Regulating the Internet without damaging free speech: a set of recommendations

http://www.mediapolicy.org/2011/11/regulating-the-internet-without-damaging-free-speech-a-set-of-recommendations/

The Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE) held the workshop “Freedom of Expression and the Internet: Regulatory Aspects in Latin America” at the University of Palermo Law School (Argentina) on September 12-13, 2011.  Workshop participants included professors, scholars, and experts on Internet law and regulation from across Latin America.  The workshop viewed the subject through the lenses of ISP liability, retention and protection of personal data, content filtering and jurisdiction of defamation suits. 

Workshop participants concluded that Latin American regulation of ISP liability is ambiguous and incomplete.  To incentivize true freedom of expression, regulations must unambiguously state that ISPs and other intermediaries are not legally responsible for third party content when they do not control it or are unaware of their illegality.  In addition, when applying “notify and take down” rules, these notifications must be judicial in order to ensure that the process is not arbitrary or discriminatory.

On the theme of retention and protection of personal data, what constitutes “personal data” in the region must be legally defined, including discussion of whether an IP address should be considered a personal datum.  Data retention regulation must take into account why the data is being retained, for how long, who is retaining it, and what will be done with it.  While in some cases the owner’s consent may not be necessary, in others it should be clear and taken into account.  Finally, the “right to oblivion” regulation appears to violate freedom of expression and access to information.

By its very nature, content filtering is a limitation of freedom of expression and should therefore be used as an exception.  Following Article 13 of the American convention on human rights, in order to preserve freedom of expression it must be narrow, objective, and abide by definite standards.  There must also be transparency regarding filtering mechanisms and decisions so that users know the reason that specific content has been removed and have the opportunity to appeal.

Finally, in the case of defamation, jurisdictional regulation must be clarified in the region to avoid uncertainty about applicable law, which could cause self-censorship.  Criteria which grant jurisdiction to the author’s location of residence could minimize negative effects on freedom of expression by guaranteeing the author’s right of defense.  In addition, free expression can be protected by adopting regulations that prohibit enforcement of foreign judgments contrary to international standards on freedom of expression.

As part of the ongoing CELE project “Freedom of Expression and the Internet,” this workshop’s recommendations are especially important as the region continues to see growing Internet usage.  While these recommendations do not represent absolute consensus of all attendees, they serve as an artifact of the event and a path forward for Latin American Internet regulation. A complete set of recommendations will be published soon and we hope they will be a good starting point or a continuation of discussions on how to regulate the Internet without damaging freedom of expression.

---

*Elizabeth Coffin-Karlin, CELE intern, helped to draft this post.

Internet Regulation? A brief review of practices in Latin America

http://www.mediapolicy.org/internet-regulation-latin-america

The Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE) at the Palermo University School of Law -Argentina- has been particularly interested in the work being conducted by the office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media on Internet regulation in OSCE Member States. We translated and adapted the questionnaire that was used on the OSCE study, CELE distributed the Spanish version among the experts and organizations in the region. The questions dealt with regulation, case law and policies related to topics such as: Internet access, Internet content regulation, blocking, filtering and content removal, licensing requirements and liability of Internet Service Providers.

The information gained through this process is important for establishing trends in legislation and case law on key issues. These are some of the preliminary conclusions of our ongoing research:

1- Our study has found that for most countries in the region, special laws for Internet space have not been passed. Generally, law is applied “as is” to Internet activity. This results in uncertainty, contradictory judicial decisions, and excessive judicial discretion.

2- There is a lack of clear guidelines as to the consequences of Internet speech for Internet users and providers of Internet services. The study of judicial sentences dealing with privacy and defamation in the region also demonstrates a lack of understanding by judges on the complexities of Internet speech.

3- In most countries in the region, Telecommunication laws often do not regulate the Internet specifically. However, in some instances, Courts or regulatory bodies interpret the law as including the “Internet” within their definition of communications media, thereby including it within the scope.

4- In criminal codes, the Internet is for most regulations, treated as only one more way in which content is displayed or transmitted. In some instances, the fact of distribution itself –through the Internet or other communications media – aggravates the crime.

5- In defamation cases, Courts have generally interpreted the Internet as one more way in which the allegedly offensive content may be distributed.

6- In most countries in the region, specific Intellectual Property regulation that refers to Internet activity has not been adopted and generally, the existing regulation is applicable to Internet activity.

Finally, Internet access is of fundamental importance, globally and in Latin America. In Latin America, the number of Internet users is still low compared to other regions. However, in most countries in the region, access to the Internet is not an enforceable right.

It is true that there have been a few initiatives that declare that access to the Internet is a fundamental right and attempt to expand access to the service. But although several countries in the region have declared the importance of increasing access to the Internet, there has been little investment in infrastructure, and at least Mexico, Peru, Argentina and Paraguay display a high degree of concentration in their telecommunications markets.

In conclusion, there is a lot to be done in Latin America.

Deben Mostrar las Fotos

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1372276-deben-mostrar-las-fotos Publicación: 11 de mayo de 2011

La acción militar de Estados Unidos que causó la muerte del terrorista Osama ben Laden abrió el debate sobre si deben exhibirse públicamente las fotos que se habrían tomado durante el operativo. Siguiendo los estándares de Estados Unidos y los internacionales, la divulgación, o su negativa, no puede ser una decisión unilateral de quien tiene poder fáctico sobre las fotografías -en este caso, el presidente Barack Obama-, sino de un órgano independiente que deberá evaluar las razones que se argumentan para el mantenimiento en secreto de esas fotos. Imaginemos que alguien, hipotéticamente, consigue esas fotos y se las envía a un diario norteamericano para que las publique y que éste, luego de analizar el material, informa que publicará las fotos. Imaginemos luego que el gobierno de Obama solicita a un juez que impida la publicación. El ejemplo que acabo de relatar no es tan hipotético dado que una situación parecida se vivió en el caso que conocemos como los "Papeles del Pentágono". En los años 70, el gobierno norteamericano solicitó a la justicia que no permitiera la publicación por parte de la prensa de fotocopias de documentos vinculados con la guerra en Vietnam. La razón principal por la que los jueces de la Corte Suprema rechazaron el pedido fue que el gobierno no había demostrado de manera acabada el peligro claro e inminente que la publicación tendría para la seguridad nacional. En casos sobre este tipo de peligros no bastó con argumentar meras especulaciones. Sin perjuicio de que ese caso involucra un debate sobre los alcances de la censura previa, me interesa resaltar la idea que funda la decisión de los jueces: en casos de información pública, cuando se quiere impedir el acceso a esa información, el gobierno tiene la carga de la prueba de demostrar ante un órgano independiente que la divulgación lesiona intereses que han sido predeterminados por ley como excepciones a tal divulgación. Grado del daño Ese criterio es el plasmado en las leyes más avanzadas sobre acceso a la información pública. Por ejemplo, la ley modelo interamericana sobre acceso a la información, incorporada en una resolución aprobada por la Asamblea General de la OEA el año pasado, destaca que la carga de la prueba deberá recaer en la autoridad pública, que debe acreditar que la probabilidad y el grado del daño -en este caso, a la seguridad nacional- es superior al interés público en la divulgación de la información. No existe legislación sobre acceso a la información pública que consagre este derecho como absoluto. La cuestión de la seguridad nacional se ha incluido como una de las excepciones. Más allá de que esta excepción debe legislarse de manera restrictiva, no es quien tiene la información el que decide si la publicidad es o no un problema para la seguridad nacional. Siguiendo los estándares internacionales y la propia jurisprudencia de la Corte norteamericana, a Obama no le irá bien en su negativa de mostrar las fotos, salvo que demuestre un peligro claro e inminente para la seguridad nacional.