Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
The aim of this paper is to recognize and discuss the inherent risks associated with Internet regulation and control over digital content. The key point of this analysis is that Internet regulation can present human rights risks. In particular, the paper examines how restrictions over Internet content are posing regulatory issues directly related to the growing importance of an equitable access to digital information. It also considers the relevance and impact of computer–mediated communication, its potential on democratization of freedom of expression and the problem of conflicting rights. Drawing upon comparative and case study material, the paper finally discusses and investigates the potential risks and vulnerabilities related to communication technologies focusing on legislative reforms in the area of digital communications and their implications for fundamental freedoms.
1 Lannon, John, Halpin, Edward F., and Hick, Steven, “Internet”, in Forsyth, David P. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Vol. 3, (New York: OUP 2009), pp. 247 et sqq. at 247.Google Scholar
2 Lilian Edwards, “Role and Responsibility Of Internet Intermediaries In The Field Of Copyright And Related Rights”, WIPO, 2011. available on the Internet at <http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/doc/role_and_responsibility_of_the_the_intermediaries_final.pdf> (last accessed on 6 October 2014); Lemley, Mark, “Rationalizing Internet Safe Harbors”, 6 Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law (2007), pp. 101 et sqq. Google Scholar
3 Final Acts of the World Administrative Telegraph and Telephone Conference Melbourne, 1988 (Wattc-99): International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), Int’l Telecomm. Union 3-8 (1989).
4 See Final Acts of the World Administrative Telegraph and Telephone Conference Melbourne, 1988 (Wattc-99): International Telecommunication Regulations, International Telecommunication Union, 3–8 (1989), available on the Internet at <http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itus/oth/02/01/S02010000214002PDFE.pdf> (last accessed on 6 October 2014). For a further discussion on this point, see David A. Gross and Ethan Lucarelli, “The 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications: Another Brewing Storm Over Potential UN Regulation of the Internet,” Who’sWhoLegal (Nov. 2011), available on the Internet at <http://whoswholegal.com/news/features/article29378/the-2012-world-conferenceinternationaltelecommunication-brewing-storm-potential-un-regulation-internet> (last accessed on 6 October 2014). See also Center for Democracy & Technology, “ITU Move to Expand Powers Threatens the Internet: Civil Society Should Have Voice in ITU Internet Debate” (Mar. 12, 2012), available on the Internet at <https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT-ITU_WCIT12_background.pdf> (last accessed on 6 October 2014).
5 See Shahin, Jamal B., “The Internet: A Case Study for Global Governance”, 5 Swiss Political Science Review (1999), pp. 120 et sqq., at 121.Google Scholar
6 Land, Molly B., “Protecting Rights Online”, 34 Yale Journal of International Law (2009), pp. 1 et sqq., at 8.Google Scholar
7 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, art. 19, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III), 10 December, 1948.
8 European Convention on Human Rights, art. 10, Rome, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 United Nations Treaty Series, pp. 221 et sqq.
9 Sadurski, Wojciech, Freedom of Speech and Its Limits, (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999), at 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 See Kapzcynski, Amy, “The Access to Knowledge Mobilization and the New Politics of Intellectual Property,” 117 Yale Law Journal, 2008, pp. 804 et sqq., at 883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Zencovich, , Freedom of Expression: A Critical and Comparative Analysis, supra note 14, at 80; Michel Verpeaux, Freedom of Expression, (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2010), at 42–46.Google Scholar
12 Sunstein, Cass R., Republic.com, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), at 27-28;Google Scholar Blevins, John, “The New Scarcity: A First Amendment Framework for Regulating Access to Digital Media Platforms,” 79 Tennessee Law Reviews, 2012, pp. 353 et sqq., at 366;Google Scholar Emerson, Thomas I., “Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment”, 72 Yale Law Journal (1963), pp. 877 et sqq., at 879-881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 See Sunstein, Republic.com, supra note 26, at 138.
14 Price, Monroe E., Media and Sovereignty: The Global Information Revolution and Its Challenge, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002) at 216;Google Scholar DeNardis, Laura, Protocol Politics: The Globalization of Internet Governance, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), at 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 See Packard, Ashley, Digital Media Law, (Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell, 2010), at 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, “Commission on Human Rights, Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression,” Frank La Rue, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/17/27 (16 May 2011). Available on the Internet at: <http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/16583a84ba1b3ae5802568bd004e80f7/$FILE/G0010259.pdf> (last accessed on 6 October 2014).
17 Id.
18 Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) (2012), House of Representatives 3261, 112th Congress.
19 Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, (PIPA) (2012) Senate 968, 112th Congress.
20 Loi 2009-669 du 12 juin 2009 favorisant la diffusion et la protection de la création sur internet, 135 Journal Officiel de la République Française, 13 June, 2009, pp. 9666 et sqq.
21 Ley 2/2011, del 4 marzo 2011, de Economía Sostenible, 55 Boletín Oficial del Estado, 5 de marzo de 2011, pp. 25033 et sqq.
22 United Kingdom, Digital Economy Act, 2010, 59 Elizabeth II, c. 24, § 124A.
23 See Dutton, William H., et al., “Freedom of Connection, Freedom of Expression: The Changing Legal and Regulatory Ecology Shaping the Internet”, (Paris: UNESCO, 2011)Google Scholar. Available on the Internet at <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001915/191594e.pdf> (Last accessed on 6 October 2014).
24 Id.
25 See Benkler, Yochai, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms. Markets and Freedom, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), at p. 1.Google Scholar
26 Deibert, Robert, et al., Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010) at xvii;Google Scholar Mendel, Toby and Salomon, Eve, Freedom of Expression and Broadcasting Regulation, (Brasilia: UNESCO, 2011) at 11.Google Scholar
27 Eben Moglen, “Why Political Liberty Depends on Software Freedom More Than Ever”, speech given at the 2011 FOSDEM conference in Brussels, February 5, 2011. Available on the Internet at: <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2011/fosdem/moglen-fosdem-keynote.html> (last accessed on 6 October 2014).
28 See Balkin, Jack M., “The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age,” 36 Pepperdine Law Review, 2009, pp. 427 et sqq., at 438.Google Scholar
29 See Howard, Philip N. and Hussain, Muzammil M., “The Role of Digital Media”, 22 Journal of Democracy, 2011, 35 et sqq., at 35–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (arguing that digital social media were the main reason behind the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings).
30 Id.
31 Zencovich, Vincenzo Zeno, Freedom of Expression: A Critical and Comparative Analysis, (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge–Cavendish, 2008) at 100.Google Scholar
32 United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, “Commission on Human Rights, Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression,” Frank La Rue, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/17/27, 6 May 2011. Available on the Internet at: http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/16583a84ba1b3ae5802568bd004e80f7/$FILE/G0010259.pdf (last accessed on 6 October 2014).
33 Robert Deibert, et al., Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace, supra note 10, at xv.
34 Id., at 6.
35 See Szuskin, Laurent, et al., “Beyond Counterfeiting: The Expanding Battle Against Online Piracy,” 21 Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 2009, pp. 1 et sqq. Google Scholar
36 Strowel, Alain, “Internet Piracy as a Wake–up Call for Copyright Law Makers – Is the “Graduated Response” a Good Reply?,” 1 World Intellectual Property Organization Journal, 2009, pp. 75 et sqq., at 80.Google Scholar
37 Rodotà, Stefano, La Vita e le Regole: Tra Diritto e Non Diritto, (Milano: Feltrinelli, 2006) at 135.Google Scholar
38 On this debate, see e.g. Stefano Rodotà, Perchè Serve un Internt Bill of Rights, 347 Aut Aut, 2010, pp. 52 et sqq.; Francesca Musiani, The Internet Bill of Rights: A Way to Reconcile Natural Freedoms and Regulatory Needs?. 6 Scripted. A Journal of Law, Technology and Society, 2009, pp. 504 et sqq.; Rikke Frank Jørgensen, An Internet Bill of Rights?, in Research Handbook on Governace of the Internet 353 (Ian Brown ed., 2013); Klint Finley, Inventor of Web is Right: We Need an Internet Bill of Rights, Wired (Mar. 12, 2014), available at http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2014/03/web25/.
39 See Stefano Rodotà, Perchè Serve un Internt Bill of Rights, cit.
40 See e.g. Dutton, et al., “Freedom of Connection, Freedom of Expression: The Changing Legal and Regulatory Ecology Shaping the Internet”, supra note 7; United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, “Commission on Human Rights, Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression,” supra note 15; Lucchi, Nicola, “Access to Network Services and Protection of Constitutional Rights,” 19 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law (2011) pp. 645 et sqq. Google Scholar; Horner, Lisa, et. al., Information and Communication Technologies and Human Rights, (Brussels: European Parliament, 2010)Google Scholar; Yaman Akdeniz, “OSCE Report: Freedom of Expression on the Internet,” OSCE. 2013 Available on the Internet at <http://www.osce.org/fom/80723> (last accessed on 6 October 2014); Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, “The Right to Internet Access”, Resolution 1987 (2014), available on the Internet at <http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewPDF.asp?FileID=20535&Language=EN> (last accessed on 6 October 2014).
41 Conseil constitutionnel, Décision No. 2009-580DC, du 10 Juin, 2009, relative à la loi favorisant la diffusion et la protection de la création sur Internet, June 13, Journal Officiel de la République Française (2009), pp. 9675 et sqq.
42 See Marino, Laure, ‘Le Droit d’Accès à Internet, Nouveau Droit Fondamental,’ 20 Recueil Dalloz (2009) pp. 2045 et sqq.Google Scholar
43 See Conseil constitutionnel, Décision No. 2009-580DC, supra note 41; Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, “The Right to Internet Access”, supra note 40.
44 On this court's decision, I beg to refer the reader to my Access to Network Services and Protection of Constitutional Rights: Recognizing the Essential Role of Internet Access for the Freedom of Expression, supra note 40.
45 See Yu, Peter K., “The Graduated Response,” 62 Florida Law Review (2010) pp. 1373 et sqq., at 1376–77Google Scholar (“[S]imilar laws and policies have been adopted, considered, or rejected by Australia, Germany, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. Thus far, proposals for the development of a graduated response system have been rejected by Germany, Hong Kong, Spain, and Sweden as well as the European Parliament.”); see also International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, Digital Music Report 2011, (2011), at 18–19 available on the Internet at <http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2011.pdf> (reporting that France, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Taiwan, and Chile have implemented a graduated response system) (last accessed on 6 October 2014).
46 It is just worth to mention that on July 8, 2013 – after an heated debate and the approval of a revised version of the HADOPI law according to the judgement issued by the French Supreme Court – the French Culture minister issued a new decree amending completely the former law and replacing the disconnection penalty with a fine. See Loi 2013-596 du 8 juillet 2013 supprimant la peine contraventionnelle complémentaire de suspension de l'accès à un service de communication au public en ligne et relatif aux modalités de transmission des informations prévue à l’article L331-21 du code de la propriété intellectuelle [Decree No. 2013-596 of 8 July 2013 abolishing the additional misdemeanor punishable by suspension of access to a communication service to the public online and on the procedure for transmission of information under Article L. 331-21 of the code IP], Journal Officiel de la République Française [J.O.] [Official Gazette of France], Jul. 9, 2013, p. 11428, available at http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affich-Texte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000027678782
47 Digital Economy Act, 2010, c. 24, available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/pdfs/ukpga_20100024_en.pdf.
48 This term “graduate response” refers to an indirect mechanism to target Internet piracy essentially based on a co–operation with the internet access providers that goes beyond the classical ‘‘notice and take down’’ approach, where online content is simply taken down after a complaint. In particular, this enforcement method implies a “notification mechanism for alleged online infringers before more stringent measures can be imposed including” the suspension of the internet service. See Alain Strowel, Internet Piracy as a Wake–up Call for Copyright Law Makers — Is the “Graduated Response” a Good Reply?, 1 W.I.P.O Journal 2009 pp. 75 et sqq., at 77.
49 Off. Comm., Notice of Ofcom's Proposal to Make by Order a Code for Regulating the Initial Obligations, OFCOM 3 (June 26, 2012), http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/onlinenotice/summary/notice.pdf.
50 See Rebecca Giblin, Evaluating Graduated Response, 37 Colum. J.L. & Arts 2014, pp.147 et sqq. at 172;
51 See UK piracy warning letters delayed until 2015, BBC News – Technology, 6 June 2013, available at http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-22796723; Tim Ingham, Digital Economy Act Delayed AGAIN, MusicWeek (Feb. 7, 2013), available at http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/digital-economy-act-delayed-again/053507.
52 Santoro, Peppe, “Progressive IP Strategies for European Clients,” in Baud, E. et al. (eds.) IP Client Strategies in Europe, (Boston: Aspatore, 2010) at 168–169 Google Scholar. The same concerns have arisen with regard to the secret negotiation of the proposed Anti–Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA),which was also focused on the implementation of a “graduated response” regime. See Bridy, Annemarie, “ACTA and the Specter of Graduated Response”, 26 American University International Law Review (2011) pp. 558 et sqq. Google Scholar
53 See United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, “Commission on Human Rights, Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression,” supra note 15.
54 See Frosini, Vittorio, “L’orizzonte Giuridico dell’Internet,” Il Diritto dell’Informazione e dell’Informatica (2002) pp. 271 et sqq., at 275.Google Scholar
55 Strowel, “Internet Piracy as a Wake–up Call for Copyright Law Makers – Is the “Graduated Response” a Good Reply?,” supra note 19 , at 82.
56 Shahin,“The Internet: A Case Study for Global Governance”, supra note 5.
