GMA Brandtalk
Tracking
Archives
UN Report: Internet access a human right
The United Nations (UN) now considers Internet access a human right, where disconnecting people from the Internet may be a violation of human rights and international law.
For the latest Philippine news stories and videos, visit GMANews.TV A report by the UN Human Rights Council’s 17th session underscored the “unique and transformative" nature of the Internet allowing individuals to exercise a range of human rights, and to promote the progress of society as a whole. “The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that there should be as little restriction as possible to the flow of information via the Internet, except in few, exceptional, and limited circumstances prescribed by international human rights law. He also stresses that the full guarantee of the right to freedom of expression must be the norm, and any limitation considered as an exception, and that this principle should never be reversed," Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression Frank La Rue said. He voiced concern that, although restricted Internet access may sometimes be necessary, some states have taken measures to cut off their citizens' access to the Internet entirely. “The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of Article 19, Paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," he said. He also called upon all states “to ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest." “In particular, the Special Rapporteur urges states to repeal or amend existing intellectual copyright laws which permit users to be disconnected from Internet access, and to refrain from adopting such laws," he said. La Rue also said he is deeply concerned that websites of human rights organizations, critical bloggers, and other individuals or organizations that disseminate information that is embarrassing to the State or the powerful have increasingly become targets of cyber-attacks. “When a cyber-attack can be attributed to the State, it clearly constitutes, inter alia, a violation of its obligation to respect the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Although determining the origin of cyber-attacks and the identity of the perpetrator is often technically difficult, it should be noted that states have an obligation to protect individuals against interference by third parties that undermines the enjoyment of the right to freedom of opinion and expression," he said. He added this positive obligation to protect entails that states must take appropriate and effective measures to investigate actions taken by third parties, hold the persons responsible to account, and adopt measures to prevent such recurrence in the future. La Rue said the Internet, unlike any other medium, enables individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds instantaneously and inexpensively across national borders. By vastly expanding the capacity of individuals to enjoy their right to freedom of opinion and expression, which is an “enabler" of other human rights, the Internet boosts economic, social and political development, and contributes to the progress of humankind as a whole, he added. In this regard, he encouraged other Special Procedures mandate holders to engage on the issue of the Internet with respect to their particular mandates. Blocking/filtering La Rue said that he is deeply concerned by increasingly sophisticated blocking or filtering mechanisms used by some states for censorship. He said that the lack of transparency surrounding these measures also makes it difficult to ascertain whether blocking or filtering is really necessary for the purported aims put forward by states. “As such, the Special Rapporteur calls upon states that currently block websites to provide lists of blocked websites and full details regarding the necessity and justification for blocking each individual website. An explanation should also be provided on the affected websites as to why they have been blocked," he said. He added any determination on what content should be blocked must be undertaken by a competent judicial authority or a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences. Child pornography an exception However, La Rue said that child pornography is one clear exception where blocking measures are justified, “provided that the national law is sufficiently precise and there are sufficient safeguards against abuse or misuse to prevent any ‘mission creep,’ including oversight and review by an independent and impartial tribunal or regulatory body." He called on states to focus their efforts on prosecuting those responsible for the production and dissemination of child pornography, rather than on blocking measures alone. Terrorism is no justification La Rue said that terrorism cannot be used to justify filtering or blocking Internet access, even as he remains concerned that legitimate online expression is being criminalized in contravention of sates’ international human rights obligations. “Such laws are often justified as being necessary to protect individuals’ reputation, national security or to counter terrorism. However, in practice, they are frequently used to censor content that the Government and other powerful entities do not like or agree with," he said. He also reiterated the call to all states to decriminalize defamation, and underscored that protection of national security or countering terrorism “cannot be used to justify restricting the right to expression." The only exceptions are that the expression is intended to incite imminent violence; it is likely to incite such violence; and there is a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the likelihood or occurrence of such violence. Corporations should respect rights La Rue also said corporations also have a responsibility to respect human rights, which means that they should act with due diligence to avoid infringing the rights of individuals. He recommended intermediaries to:
- only implement restrictions to these rights after judicial intervention;
- be transparent to the user involved about measures taken, and, where applicable, to the wider public;
- provide, if possible, forewarning to users before the implementation of restrictive measures; and
- minimize the impact of restrictions strictly to the content involved.
