Finding a black and white answer as to whether regulating online freedom of expression is good or bad is difficult. In practice, regulation is difficult to navigate, particularly in the digital world. Illegitimate use of online restrictions can easily infringe on freedom of expression, however, dismissing online hate speech as a necessary evil can just as easily curtail the human rights of other internet users. The line between justified regulation and blatant censorship is often blurry, so where does justified regulation end and censorship begin, and what does this mean for freedom of speech online?
FACEBOOK AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN MYANMAR
The blocking of internet and social media access by Myanmar’s military for the reason of maintaining public order realised a fear expressed by Myanmar citizens in a BBC interview of “returning to the dark ages”, after a coup on 1 February 2021 spelt the end to five years of fragile democracy under de-facto leader of the National League for Democracy Aung San Suu Kyi.
Over half of Myanmar’s population of 54 million use Facebook, which, alongside street protests and a nationwide strike on 8 February, has proved to be a major rallying point through which young protesters in particular have expressed their disdain for the military coup. These online protestors hope this defiance will draw attention to their difficult situation from “from all over the world”. After a 49 year military dictatorship ended in 2011, greater access to a less regulated internet and exposure to global cultures has been instrumental to gathering international support against the coup, reaching a global audience through sharing messages of protest in the form of art and memes, as reported by BBC News.
On 6 February, Myanmar’s military imposed an international internet shutdown, as well as alongside blocking social media platforms and preventing privately-owned TV stations from broadcasting. The move has been widely condemned as a politically motivated breach of international human rights law, and a blatant attempt to quash civil disobedience under the pretence of protecting national interests.
IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT?
Only weeks before this condemnation of the Myanmar internet shutdown, many online commentators rejoiced at Twitter’s ban of Donald Trump, hailing it as a step towards reason and a clear signal of rejecting anti-democratic values. Others claimed that the move was a "dangerous precedent" that would lead to global ramifications for freedom of expression online - with the issue being debated heavily between Democrats and Republicans in the USA.
The issue of freedom of expression is something that big tech companies like Facebook have previously been slow to address. In 2012, UN human rights investigators concluded that Facebook posts, comments, and images aimed at Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslim population were played a key role in provoking real world violence towards the minority Rohingya group. Min Aung Hlaing, the leader of Myanmar’s armed forces during the recent military coup, was banned from the platform in 2018 in steps taken by Facebook in an attempt to prevent the use of its platform to incite offline violence - similar to the justification Twitter gave earlier this year for imposing an indefinite platform ban of former US President Donald Trump.
Big tech companies are now responding to public pressure to tackle hate speech, extremism, revenge porn, and fake accounts, and the censorship of Donald Trump marked a significant talking point in the debate of online regulation versus censorship. Should all freedom of expression be tolerated, even when the expression in question stigmatises and criminalises others, and threatens the very democratic ideals that allow it? Or despite accusations of his incitement to violence, was restricting the president’s freedom to express his freedom of speech in blatant conflict with his own human right to freedom of expression?
THE FUTURE OF ONLINE REGULATION
Article 19 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that in the case of a threat to national security or public order, or for respect of the rights and reputations of others, the right to freedom of expression may be subject to certain restrictions. Similarly, tech companies are attempting to tackle hate speech online using “universally applicable algorithms and policies across their global operations”.
However, these one-size-fits-all policies used to tackle hate speech online threaten the freedom of expression of the very individuals tech companies aim to protect - and claims of protecting public safety can be used to try and justify unjustified censorship on a national scale.
Both the censorship of Donald Trump, and Internet restrictions in Myanmar have been justified separately on the grounds of being necessary to maintain public safety and to protect a nation’s best interests. However, they are two very different examples of censorship, both with complex political contextual backgrounds.
In order to uphold both the human right of freedom of expression, and the right to live in liberty and security of person, context matters enormously when justifying whether restrictions to freedom of expression should be implemented.
Finding a way to protect freedom of expression while also clamping down on hate speech online is uncertain territory, but one thing is certain; any step to regulate freedom of speech should not be taken lightly, and if we want to uphold democratic values, examining context case-by-case will be essential.
Isabella is currently taking a gap year after completing a degree in television production. Her interests in human rights lie in the potential for media, art, and television to bring awareness to important issues, and act as a platform through which people exercise their right to freedom of expression.