CMM_Legal_Frameworks_Web_Header

With an initial goal of curbing fake news and online hate, the NetzDG unfortunately, created a blueprint for internet censorship around the globe.

Turkey
For many years now, freedom of speech and press freedom have been strongly condemned in Turkey, it is ranked 154th out of 180 countries in the RSF 2020 World Press Freedom Index. (Source: www.rsf.org). Denying access to around 3000 articles, Turkish courts blocked articles that were highlighting political corruption and human rights violations in 2018, added to a track record of frequently blocking social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

On 29th July, the Turkish parliament enacted a new law that was hastily ushered in without considering the opposition or other stakeholders’ inputs. Once approved by President Erdogan, the law mandates social media platforms to appoint a local representative in Turkey. However, activists are severely concerned that the law is designed to further conduct government censorship and surveillance.

Australia
Following the gruesome terror attack on two mosques in Christchurch (New Zealand), which was carried out by an Australian in 2019, a bill amending the Australian criminal code was passed. The amendments hold service providers criminally liable for failure to instantly remove violent content that is shared on their platforms.

Despite similarities with the NetzDG, the main difference is the take-down timeframe and the subject matter of illegal content. The amendment faced criticisms from media companies, stating it could lead to censorship of legitimate content due to the incentive it creates to over-screen their users. Others called for the government to address the problem at its root: violence and Anti-Muslim hatred as opposed to holding social media platforms accountable for the manifestation of such problems.

Nigeria
On 5th November 2019, an Anti-Social Media Bill was proposed by the senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to bring to book violations in peddling malicious information. The campaign has been backed up with the Northern States Governors’ Forum (NSGF) held with traditional rulers, government officials, and leaders of the National Assembly.

Following the recent terror at Lekki Toll Gate on the night of 20th October 2020 that turned fatal when police brutally invaded peaceful protests to #EndSARS by use of live ammunition, the infringement of freedom of speech amidst media censorship continues to oppress the fundamental human rights and is condemned by Amnesty International. Nigerian Police have since then denied despite evidence of people streaming live on their social media platforms to showcase this cruelty. (Source: amnesty.org)

China
With a more sophisticated censorship approach, China’s government blocks websites, IP addresses, URLs whilst monitoring internet access. Online service providers are expected to authenticate the real names of the online users according to the Cyber Security Law (CSL) that has been effective since 1st June 2017. Additionally, the CSL mandates all network operators to closely screen user-generated content and filter out information that is prohibited from being published or relayed by existing laws or administrative regulations.

Other countries that also have heavy internet censorship through political media restrictions and social media include Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Ethiopia amidst political unrest, and many Eastern European countries such as Moldova.

Following the recently concluded U.S. elections against a highly controversial and polarizing incumbent, President Trump is yet to concede. Instead, he has been making widespread allegations of voter fraud as well as concerns about the integrity of the process. Social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook continue to struggle with screening fake misinforming content.
Due to the thin line that exists between permitted and prohibited speech, enacting a universal solution globally governing content moderation is assertive. When relying on automated decision-making tools, moderation systems are prone to errors. Online platforms are hence forced to assess the amount of collateral damage that would be deemed “legitimate” versus the amount of harmful content that would slip through the cracks. Stronger enforcement means less hate and fake news will be shared, but it also means a greater probability of flagging of for example activists protesting police brutality or journalists exposing injustices and corruption in those particular governments.

This article is the the final part of a series. If you missed the first part, read it here.

Want to discuss the specificities in your country? Get in touch with our experts to find out more.

Talk to us today
SHARE