By: Samantha Morales
The citizens of the United States are fortunate enough to have the explicitly enumerated constitutional protection of freedom of speech and expression. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This right has been and continues to be fundamental in our society, ensuring to American people that their basic liberties are protected. Considering how deeply engrained the First Amendment is in U.S. culture, it is easy to take it for granted. Although those in America may not often think about what a life without this protection would look like, many individuals around the world are forced to face this reality. Several countries not only fail to grant or protect this right, but actively participate in taking it away today.
It is first important to recognize that a right to speech and expression carries much more significance than simply being able to say what you want. It is a fundamental human right that ensures an adequate existence in political and civil society, allowing individuals to freely opine on matters of public concern, and engage in meaningful and educational discourse. International human rights law supports this idea. Freedom of speech and expression are recognized as human rights, with protections thereof enshrined in various international documents. Despite commitments to these documents, however, numerous countries have and continue to engage in varying degrees of censorship.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) affirms this right, stating that “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Similarly, Article 19 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) reiterates this protection, stating that “[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference,” and that “[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of expression . . . [including] freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
Additionally, Article 2 of the ICCPR states that “[e]ach State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant,” and that “[e]ach State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps . . . to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.” This emphasizes the affirmative obligations of the parties to the covenant in regard to the rights enumerated within it.
The real issue arises when countries engage in censorship to act against these human rights. Internet censorship directly contravenes the principles of freedom of speech and expression articulated in international human rights instruments. By restricting access to information and stifling dissenting voices, governments undermine an individual’s ability to participate in public discourse, engage in political debate, and access diverse viewpoints. Censorship likewise impedes the free flow of information, hindering the pursuit of knowledge, innovation, and socio-political progress. Governments have a duty to respect, protect, and promote this right, both offline and online, in accordance with international legal obligations. Any attempt to curtail freedom of expression under the guise of maintaining social stability or national security is unjustifiable and undermines the principles of human rights and human dignity. Nonetheless, numerous countries currently engage in varying degrees of censorship, violating individuals’ rights to freedom of speech and expression. Some of these countries include Iran, Turkey, and Russia.
Freedom House tracks democracy and freedom around the world, gathering data and information about the current situations in different countries. In evaluating the global freedom status of Iran as of 2024, the organization rated the country at an 11/100 overall. When evaluating the country’s freedom of expression and belief, the Iran was rated a 0/4. In coming to this conclusion, this year’s report cited the extremely limited freedom in the media both on and offline. Iran maintains a state broadcasting company, subject to rigid controls and limitations on the information that can be put out to the public. Dissenting opinions are hardly ever given the opportunity to be heard. Conversely, the only attention subversives are given on state television is any and all means of discrediting their legitimacy, reinforcing the narrative the government seeks to promote. Newspapers and magazines are incredibly restricted on what topics they can cover and how they may do so, and many foreign-based forms of media are filtered and jammed. The authorities in Iran have gone as far as subjecting journalists and their lawyers to intimidations, and arbitrary penalties and arrests, simply for seeking to report or discuss the truth.
Freedom House generated a similar report on Turkey, rating them overall at a 33/100 generally, a 17/40 in their political rights, and a 16/60 in their civil liberties as of this year. When rating their freedom of expression and belief, the country was given a 1/4. The organization explained that most Turkish media networks “are owned by businesses that depend on public tenders or have close ties to President Erdoğan.” Thus, the mainstream media only reflect the positions of the government, and the ideas they seek to perpetuate throughout their society. The independent or outside sources that do exist are subject to “tremendous political pressure and are routinely targeted for prosecution.” Shutting down media and detaining journalists that are not in line with the governments views is common practice, with some even facing physical attacks. The Turkish government even passed a law to criminalize ‘misinformation,’ with sentences of up to three years prescribed as the corresponding punishment. Allowing the government that already suppresses criticism and opposition to determine what classifies as ‘misinformation’ poses a clear threat to those seeking to express themselves and speak out against any actions of the country. Advocates that agreed, recognizing the vague language of the law and realizing the potential weaponization of such language, suffered the consequences of even daring to say so.
Russia is no different. In light of Russia’s invasion into Ukraine, and the ensuing and persisting war between the two countries, the Russian government has begun a “totalitarian crackdown on anti-war speech.” President Vladimir Putin, just days after invading Ukraine, passed legislation that criminalized “discrediting” the army—a law so vague and all encapsulating, that crossing the line into illegality became ridiculously easy. Based on this law alone, more than 6,500 individuals have been arrested, averaging out to more than 350 people every month. Individuals who question the war, acknowledge that it is a war, or express sympathy with Ukraine are all at risk. The law not only encapsulates anyone seeking to publicly announce or display their opinion, but it goes as far as to punish individuals who engage in illegal speech in private conversations. Some examples of what is considered enough to break this law include: wearing blue and yellow clothing, or blue and yellow nail polish; making comments about the ongoing conflict to another individual privately while in a public location, such as a liquor store, on a train, or in a coffee shop; requesting Ukrainian music from a D.J.; antiwar posters, messages, graffiti, scribbles, or messages of any kind; and so much more.
These examples illustrate the widespread and varied methods of internet censorship currently employed by governments around the world. Despite their divergent political systems and ideologies, these countries share a common goal of controlling the flow of information, suppressing dissent, and maintaining political power at the expense of individuals’ fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression. Each of these countries have signed and ratified the ICCPR, and yet, they blatantly violate the very provisions they agreed to uphold, completely disregarding and disrespecting their affirmative duties to protect the human rights of their people—most relevant here, the right to speech and expression.
Internet censorship represents a significant challenge to the realization of freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental human right. Governments must uphold their obligations under international human rights law to safeguard these rights, refrain from imposing arbitrary restrictions on internet access and content and ensure an open and inclusive digital space where individuals can freely express themselves and access information without fear of censorship or reprisal.
