for
which purposes.
• Digital democracy enables more citizen
participation in design and governance of a
country and service.
• As early as 2012 the United Nations‘ Human Rights
Council established an important basic principle:
Human rights apply equally online and offline, digital
rights are human rights.
• All people have the right to access, use, create and
publish information freely, to enjoy and exercise
freedom of expression, information and communication
as long as they do not violate the rights of others.
• Similarly, it is the right of everyone to access, use,
create, share and publish information via digital media,
blogs, websites and the like; again: as long as the rights
of others are respected.
• The challenge is how to realise these rights
equally for all and how to protect them – against
interference by the state as well as misuse.
• Any attempt to update declarations on freedom of
expression, to develop new laws or amend
existing ones to fashion specialised cyber-crime
legislation needs to stand this basic test: does it
serve to protect digital rights as human rights
• UN
• The 2016 Resolution of United Nations Human
Rights Council (UNHRC) on the promotion,
protection and enjoyment of human rights on the
internet confirmed that these rights, in turn,
enable a full array of other fundamental rights.
When these rights are advanced and exercised
online, they deserve the same protections as when
they are advanced offline
• EU on digital right
• European Declaration on Digital Rights and
Principles for the Digital Decade
Brussels, 26.1.2022
The preamble said
With the acceleration of the digital transformation,
the time has come for the European Union (EU) to
spell out how its values and fundamental rights
should be applied in the online world.
• On declaration part it said that
We aim to promote a European way for the
digital transition, putting people at the centre. It
shall be based on European values and benefiting
all individuals and businesses.
We therefore declare:
• AU
• The Declaration of Principles on Freedom of
Expression and Access to Information in Africa
was adopted by the African Commission on
Human and Peoples‘ Rights (AU Declaration) in
2002 and updated in 2019 to include digital rights.
• It states that the ―universal, equitable, affordable
and meaningful access to the internet is necessary
for the realisation of freedom of expression,
access to information and the exercise of other
human rights‖
• The AU Declaration says that states ―shall not
interfere with the right of individuals to seek,
receive and impart information … through
removal, blocking or filtering of (internet)
content‖
• Ethiopia
• The general digital rights landscape is seen as
challenging within the context of existing
legislation and the manner in which they are
generally enforced.
ETHIOPIA DIGITAL RIGHTS AND INCLUSION 2020 REPORT
• Some scholars argued that the digital age makes
salient one of the central purposes of freedom of
speech.
• The goal of free speech is to protect and foster a
democratic culture.
• A democratic culture is a culture in which
individuals have a fair opportunity to participate
in the forms of meaning-making and mutual
influence that constitute them as individuals.
• The early Internet seemed to symbolize the possibilities for
such a democratic culture.
• Now people could become their own broadcasters,
speaking to an indefinite number of people, not only in their
own countries, but around the world.
• Armed with digital technologies, ordinary individuals could
route around traditional media gatekeepers.
• They could also participate in culture in ever new ways
through new digital forms of cultural production and
appropriation.
• Digital speech featured ―routing around and glomming on,‖
which were characteristic not only of digital speech, but of
free speech generally.
• The Internet was designed to enable the free
flow of information; however, technical
measures restricting access to content are
now worryingly commonplace in authoritarian
and democratic countries alike.
• Filtering
• Just as the advances in technology have led to an
unprecedented and immeasurable access to
information, technical innovations also provide
ways of controlling the flow of that information
over the networks.
• It is necessary to take into account that part of this
control has been driven by the need to maintain
and improve the quality and security of services
in the network, such as by screening out spam and
viruses.
• Thus, the key question is: to what extent is it possible to
allow such a control in the flow of information in order
to guarantee both the operation of the network as well
as the protection of fundamental rights?
• In addition, efforts are also being made to use that
technology to block content that is considered
unwanted. In this respect, the second question to be
made would be: what is really ―unwanted‖ content?
• If democracy is based, among other things, on the
existence of a space where social or moral criticisms
can be made, would those criticisms be considered, in
principle, ―unwanted‖?
• Filtering is commonly associated with the use
of technology that blocks pages by reference to
certain characteristics, such as traffic patterns,
protocols or keywords, or on the basis of their
perceived connection to content deemed
inappropriate or unlawful
• Taking this into consideration, the most common points at
which filtering practices can be applied include:
 Gateways to the Internet backbone: State-directed
implementation of filtering and blocking technologies may
be carried out at the backbone level, which constitutes the
foundation of the network, such as international gateways
in order to eliminate access to certain content throughout
an entire country.
 Internet Service Providers: There is a dangerous tendency
to have ISPs filter illegal or immoral content, or prevent
search results from specified websites. These providers also
filter spam and attempt to prevent infection by malware for
reasons of stability and user protection.
 Institutions: Companies, libraries, schools, etc. can
filter content on the basis of their own criteria and for
their own purposes, and/or on the basis of guidelines
from state authorities.
 Individual Computers: Each person may install filtering
software on their own computer to restrict the ability
to access certain content and/or protect their safety.
 Law Enforcement: Actions are also taken against users
who engage in practices that are considered illegal on
the network, such as fraud, unlawful sharing of
• Application of filters Blocking/filtering can be implemented
at several different levels, including - but not limited to - the
following:
• – National level – when governments require all Internet
Service Providers to apply filters nationwide; –
• ISP level – affecting all of the customers of a specific ISP; –
Company network filtering – filters are often applied to
computers in workplaces or school/university campuses,
and implemented on a contractual basis between users and
the company;
• – End-user level – a user decides to apply filters to his or
her Internet connection or device, e.g. parental control
software on a tablet.
• Blocking/filtering orders Under international
human rights standards, the blocking/filtering of
content should be ordered by a court or other
independent adjudicatory bodies.
• However, in some countries, it is ordered by
government departments or other public agencies.
• Orders might also take place through informal
channels with the relevant government agency
contacting ISPs directly by phone and asking
them to block specific content.
• Filtering can occur as a result of legislation that imposes
direct obligations on ISPs to filter certain types of content.
• Failure to comply with these obligations is usually punished
by sanctions ranging from withdrawal of a license to
provide telecommunications services to imprisonment.
• By contrast, filtering may also be applied voluntarily, either
because the end user decides to enable filters on his or her
own device or Internet connection, or because an
intermediary (typically an ISP or hosts) wants to prevent its
customers from viewing certain types of content.
• International standards on blocking/filtering
• International human rights bodies have expressed their deep
concern about blocking/filtering measures.
• In particular, the four special mandates on freedom of
expression in their 2011 Joint Declaration on Freedom of
Expression on the Internet held that:
• 1. Mandatory blocking of entire websites, IP addresses,
ports, network protocols or types of uses (such as social
networking) is an extreme measure – analogous to banning
a newspaper or broadcaster – which can only be justified in
accordance with international standards, for example where
necessary to protect children against sexual abuse.
• 2. Content filtering systems which are imposed
by a government or commercial service provider
and which are not end-user controlled are a form
of prior censorship and are not justifiable as a
restriction on freedom of expression.
• 3. Products designed to facilitate end-user
filtering should be required to be accompanied by
clear information to end-users about how they
work and their potential pitfalls in terms of over-
inclusive filtering
• At the same time, the UN Special Rapporteur has
recognised that website blocking may be justified in
limited circumstances in order to deal with categories
of content which are prohibited under international law,
namely: child sex abuse images (child pornography),
incitement to commit genocide, advocacy of national,
racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, and incitement to
terrorism.
• In the case of child pornography, he opined that this
was one of the clear exceptions where website blocking
may be justified.
• Blocking/filtering are sometimes presented as
a remedy to various social ills, from sex abuse
images, adult pornography, intellectual
property infringement, privacy violations,
defamation, illegal gambling, and ‖hate
speech‖, to terrorism or other national security
threats.
Typically, these measures are aimed at:
• – Preventing users from accessing certain
types of content to protect them (e.g. child sex
abuse images) or a third party (e.g. privacy
violation); or
• – Preventing users from downloading illegal
material (e.g. ‗pirate‘ websites) and potentially
committing an offence (e.g. accessing child
sex abuse images).
• In this sense, blocking/filtering can be framed as
measures to combat and reduce criminality. Before such
measures are adopted or implemented, however, the
key question that must be answered is whether
blocking/filtering are necessary and proportionate to
tackle the problems they are purported to address.
• The response very much depends on the technology
being used to block/ filter content and its impact on the
rights to freedom of expression and privacy, as some
technologies are more intrusive than others. If the
answer is in the negative, then website filtering and
blocking should not be implemented at all
• Blocking/filtering are disproportionate under
international human rights law for the
following reasons:
• – Over-blocking or ‘false positives’: no
system can ensure that legitimate content is not
wrongfully restricted. In particular, legitimate
sites may be blocked because they use the
same IP address as ―unlawful‖ sites;
• – Under-blocking’ or ‘false negatives’: conversely, sites containing
illegal or targeted content might not be caught by the
blocking/filtering system.
• This is particularly problematic in the case of online child protection
as parents derive a false sense of security from the knowledge that
web-blocking measures are in place; –
• Failure to address the root causes: blocking/ filtering do not
address the root causes of the particular problem at issue and are no
substitute for law enforcement and the prosecution of serious crimes
committed over the Internet. –
• Possibility of circumvention: blocks/filters are generally relatively
easy to circumvent both by sufficiently tech-savvy end-users and
―criminals‖ when they detect that they have been added to a
blocking list
• Failure to consider the changing nature of websites:
website blocking, as opposed to blocking of specific
webpages, ignores the fact that the content of websites is
liable to change over time, often significantly;
• – Violation of human rights: granular blocking/filtering
strategies are deeply intrusive of users‘ right to privacy and
freedom of expression as they analyse the content of the
material exchanged between users;
• – Interference with the Internet infrastructure:
blocking/filtering interfere with several critical elements of
the Internet‘s infrastructure and design, and causes
reduction in traffic speed and financial burdens on Internet
intermediaries
• In short, blocking/filtering are profoundly
inimical to freedom of expression and human
rights whilst not being effective at tackling the
problems they are purported to address.
• They are therefore disproportionate and should
not be implemented.
• In the face of the threat to public safety and
morals, many nations have enacted legislation
to combat hate speech and pornography.
• However, given the transnational nature of the
Internet, some legal scholars argue that the
Internet defies regulation at the national level
• Internet pornography and hate speech can
degrade, humiliate, and incite.
• Internet pornography and hate speech is cultural
pollution.
• Granted that environmental pollution is much
more easily measured and verified than cultural
pollution, however, there is a considerable amount
of research from legal scholars and social
scientists to support the idea that hate speech and
pornography cause real societal and cultural
harm, despite the absence of exactitude that one
supposedly finds in the "hard" physical sciences.
• The exponential growth in the Internet as a
means of communication has been emulated
by an increase in far-right and extremist web
sites and hate based activity in cyberspace.
• The anonymity and mobility afforded by the
Internet has made harassment and expressions
of hate effortless in a landscape that is abstract
and beyond the realms of traditional law
enforcement.
• Hate speech on the Internet has become a
source of concern among many in the civil
rights community.
• Although we have written a good deal on hate
speech, we have until now confined our
attention mainly to its written or printed form.
The rise in the Internet version, however, calls
for an examination focused on it alone.
• Anti-social Internet behaviours, including hate
speech and cyber bullying, have negatively
impacted the lives of people all over the
world."
• Secretary General of the United Nations has
said that the use of the Internet to spread hate
speech is one of the most important challenges
to human rights to have arisen from modern
technological development.
• Hate speech presents serious human rights
issues. As Alexander Tsesis has observed,
"Prejudicial speech initiates, perpetuates, and
aggravates socially accepted misrepresent out
groups ....
• The relationship between hate speech and
violence is vividly acted out in history." Hate
speech played a major role in exacerbating the
violence in Bosnia,
• Indeed, the very purpose of hate speech is
often to deny the victim's humanity and "make
them objects of ridicule and humiliation such
that acts of aggression against them are
perceived less seriously.
• Nevertheless, the over-regulation of hateful
speech also creates serious concerns.
• Some scholars have even argued that
government regulation of hate speech threatens
to destroy democracy.
• Robert Post, for instance, advocates that public
discourse is so critical to the development of a
democratic collective will that "racist speech is
and ought to be immune from regulation.
• Despite the importance of freedom of expression, not
all speech is protected under international law, and
some forms of speech are required to be prohibited by
states.
• Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that:
• ―(1) Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
• (2) Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred
that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
violence shall be prohibited by law.‖
• In addition, article 4(a) of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination requires that the
dissemination of ideas based on racial
superiority or hatred, incitement to racial
discrimination, as well as all acts of violence
or incitement to such acts against any race or
group of persons of another colour or ethnic
origin, must be declared an offence that is
punishable by law
• Each nation has taken a different approach to balancing
dignity and free speech.
• For instance, in the United States, hate speech is only
prohibited when it creates a threat of immediate violence,
while in many European countries defending the Holocaust
or collecting Nazi memorabilia is criminally prohibited."
• Predictably, "with the expansion of the Internet, new
regulatory challenges more frequently arise because of the
global reach of hate propaganda transmitted from the
United States, where it is legal, and streamed into countries,
like France, where such communications are criminal
offenses.
• Even if all countries agreed on the same basic
approach to preventing hate speech and
protecting freedom of expression, a global
solution to hate speech that would be workable
in the online context would still be difficult to
achieve, because social and historical context
plays such an important role in determining
which words are hateful.
• Hate speech and hate crimes poison societies by threatening
individual rights, human dignity and equality, reinforcing
tensions between social groups, disturbing public peace and
public order, and jeopardising peaceful coexistence.
• They effect private lives, or in cases of violent bias crimes,
even victims‘ life and limb.
• They stigmatise and terrify whole communities.
• They erode social cohesion, solidarity, and trust between
members of society.
• Hate speech blocks rational public debate, without which no
democracy can exist
• it leads to an abuse of rights that endangers the rule of law
• Ethiopia
• Proclamation No. 1185 /2020 Hate Speech And
Disinformation Prevention And Suppression Proclamation
• Rationale
• to prevent and suppress by law the deliberate dissemination
of hate speech and disinformation,
• COGNIZANT, of the threat hate speech and disinformation
pose to social harmony, political stability, national unity,
human dignity, diversity and equality,
• RECOGNIZING, that limitations on fundamental rights should
be proportionate, narrowly tailored and prescribed by law in
pursuit of aims that are legitimate in a democratic society,
 Objectives ….Ethiopia
• 1) Ensure that in their exercise of freedom of
expression, individuals will not engage in speech that
incites violence, is likely to cause public disturbance or
promotes hatred and discrimination against a person or
an identifiable group or community based on ethnicity,
religion, race, gender or disability;
• 2/ Promote tolerance, civil discourse and dialogue,
mutual respect and understanding and strengthening
democratic governance;
• 3/ Control and suppress the dissemination and
proliferation of hate speech, disinformation and other
related false and misleading information.
• Many African states are increasingly resorting to
new online hate speech laws to curb the flood of
mis- and disinformation that arrived with the
advent of the internet and social media.
• For example, in 2020 Ethiopia enacted the Hate
Speech and Disinformation Prevention and
Suppression Proclamation which, while having
seemingly well-intentioned objectives, has been
decried by civil society as a threat to freedom of
expression and access to information online.
• Often this is because of:
• Overly broad definitions of hate speech and
disinformation.
• Vague provisions that allow discretionary interpretation
by law enforcers such as prosecutors and courts and enable
the laws to abuse fundamental rights.
• Holding internet intermediaries liable for content
policing.
• Providing for overly harsh and punitive penalties for
violations.
• Kenya has passed a similar law, and more are under
consideration in Nigeria and South Africa. Critics argue that
these laws constitute nothing less than online censorship.
 Some consideration on online and
offline
• There are some distinctions between hate speech online and offline that
may require consideration,
• but the law usually does not distinguish between the two:
• Content is more easily posted online without due consideration or
thought. Online hate speech cases need to distinguish between poorly
considered statements posted hastily online, and an actual threat that is part
of a systemic campaign of hatred.
• Once something is online, it can be difficult (or impossible) to get it off
entirely. Hate speech posted online can persist in different formats across
multiple different platforms, which can make it difficult to police.
• Online content is frequently posted under the cover of anonymity, which
presents an additional challenge to dealing with hate speech online.
• The internet has transnational reach, which raises cross-jurisdictional
complications in terms of legal mechanisms for combatting hate speech.
• Cyber pornography is the act of using
cyberspace to create, display, distribute ,
import or publish pornography or obscene
materials ,especially materials depicting
children engaged in sexual acts with adults.
Cyber pornography is a criminal offence
classified as causing harm to person
• Cyber Pornography is defined as the act which
uses cyberspace to initiate, design, expose ,
introduce and circulate as well as advertise
indecent or pornographic content
• Cyber pornography includes pornographic
websites, online pornographic magazines,
uploading, downloading, and transmitting
pornographic materials unlawfully. It also
includes sharing with friends and sending them to
another communication device. It also includes
child pornography.
• Naturally, considering the moral aspects
pornography is a criminal offence and had been
classified as amongst the factors causing harm to
persons
• In both a social and a legal sense, it is important
to differentiate between online child porn – which
is illegal in the United States and elsewhere – and
online adult pornography—which is not
necessarily illegal, unless the contents exceed the
community's standard.
• INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVES TO COMBAT
CYBER PORNOGRAPHY
• Legal measures play a significant role in the
prevention and combating of cybercrime. Law is
dynamic tool that enables the state to respond to
new societal and security challenges, such as the
appropriate balance between privacy and crime
control, or the extent of liability of corporations
that provide service
• The United Nations Economic and Social Council
(UNESCO) took vital initiatives to combat online sexual
abuse, child pornography, and paedophilia and took
initiatives to adopt uniform preventive and controlling
measures especially on 18-19 January, 1999 at Paris
with 150 participants.
• In 2001, the European Council’s Committee on Crime
Problems and Cyber Crimes adopted the draft
convention with the initiatives of 41 nations. It
contains 29 Articles. The Convention deals with the
content related offences. It prohibits child pornography
and cyber pornography.
• On cybercrime initiative, one can look up at
the Budapest Cybercrime Convention 2001
which provides for criminalization of online
child pornography while forging international
cooperation in addressing the cybercrimes
• The Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS) 48 provided a legal instrument to its West
African countries on issue of fighting cybercrime The
Directive on Fighting Cybercrime in ECOWAS that
provides a legal framework for the member states,
which includes substantive criminal law as well as
procedural law.
• Amongst the purposes of the Directives is on child
pornography in relation to any data whatsoever nature
or form that usually depicts a minor engaged in a
sexually explicit conduct or realistic images
representing a minor engaged in a sexually explicit
conduct