Columbia World Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the event of an built-in and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and data all over the world. It maintains an in depth database of worldwide case regulation. That is its publication coping with current developments within the subject.
“We’re watching the collapse of the worldwide order in actual time,” journalist Carole Cadwalladr stated in a current TED discuss. Her 2019 TED handle on Large Tech’s threats to democracy had led to a prolonged SLAPP battle. “We now are in techno-authoritarianism,” Cadwalladr stated 4 years later. “Now we have to learn to digitally disobey.”
This week, we’re trying eastward – at non-Western fashions of digital authoritarianism, these entrenched, spreading, but in addition challenged: in India, China, and Southeast Asia.
As China’s chief Xi Jinping visits Cambodia, Malaysia, and Vietnam, ARTICLE 19 sounds the alarm: China’s strengthening of ties with Southeast Asian states threatens additional digital repression. Analysis reveals how comparable Vietnam’s Cybersecurity Legislation is to China’s regulation; how Cambodia’s proposed Nationwide Web Gateway mirrors the Nice Firewall; and the way China-Malaysia cooperation in surveillance and AI know-how raises human rights issues.
In a current interview with Advox World Voices, Michael Caster, Head of World China Programme at ARTICLE 19, famous, “As China strikes cooperation agreements with international locations alongside the Digital Silk Highway […], we’re more likely to see larger adoption of China-style AI enabled techno-authoritarianism.” Caster’s colleague Liu I-Chen contrasted Taiwan’s cybersecurity mannequin with that of Beijing. What are the challenges in countering the latter? “Taiwan will […] want stronger presence at key norm-setting boards the place the PRC actively promotes its cyber governance requirements,” I-Chen stated.
In India, as web shutdown powers broaden, rights teams flag issues about transparency, accountability, and freedom of expression. Citing the Software program Freedom Legislation Middle (SFLC.in), IFEX stories that current orders (removed from all of them out there publicly) usually situation blanket suspensions, disregarding “the authorized necessities of necessity, proportionality, and reasoned justification.”
SFLC.in underscores that “[t]he absence of a transparent, particular, and legally sound justification” violates “the proper to freedom of speech and expression, which incorporates the proper to entry data.” SFLC.in cites Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, wherein India’s Supreme Court docket dominated that “suspension of web companies indefinitely is impermissible. The restrictions have to be essential and proportionate.”
The “Delhi Impact” exists, too, writes Prithvi Iyer for Tech Coverage Press. Reviewing a report (see the Educating Portal part under), Iyer argues collaborations just like the Digital Accountability Initiative South Asia (DACSA), launched by civil society teams from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, “are essential to make sure that tech coverage within the area is related to fairness and accountability reasonably than repression and management.”
With each analog and digital authoritarianism rising, coalitions supply counter-responses. Behind DACSA, there’s a shared mission, “We goal to current a unified voice from South Asia with a nuanced understanding of the impression of platform insurance policies and stringent state rules on our communities.” Behind Carole Cadwalladr’s partial victory in court docket, there have been 30,000 folks supporting her. “We’re not powerless,” she stated on the TED stage, “as a result of […] we all know what we stand for.”
With a “we” that results in motion, a extra rights-based digital house is likely to be attainable.
Greater than 40 organizations deplore the harassment marketing campaign in opposition to Badiucao,a Chinese language-Australian artist, political cartoonist, and activist.
In a video compilation ready by a digital gallery and broadcast on billboards in Hong Kong not too long ago, Badiucao silently mouthed “You could participate in revolution,” in a 4-second clip. As Badiucao ready to launch an announcement on the state of human rights in Hong Kong, the concentrating on started.
Picture credit score: x.com/badiucao/ / Index on Censorship
IndiaAddictive Studying Expertise Ltd v. GargDecision Date: February 20, 2025An Indian Excessive Court docket dismissed a defamation swimsuit filed by a web-based authorized training firm and its managing director in opposition to customers of X (previously Twitter) over posts criticizing the managing director’s personal put up. After an interplay on X between the managing director and 4 X customers, the managing director of the corporate claimed the posts harmed his and the corporate’s repute. The Court docket famous the causal and fast-paced nature of X the place the response of the readers is “impressionistic and fleeting” and located that the customers on X don’t understand the platform as a “dependable verified supply of data” however reasonably as a “informal medium of a conversational social media platform.” The Court docket held that the managing director had failed to determine substantial harm or reputational hurt as a result of posts and rejected the declare of defamation. Citing precedents, the Court docket held that posts can’t be assessed in isolation and that your entire dialog have to be thought-about. Nonetheless, the managing director did not disclose his tweets and prior disagreements with the defendants, and the Court docket deemed this conduct to have a chilling impact on freedom of expression. The Court docket additionally famous that the managing director didn’t first search treatments beneath the Info Expertise guidelines earlier than approaching the Court docket. Consequently, the Court docket rejected the defamation swimsuit and imposed prices of ₹1,00,000 (approx USD 1147).
Purkayastha v. StateDecision Date: Could 15, 2024The Indian Supreme Court docket dominated that the arrest and remand order issued in opposition to the founding father of a web-based information portal was unlawful and an infringement on his basic constitutional rights. The founder was arrested based mostly on allegations of selling Chinese language propaganda, however the police failed to tell him of the grounds for his arrest and denied him entry to authorized illustration. The Court docket discovered that this procedural lapse, together with the dearth of a written copy of the grounds for arrest, was a transparent violation of his rights beneath Article 22 of the Indian Structure which protects in opposition to arbitrary arrest and detention. Emphasizing the significance of due course of, the Court docket quashed the remand order, declared his arrest unconstitutional, and ordered his launch on bail.
X (previously Twitter) v. Union of India (2)Choice Date: June 30, 2023The Excessive Court docket of Karnataka held that beneath Part 69A of the Info Expertise Act, 2000, the federal government has the authority to dam total person accounts, not simply particular tweets or content material. The case arose when X (previously Twitter) challenged authorities blocking orders overlaying 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets, arguing that the orders exceeded statutory authority and failed procedural necessities. The Court docket rejected these arguments, holding {that a} purposive reasonably than literal interpretation of Part 69A was applicable given the dynamic nature of cyber know-how. It additional held that whereas blocking choices have to be supported by written causes, these needn’t all the time be included within the order itself. The Court docket additionally discovered that X had been afforded satisfactory procedural equity by way of committee conferences. Moreover, the Court docket dominated that prior discover to affected customers earlier than blocking is discretionary, not necessary. Finally, the petition was dismissed, partly due to X’s unjustified delay in complying with the blocking orders.
APRIL 21: “The Battle for World Press Freedom” with Columbia J-Faculty and The New York Instances. This upcoming Monday, Columbia Journalism Faculty and The New York Instances may have an afternoon of debate on international threats to journalism. Welcome remarks by Rebecca Blumenstein, President of NBC Information and Chair of the Board of the Columbia Journalism Assessment, will probably be adopted by a dialog with Jelani Cobb, Columbia Journalism Faculty Dean and Henry R. Luce Professor of Journalism, and A.G. Sulzberger, Chairman and Writer of The New York Instances. Be taught extra about different audio system and register right here. April 21, 2025, Lecture Corridor, Pulitzer Corridor, 2950 Broadway, New York, NY 10027. 2:00 PM – 6:00 PM. Can not take part individual? Tune in by way of dwell stream.
● India: SFLC.in Challenges Rule 16 of the Blocking Guidelines 2009 within the Supreme Court docket. The Software program Freedom Legislation Middle (SFLC.in) filed a petition within the Supreme Court docket of India, difficult the constitutionality of Guidelines 8, 9, and 16 of the Info Expertise Guidelines, 2009, which concern the blocking of on-line content material. The petition argues that these provisions grant broad powers to take away content material with out due course of – with none listening to or rationalization of causes in writing. Such powers, the petition states, “are additional not envisaged beneath the guardian act, i.e., the Info Expertise Act, 2000 beneath the related provision, Part 69A.” SFLC.in argues that the gaps within the Guidelines “enable an unreasoned, disproportionate, and arbitrary restriction on a citizen’s proper to free speech.”
● China: Police Arrest Tibetans for Web, Telephone Use. Human Rights Watch (HRW) stories that China’s authorities have detained dozens of Tibetans since 2021 for politically motivated offenses associated to telephone and web utilization. Turning to Tibetan media in exile, different media, China’s official information, and interviews with residents in Tibet, HRW reviewed greater than 60 instances, however the full scale of prosecution stays unknown. The instances present hyperlinks to mass telephone searches, necessary telephone apps, and “a tightened regulatory regime on information and faith.” “Tibetans haven’t solely misplaced their rights to freely categorical themselves and to entry data, however they’re dropping even their fundamental proper to speak with their family members,” stated Maya Wang, Affiliate China Director at HRW.
● Thailand: Authorities Should Finish Malicious Smear Campaigns and Cyberattacks on Civil Society. Amnesty Worldwide calls for that Thailand’s officers conduct an investigation into cyberattacks concentrating on human rights defenders and act to cease the malicious smear campaigns. Lately leaked inner authorities stories uncovered a coordinated, state-backed effort – led by a “Cyber Staff,” which is collectively run by Thai police and army models – to sabotage the work of rights organizations, together with Amnesty Worldwide, Thai Legal professionals for Human Rights, and iLaw, and particular person rights defenders, together with the previous Govt Director of Amnesty Worldwide’s native workplace and younger activist Anna Annanon.
This part of the publication options educating supplies centered on international freedom of expression that are newly uploaded on Freedom of Expression With out Frontiers
Digital Governance and Rights in South Asia, and the Path Ahead, by Faisal Lalani and Shumaila H. Shahani. Printed not too long ago by Tech World Institute, this white paper is a results of 12 digital rights organizations convening in Kathmandu, Nepal, final yr to share classes in combating digital authoritarianism in South Asia. The paper analyzes the digital rights challenges within the area – state management, imposition of exterior regulatory fashions, amongst others – and focuses on Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. The authors stress the urgency of forming a South Asian digital rights coalition: “Such a coalition would facilitate regional collaboration, enabling civil society to collectively advocate for a extra equitable, domestically related method to digital rights.”
● Name for papers – Confronting Technofeudalism and Digital Authoritarianism: Challenges and Options for European Regulation. Forward of its annual convention on technofeudalism, digital authoritarianism, and the EU’s regulation of the digital sphere, the Digital Authoritarianism Analysis Lab welcomes submissions. The numerous subjects embrace “Algorithmic governance and its results on free speech and user-generated content material” and “EU regulatory frameworks and their effectiveness in combating digital authoritarianism.” The deadline for summary proposals is June 17. Be taught extra right here.
● Name for Papers – Human Rights and AI-Powered Content material Moderation. Aiming to deliver voices from varied fields – regulation, enterprise, pc science, and many others. – Cambridge Discussion board on AI: Legislation and Governance invitations submissions for the upcoming themed situation titled “Human Rights and AI-Powered Content material Moderation” by October 31. Natalie Alkiviadou, Senior Analysis Fellow on the Way forward for Free Speech, and Joan Barata, Senior Authorized Fellow for The Way forward for Free Speech, would be the situation’s visitor editors. Discover out extra right here.
This text is reproduced with the permission of World Freedom of Expression. For an archive of earlier newsletters, see right here.
