media freedom essay

Essay on Freedom of the Press for Students and Children

500 words essay on freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press is the most important wheel of democracy. Without a free press, a democracy cannot exist. In fact, the press is a great medium that conveys the truth to people. However, it cannot function fully if the press is not free.

People must have heard the saying about the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. Thus, it is the media’s responsibility to remain vigil for people’s safety. Moreover, the freedom of people is monitored by the media. The press watches those in power to ensure they do not misuse it. In order to do this, freedom of the press is required.

Importance of Freedom of the Press

The press has been given the responsibility of checking and balancing the administration and the government. Whenever there is a social evil lurking or corruption and oppression happens, the press is the first one to raise a voice.

Moreover, we trust the press to collect verify and disseminate the facts and figures which influence people’s decisions. If the press won’t have the liberty to do all this, the people will be in the dark.

Therefore, we see how if even any one of these liberties is take away from the press, the voiceless will lose their voice. Worse yet, if the press will be denied to do their job, the ones in power will run the country as per their will. This will result in uninformed citizens who will thus become powerless.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Moreover, we see how censorship of the press is nothing less than a dictatorship. When the government imposes censorship on the press, it obviously means they are trying to hide something. A person only hides lies and not the truth. Thus, this way the citizens will be manipulated into thinking there is nothing wrong with the government. Subsequently, when there remains no agency to report the truth, the government will gain absolute power.

In short, freedom of the press is important for the smooth functioning of democracy. It is important for people to be socially aware of happenings in the world. One must have the power to criticize the government; it will keep the administration on their toes to do better for the country.

Responsibility a Free Press

As we can conclude from the earlier statements, the press has a huge responsibility on their shoulders. They need to be vigilant and honest. Media has a powerful role to play in any form of government, whether democratic or totalitarian. The information they distribute helps in shaping the views of the public.

When you have such a power to influence the views of a whole public, then you must be even more responsible. In fact, the media is sometimes more powerful than the government. They have people’s trust and support. However, such a power given to any individual or agency is quite dangerous.

In other words, any media without restraints can be hazardous. As they have the power to showcase anything, they may report anything and twist the facts as per their agendas. They have the power to cause outrage amongst the people. A free press can easily manipulate the public’s opinion. This is why we need responsible journalism to refrain the media from reporting false facts which may harm the harmony and peace of a country.

FAQs on Freedom of the Press

Q.1 Why is freedom of the press important?

A.1 Freedom of the press is important for keeping people informed. A free press monitors the administration and forces them to work for the betterment of the country.

Q.2 What is the responsibility of a free press?

A.2 A free press has a huge responsibility of reporting the truth and shaping people’s opinions. Responsible journalism must be practiced to stop people from spreading hate and maintaining the harmony of a country.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Freedom of the Press

By: History.com Editors

Updated: August 21, 2018 | Original: December 7, 2017

Freedom of the press—the right to report news or circulate opinion without censorship from the government—was considered “one of the great bulwarks of liberty,” by the Founding Fathers of the United States. Americans enjoy freedom of the press as one of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. New technologies, however, have created new challenges to media freedom.

The First Amendment , which protects freedom of the press, was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights .

The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to assemble and petition the government.

Origins Of Free Press

Before the thirteen colonies declared independence from Great Britain, the British government attempted to censor the American media by prohibiting newspapers from publishing unfavorable information and opinions.

One of the first court cases involving freedom of the press in America took place in 1734. British governor William Cosby brought a libel case against the publisher of The New York Weekly Journal , John Peter Zenger, for publishing commentary critical of Cosby’s government. Zenger was acquitted.

Cato’s Letters

American free press ideals can be traced back to Cato’s Letters, a collection of essays criticizing the British political system that were published widely across pre-Revolutionary America.

The essays were written by Brits John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon. They were published under the pseudonym of Cato between 1720 and 1723. (Cato was a statesman and outspoken critic of corruption in the late Roman Republic.) The essays called out corruption and tyranny in the British government.

A generation later, Cato’s Letters frequently were quoted in newspapers in the American colonies as a source of revolutionary political ideas.

Virginia was the first state to formally protect the press. The 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights stated, “The freedom of the Press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic Governments.”

More than a decade later, Virginia Representative (and later president of the United States) James Madison would borrow from that declaration when drafting the First Amendment.

Media Freedom And National Security

In 1971, United States military analyst Daniel Ellsberg gave copies of classified documents to The New York Times . The documents, which would become known as the Pentagon Papers , detailed a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967.

The Pentagon Papers exposed government knowledge that the war would cost more lives than the public had been told and revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry Truman , Dwight D. Eisenhower , John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson all had misled the public about the degree of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

The government obtained a court order preventing The New York Times from publishing more excerpts from the papers, arguing that the published materials were a national security threat. A few weeks later, the U.S. government sought to block publication of the papers in the Washington Post as well, but the courts refused this time.

In the New York Times Co. v. United States , the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspapers, making it possible for The New York Times and Washington Post to publish the contents of the Pentagon Papers without risk of further government censorship.

Former CIA employee Edward Snowden leaked classified documents from the National Security Administration to newspapers in the U.K., United States and Germany in 2013. His leaks revealed several government surveillance programs and set off a global debate about government spying.

Some denounced Snowden as a traitor while others supported his actions, calling him a whistleblower and champion of media freedom.

Press Freedom Around The World

In 2017, a U.S.-based nonprofit, Freedom House, found that just 13 percent of the world’s population enjoys a free press—a media environment where political news coverage is robust and uncensored, and the safety of journalists is guaranteed.

The world’s 10 worst-rated countries and territories include: Azerbaijan, Crimea, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea , Syria , Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

The United States ranked 37 of 199 countries and territories for press freedom in 2017. Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden were the top ranking countries.

The Origins of Freedom of Speech and Press; Maryland Law Review . Freedom of the Press 2017; Freedom House .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Threats to freedom of press: Violence, disinformation & censorship

The free flow of ideas: Freedom of the press, the journalists on the frontline

The way we see the world and act on it depends on the information we have. This is why freedom of expression and freedom of the press are fundamental rights, and the free flow of ideas is a key driver of vibrant societies and human progress. UNESCO works to reinforce the tools, skills and conditions that make these rights real.

Peter R. De Vries was on his way to a car park, walking past crowds of people enjoying post-work drinks in the heart of Amsterdam. It was the early evening of 6 July 2021 and the veteran crime journalist had just left a nearby TV studio, where he had appeared as a talk show guest. 

De Vries was a household name in the Netherlands, where his own TV show had run for 17 years, working with crime victims’ families, pursuing unsolved cases and exposing miscarriages of justice. The journalist had recently refused police protection after receiving death threats. A year earlier, he had agreed to act as an adviser to the key prosecution witness against the suspected head of a cocaine trafficking gang. 

As De Vries walked to his car, several bullets were fired at him. He died from his injuries nine days later. 

Threats and violence against journalists

De Vries’ death prompted outpourings of condemnation and anger in Europe. Yet, many journalists and reporters around the world today risk their lives to uncover the truth. Every four days a journalist is killed in the world. In 2020 alone, according to UNESCO, 62 journalists were killed just for doing their jobs. Between 2006 and 2020, over 1,200 media professionals lost their lives in the same way. In nine out of ten cases, the killers go unpunished.

In many countries investigating corruption, trafficking, human rights violations, and political or environmental issues puts journalists’ lives at risk.

62 journalists killed in 2020,

just for doing their jobs: UNESCO

Crimes against journalists have an enormous impact on society as a whole, because they prevent people from making informed decisions.

To help create the kind of environment journalists need to perform their vital work, UNESCO has set up several initiatives, including a global plan of action for the safety of journalists, in order to support Member States to establish or improve mechanisms for prevention, protection and prosecution to bring justice to cases of murdered journalists. One key aspect of UNESCO’s work is first and foremost to report and publicly condemn all cases of killing of journalists. UNESCO also produces training materials and best practices to help improve journalists’ skills and knowledge on international standards for freedom of expression, investigative journalism and reporting on conflicts.

For the past 40 years, UNESCO’s International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC)   has focused on targeting the most pressing issues concerning communication development around the world. It helps keep journalists safe, supports the development of media in countries where it is most needed, promotes freedom of expression and public access to information.

UNESCO's initiatives

Fostering Freedom of Expression

Women journalists facing risks and abuse

Across the world, journalists face countless threats every day, ranging from kidnapping, torture and arbitrary detention to disinformation campaigns and harassment, especially on social media. Women journalists are at particular risk. 

According to UNESCO research, 73 per cent of women journalists surveyed said they had been threatened, intimidated and insulted online in connection with their work. Often, the failure to investigate and address online attacks has real-life consequences for women journalists, affecting their mental and physical health. In some cases, online threats can escalate to physical violence and even murder, as the murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017 demonstrated.

#JournalistsToo:

For many years, Caruana Galizia had been the most prominent investigative journalist in Malta. She had worked as a columnist and editor in various newspapers. She later set up the website Running Commentary, where she published some of her most significant investigative journalism, exposing tax abuse and corruption in Malta and abroad. Harassment, threats and attempts to silence the journalist had been a constant presence throughout her career.

Online threats and violence against women journalists are designed to belittle, humiliate and shame them, as well as induce fear, silence and discredit them professionally. To respond to increasing threats against women journalists, UNESCO has published a research paper aimed at associations, politicians and governments: The Chilling . It seeks to promote discussion about effective legislative and organizational initiatives that are designed to protect women journalists.

Training judges and prosecutors to defend press freedom

Caruana Galizia’s biggest fear was that her example of physical threats, online harassments and libel lawsuits might discourage other journalists from speaking out. At the time of her death, Caruana Galizia was facing 48 libel suits. Award-winning journalist and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Maria Ressa also faced several lawsuits before being found guilty of libel in the Philippines in 2020.

What you are seeing is death by a thousand cuts for press freedom and democracy. It joins the messaging that was pushed out on social media that “journalists equal criminals.

Ressa and a former colleague at the news site she founded, Rappler, were convicted of cyber libel by a court in Manila after they published an article linking a businessman to illegal activities. During her career, Ressa has been arrested and has been subject to a sustained campaign of gendered online abuse, threats and harassment, which at one point, resulted in her receiving an average of over 90 hateful messages an hour on Facebook.

Often based on meritless or exaggerated claims, these lawsuits are brought in order to pressure a journalist or human rights defender, rather than to vindicate a right.

That is why judges and prosecutors play an important role in protecting journalists from threats and harassment, as well as promoting prompt and effective criminal proceedings when attacks occur.

When attacks against journalists go unpunished, the legal system and safety frameworks have failed everyone.

In recent years, UNESCO has trained nearly 23,000 judicial officials, including judges, prosecutors and lawyers, through several workshops on media and journalist law, training courses and online webinars, in partnership with universities and educational institutions like the Knight Center for Journalism at the University of Austin, Texas (USA). Training focuses on international standards related to freedom of expression and the safety of journalists, placing a particular focus on issues of impunity. In 2021, UNESCO’s online conference The role of the judiciary and international cooperation to foster safety of journalists – What works? explored effective ways in which judges, prosecutors and lawyers, as well as regional human rights courts and judicial training institutes, can combat impunity for crimes against journalists.

The fight against misinformation and censorship

The threats to freedom of expression and democracy also come from misinformation and censorship. The COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing pandemic of misinformation have demonstrated that access to facts and science can be a matter of life and death.  In the first three months of 2020, almost 6,000 people around the world were hospitalized because of coronavirus misinformation, according to a paper published in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene . During this period, researchers say at least 800 people may have died due to misinformation related to COVID-19.

In May 2020, at the very beginning of the pandemic, the Knight Center, with the support of UNESCO and the World Health Organization (WHO), launched an online course on how to empower journalists, communication workers and content creators countering the phenomenon of disinformation related to the pandemic. The course attracted nearly 9,000 students from 162 countries. ‘2020 was surely the most important year for the fact-checking community,’ said journalist Cristina Tardáguila, who was the course instructor and has been involved in global initiatives against disinformation as associate director of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).

Journalism in a Pandemic: Covering COVID-19 Now and in the Future is an online self-directed course available in eight languages:  Arabic ,  Chinese ,  English ,  French ,  Hindi ,  Portuguese ,  Russian and  Spanish . 

Journalists covering the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines have received support through a live webinar, Covering the COVID-19 Vaccines: What Journalists Need to Know.  The recording is now available in 13 languages : Arabic, Bambara, Chinese, Dari, English, French, Guarani, Hindi, Pashto, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Wolof.

The media can also take an important part in understanding complex issues such as climate change and fighting the misinformation that surrounds it. In the face of climate change, journalists have the ability to enlighten the public and be the link between scientists and citizens by highlighting the urgency of the situation, but also tell stories that are positive and inspire solutions.

Getting the Message Across: Reporting on Climate Change and Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific

UNESCO has supported the publication of a handbook for journalists covering climate change. Journalists are key to ensuring that stories of destruction as well as of resistance are shared, in order to get the message across about climate change and avoid misinformation.

The power of community radios

The struggle to protect journalists and promote freedom of expression is just one of the pillars helping build knowledge societies that have the power to transform economies and communities. Universal access to information and knowledge as well as the respect for cultural and linguistic diversity are essential to building peace, sustainable economic development and intercultural dialogue.

The Syrian Hour is a UNESCO-funded project that produces a bi-weekly radio programme, aired on Yarmouk FM radio station in Irbid, northern Jordan, where there is a large Syrian refugee population. 

Syrian Hour

The programme trains young Syrians in radio broadcasting skills to host the shows while the shows themselves provide vital information and support to displaced Syrian refugees residing in Jordan. Majd Al Sammouri is one of the young people being trained to host The Syrian Hour. 

The first paths of my dreams were at the Faculty of Media and Mass Communication at the University of Damascus, a road I thought was lost forever after finding refuge in Jordan. Yarmouk FM was the compass that put me back to the streets of my dreams.

Many Syrian refugees who fled the war to Jordan still lack awareness about their security, liberty and protection rights and what is available to them in terms of food-assistance, education, health or psychosocial support. Often, their precarious refugee status makes them too afraid to approach authorities and humanitarian organizations.

Majd and his young colleagues provide much-needed reliable information and support to the refugee community.

Community radio is a powerful tool because it has the potential to reach out to people with little or no access to information. It is an efficient mechanism for educating and informing people living in remote areas about key issues such as health, education and sustainable development.

UNESCO is supporting and promoting community radios as a means to facilitate social communication and support democratic processes within societies.

Community radios are also being used to promote oral traditions. For example, in Bandafassi, Senegal, the community radio broadcasts stories and proverbs, traditional music and the history of the various villages. This is one of the many small steps towards building pluralistic and diverse media that provide free impartial information options to empower the public to make their choices towards peace, sustainability, poverty eradication and human rights.

UNESCO is supporting and promoting community radios

Fostering freedom of speech.

UNESCO works to foster free, independent and pluralistic media in print, broadcast and online. Media that adhere to this model enhance freedom of speech as well as contribute to peace, sustainability, poverty eradication and human rights.

#TruthNeverDies

#TruthNeverDies is a campaign developed jointly by UNESCO and communication agency DDB Paris to commemorate the  International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists  on 2 November.

Women Make the News 

Women Make the News is a global initiative aimed at raising awareness on issues relating to gender equality in and through the media, driving debate and encouraging action-oriented solutions to meet global objectives.

#HerMomentsMatter  

#HerMomentsMatter is a continuation of UNESCO’s World Radio Day campaign and aims to promote fairer coverage of women athletes. Women represent just 7 per cent of sportspeople seen, heard or read about in the media, while only 4 per cent of sports stories focus primarily on women. 

Remote Radio Week

Community media, whether broadcast or online, are key to ensuring media pluralism and freedom of expression. They are also an indicator of a healthy democratic society.

In partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO), UNESCO has launched a free online training for radio stations to develop their capacities to broadcast remotely.

AI and Facial Recognition webinar

This webinar about artificial intelligence (AI) and facial recognition, organized by UNESCO, touches on the pressing issues of facial recognition and the concerns it raises about the widespread adoption of AI and human rights. As AI is developing rapidly, it is important to understand its developments, which may have profound and potentially adverse impacts on individuals and society.

Webinar on Artificial Intelligence and Facial Recognition

World atlas of languages.

The World Atlas of Languages is an unprecedented initiative to preserve, revitalize and promote global linguistic diversity and multilingualism as a unique heritage and treasure of humanity. The project aims to stimulate new research and innovation, create demand for new language resources and tools, help support language policy and legislation, and forge new partnerships and collaboration in the global community to open up access to information.  

World Digital Library

Launched in 2009, the World Digital Library is a project of the U.S. Library of Congress, with the support of UNESCO, and contributions from libraries, archives, museums, educational institutions and international organizations around the world. The WDL seeks to preserve and share some of the world’s most important cultural objects, increasing access to cultural treasures and significant historical documents, to enable discovery, scholarship and use.

UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize

Created in 1997, the annual UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize honours an individual, organisation or institution that has made an outstanding contribution to the defence and, or promotion of press freedom anywhere in the world, especially when this has been achieved in the face of danger. It is named after Guillermo Cano Isaza, a Colombian journalist who was assassinated in front of the offices of his newspaper El Espectador in Bogotá, Colombia on 17 December 1986.

UNESCO / Guillermo Cano

World Press Freedom Prize

Related items

• Information and communication

Freedom of the media

This Module focuses on the written press, radio and television broadcasting. The resources are organized according to the two principles that govern Media regulation -diversity and pluralism - and their meaning as applied to different mediums. The Module also includes readings that critically assess the role of the Media and of press freedom in contemporary societies and the digital challenges to the traditional Media business model.

• DOCUMENT/PDF
• INFOGRAPHIC
• OPEN ACCESS
• Media Pluralism and Diversity
• Media Regulation
• Media Ownership
• Media Convergence
• Media Law Reform
• Title: Alphabetically(A-Z)
• Title: Alphabetically(Z-A)
• DATE-ASCENDING
• DATE-DESCENDING
• Core Readings
• Jurisprudence
• Articles/Books
• - Amici Curiae
• Assignments/Exercises

Access to the Press—A New First Amendment Right

"The press, long enshrined among our most highly cherished institutions, was thought a cornerstone of democracy when its name was boldly inscribed in the Bill of Rights. Freed from governmental restraint, initially by the first amendment and later by the fourteenth, the press was to stand majestically as the champion of new ideas and the watch dog against governmental abuse. Professor Barron finds this conception of the first amendment, perhaps realistic in the eighteenth century heyday of political pamphleteering, essentially romantic in an era marked by extraordinary technological developments in the communications industry. To make viable the time-honored "marketplace" theory, he argues for a twentieth century interpretation of the first amendment which will impose an affirmative responsibility on the monopoly newspaper to act as sounding board for new ideas and old grievances."

Barron, Jerome A. "Access to the Press. A New First Amendment Right."  Harvard Law Review  80, no. 8 (1967): 1641-678. doi:10.2307/1339417.

Artificial Intelligence and Freedom of Expression

“Artificial intelligence (AI) – a broad concept used in policy discussions to refer to many different types of technology – greatly influences and impacts the way people seek, receive, impart and access information and how they exercise their right to freedom of expression in the digital ecosystem. If implemented responsibly, AI can benefit societies, but there is a genuine risk that its deployment by States and private companies, such as internet intermediaries, could have a deteriorating effect on human rights… [This Paper] maps the key challenges to freedom of expression presented by AI across the OSCE region, in light of international and regional standards on human rights and AI. It identifies a number of overarching problems that AI poses to freedom of expression and human rights in general, in particular: (a.) The limited understanding of the implications for freedom of expression caused by AI, in particular machine learning; (b.) Lack of respect for freedom of expression in content moderation and curation; (c.) State and non-State actors circumventing due process and rule of law in AI-powered content moderation; (d.) Lack of transparency regarding the entire process of AI design, deployment and implementation; (e.) Lack of accountability and independent oversight over AI systems; and, (f.) Lack of effective remedies for violation of the right to freedom of expression in relation to AI. This Paper observes that these problems became more pronounced in the first months of 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic incentivized States and the private sector to use AI even more, as part of measures introduced in response to the pandemic. A tendency to revert to technocratic solutions, including AI-powered tools, without adequate societal debate or democratic scrutiny was witnessed. Using four specific case studies (“security threats”; “hate speech”; media pluralism and diversity online; and the impact of AI-powered State surveillance on freedom of expression), this Paper shows how these problems manifest themselves. This Paper concludes that there is a need to further raise awareness, and improve understanding, of the impact of AI related to decision-making policies and practices on freedom of expression, next to having a more systematic overview of regional approaches and methodologies in the OSCE region. It provides a number of preliminary recommendations to OSCE participating States and internet intermediaries, to help ensure that freedom of expression and information are better protected when AI is deployed.”

OSCE. “Artificial Intelligence and Freedom of Expression”. 2020.  https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/9/f/456319_0.pdf . 

Background and Interpretation of the Declaration of Principles

In October 2000, following debates among different civil society organizations, and in support of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights approved the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression. The Declaration constitutes a basic document for interpreting Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights. In light of the importance of these principles, the Commission also published an interpretation of the principles set forth in the Declaration.

OAS, IACmHR. Background and Interpretation of the Declaration of Principles. 108th regular period of sessions. 2-20 October 2000

Can the GDPR and Freedom of Expression Coexist?

“The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) imposes important transparency and accountability requirements on different actors who process personal data. This is great news for the protection of individual data privacy. However, given that “personal information and human stories are the raw material of journalism,” what does the GDPR mean for freedom of expression and especially for journalistic activity? This essay argues that, although EU states seem to have taken their data protection obligations under the GDPR seriously, efforts to balance this against the right to freedom of expression have been more uneven. The essay concludes that it is of key importance to ensure that the GDPR's safeguards for data privacy do not compromise a free press.”

Reventlow, Nani Jansen. “Can the GDPR and Freedom of Expression Coexist?”.   AJIL Unbound   114 (2020): 31-34.

Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85

“[T]he Government of Costa Rica […] submitted to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights […] an advisory opinion request relating to the interpretation of Articles 13 [Freedom of thought and expression] and 29 [Restrictions Regarding Interpretation] of the American Convention on Human Rights […] as they affect the compulsory membership in an association prescribed by law for the practice of journalism […]. The request also sought the Court's interpretation relating to the compatibility of Law No. 4420 of September 22, 1969, Organic Law of the Colegio de Periodistas (Association of Journalists) of Costa Rica […], with the provisions of the aforementioned articles.”

IACtHR, Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism . Advisory Opinion OC-5/85. Series A, No. 5. 13 November 1985

Democratic Disruption in the Age of Social Media: Between Marketized and Structural Conceptions of Human Rights Law

“Once hailed as beacons of democracy, social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter now find themselves credited with its decay. Amidst a rising global techlash and growing calls for digital constitutionalism, this article develops a typology of the diverse forms of governance enabled by social media platforms and examines the contestability of human rights law in addressing the accountability deficits that characterize the platform economy. The article examines two interrelated forms of social media governance in particular: content moderation, encompassing the practices through which social media companies determine the permissibility and visibility of online content on their platforms; and data surveillance, encompassing the practices through which social media companies process personal data in accordance with their extractivist business models. Recognizing that human rights law is a vocabulary of governance with the potential to both restrain and legitimate particular relations of power within the platform economy, this article critically examines two rival conceptions of human rights law – marketized and structural – that may be relied upon to address the accountability shortfalls that pervade the contemporary social media ecosystem. The article ultimately argues in favour of a more structural conception of human rights law, one characterized by an openness to positive state intervention to safeguard public and collective values such as media pluralism and diversity as well as a systemic lens that strives to take into account imbalances of power in the social media ecosystem and the effects of state and platform practices on the social media environment as a whole.”

Sander, Barrie. “Democratic Disruption in the Age of Social Media: Between Marketized and Structural Conceptions of Human Rights Law.”  European Journal of International Law  32, no. 1 (2021): 159-193. 

Disease Pandemics and the Freedom of Opinion and Expression

“The present report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, is being submitted to the Human Rights Council pursuant to Council resolution 34/18. In the report the Special Rapporteur registers alarm that some efforts to combat the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic may be failing to meet the standards of legality, necessity and proportionality. The Special Rapporteur highlights five areas of concern, showing that access to information, independent media and other free expression rights are critical to meeting the challenges of pandemic.”

UN Human Rights Council, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, David Kaye. Disease Pandemics and the Freedom of Opinion and Expression. A/HRC/44/49. April 2020.

Disinformation and Freedom of Opinion and Expression

“In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression examines the threats posed by disinformation to human rights, democratic institutions and development processes. While acknowledging the complexities and challenges posed by disinformation in the digital age, the Special Rapporteur finds that the responses by States and companies have been problematic, inadequate and detrimental to human rights. She calls for multidimensional and multi-stakeholder responses that are well grounded in the international human rights framework and urges companies to review their business model and States to recalibrate their responses to disinformation, enhancing the role of free, independent and diverse media, investing in media and digital literacy, empowering individuals and rebuilding public trust.”

UN Human Rights Council, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Irene Khan. Disinformation and Freedom of Opinion and Expression. A/HRC/47/25. April 2021.

European Media Freedom Act - Proposal for a Regulation and Recommendation

"The proposed Regulation includes safeguards against political interference in editorial decisions and against surveillance. It puts a focus on the independence and stable funding of public service media as well as on the transparency of media ownership and the allocation of state advertising. "

"The key objectives of the legislative initiative would be to: ensure that media companies can operate in the internal market subject to consistent regulatory standards, including as regards media freedom and pluralism, ▪ ensure that EU citizens have access to a wide and varied media offering both offline and online, ▪ safeguard the editorial independence and independent management of the media, which is a precondition of media freedom and of the integrity of the internal market, ▪ foster undistorted competition between media companies by ensuring a transparent and fair allocation of state resources".

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act) and amending Directive 2010/13/EU. 16 September 2022.  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022PC0457

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

15.4 Censorship and Freedom of Speech

Learning objectives.

• Explain the FCC’s process of classifying material as indecent, obscene, or profane.
• Describe how the Hay’s Code affected 20th-century American mass media.

Figure 15.3

Attempts to censor material, such as banning books, typically attract a great deal of controversy and debate.

Timberland Regional Library – Banned Books Display At The Lacey Library – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

To fully understand the issues of censorship and freedom of speech and how they apply to modern media, we must first explore the terms themselves. Censorship is defined as suppressing or removing anything deemed objectionable. A common, everyday example can be found on the radio or television, where potentially offensive words are “bleeped” out. More controversial is censorship at a political or religious level. If you’ve ever been banned from reading a book in school, or watched a “clean” version of a movie on an airplane, you’ve experienced censorship.

Much as media legislation can be controversial due to First Amendment protections, censorship in the media is often hotly debated. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press (Case Summaries).” Under this definition, the term “speech” extends to a broader sense of “expression,” meaning verbal, nonverbal, visual, or symbolic expression. Historically, many individuals have cited the First Amendment when protesting FCC decisions to censor certain media products or programs. However, what many people do not realize is that U.S. law establishes several exceptions to free speech, including defamation, hate speech, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, sedition, and obscenity.

Classifying Material as Indecent, Obscene, or Profane

To comply with U.S. law, the FCC prohibits broadcasters from airing obscene programming. The FCC decides whether or not material is obscene by using a three-prong test.

Obscene material:

• causes the average person to have lustful or sexual thoughts;
• depicts lawfully offensive sexual conduct; and
• lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Material meeting all of these criteria is officially considered obscene and usually applies to hard-core pornography (Federal Communications Commission). “Indecent” material, on the other hand, is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely.

Indecent material:

• contains graphic sexual or excretory depictions;
• dwells at length on depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and
• is used simply to shock or arouse an audience.

Material deemed indecent cannot be broadcast between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., to make it less likely that children will be exposed to it (Federal Communications Commission).

These classifications symbolize the media’s long struggle with what is considered appropriate and inappropriate material. Despite the existence of the guidelines, however, the process of categorizing materials is a long and arduous one.

There is a formalized process for deciding what material falls into which category. First, the FCC relies on television audiences to alert the agency of potentially controversial material that may require classification. The commission asks the public to file a complaint via letter, e-mail, fax, telephone, or the agency’s website, including the station, the community, and the date and time of the broadcast. The complaint should “contain enough detail about the material broadcast that the FCC can understand the exact words and language used (Federal Communications Commission).” Citizens are also allowed to submit tapes or transcripts of the aired material. Upon receiving a complaint, the FCC logs it in a database, which a staff member then accesses to perform an initial review. If necessary, the agency may contact either the station licensee or the individual who filed the complaint for further information.

Once the FCC has conducted a thorough investigation, it determines a final classification for the material. In the case of profane or indecent material, the agency may take further actions, including possibly fining the network or station (Federal Communications Commission). If the material is classified as obscene, the FCC will instead refer the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice, which has the authority to criminally prosecute the media outlet. If convicted in court, violators can be subject to criminal fines and/or imprisonment (Federal Communications Commission).

Each year, the FCC receives thousands of complaints regarding obscene, indecent, or profane programming. While the agency ultimately defines most programs cited in the complaints as appropriate, many complaints require in-depth investigation and may result in fines called notices of apparent liability (NAL) or federal investigation.

Table 15.1 FCC Indecency Complaints and NALs: 2000–2005

Violence and Sex: Taboos in Entertainment

Although popular memory thinks of old black-and-white movies as tame or sanitized, many early filmmakers filled their movies with sexual or violent content. Edwin S. Porter’s 1903 silent film The Great Train Robbery , for example, is known for expressing “the appealing, deeply embedded nature of violence in the frontier experience and the American civilizing process,” and showcases “the rather spontaneous way that the attendant violence appears in the earliest developments of cinema (Film Reference).” The film ends with an image of a gunman firing a revolver directly at the camera, demonstrating that cinema’s fascination with violence was present even 100 years ago.

Porter was not the only U.S. filmmaker working during the early years of cinema to employ graphic violence. Films such as Intolerance (1916) and The Birth of a Nation (1915) are notorious for their overt portrayals of violent activities. The director of both films, D. W. Griffith, intentionally portrayed content graphically because he “believed that the portrayal of violence must be uncompromised to show its consequences for humanity (Film Reference).”

Although audiences responded eagerly to the new medium of film, some naysayers believed that Hollywood films and their associated hedonistic culture was a negative moral influence. As you read in Chapter 8 “Movies” , this changed during the 1930s with the implementation of the Hays Code. Formally termed the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930, the code is popularly known by the name of its author, Will Hays, the chairman of the industry’s self-regulatory Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association (MPPDA), which was founded in 1922 to “police all in-house productions (Film Reference).” Created to forestall what was perceived to be looming governmental control over the industry, the Hays Code was, essentially, Hollywood self-censorship. The code displayed the motion picture industry’s commitment to the public, stating:

Motion picture producers recognize the high trust and confidence which have been placed in them by the people of the world and which have made motion pictures a universal form of entertainment…. Hence, though regarding motion pictures primarily as entertainment without any explicit purposes of teaching or propaganda, they know that the motion picture within its own field of entertainment may be directly responsible for spiritual or moral progress, for higher types of social life, and for much correct thinking (Arts Reformation).

Among other requirements, the Hays Code enacted strict guidelines on the portrayal of violence. Crimes such as murder, theft, robbery, safecracking, and “dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc.” could not be presented in detail (Arts Reformation). The code also addressed the portrayals of sex, saying that “the sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing (Arts Reformation).”

Figure 15.4

As the chairman of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association, Will Hays oversaw the creation of the industry’s self-censoring Hays Code.

Wikimedia Commons – public domain.

As television grew in popularity during the mid-1900s, the strict code placed on the film industry spread to other forms of visual media. Many early sitcoms, for example, showed married couples sleeping in separate twin beds to avoid suggesting sexual relations.

By the end of the 1940s, the MPPDA had begun to relax the rigid regulations of the Hays Code. Propelled by the changing moral standards of the 1950s and 1960s, this led to a gradual reintroduction of violence and sex into mass media.

Ratings Systems

As filmmakers began pushing the boundaries of acceptable visual content, the Hollywood studio industry scrambled to create a system to ensure appropriate audiences for films. In 1968, the successor of the MPPDA, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), established the familiar film ratings system to help alert potential audiences to the type of content they could expect from a production.

Film Ratings

Although the ratings system changed slightly in its early years, by 1972 it seemed that the MPAA had settled on its ratings. These ratings consisted of G (general audiences), PG (parental guidance suggested), R (restricted to ages 17 or up unless accompanied by a parent), and X (completely restricted to ages 17 and up). The system worked until 1984, when several major battles took place over controversial material. During that year, the highly popular films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins both premiered with a PG rating. Both films—and subsequently the MPAA—received criticism for the explicit violence presented on screen, which many viewers considered too intense for the relatively mild PG rating. In response to the complaints, the MPAA introduced the PG-13 rating to indicate that some material may be inappropriate for children under the age of 13.

Another change came to the ratings system in 1990, with the introduction of the NC-17 rating. Carrying the same restrictions as the existing X rating, the new designation came at the behest of the film industry to distinguish mature films from pornographic ones. Despite the arguably milder format of the rating’s name, many filmmakers find it too strict in practice; receiving an NC-17 rating often leads to a lack of promotion or distribution because numerous movie theaters and rental outlets refuse to carry films with this rating.

Television and Video Game Ratings

Regardless of these criticisms, most audience members find the rating system helpful, particularly when determining what is appropriate for children. The adoption of industry ratings for television programs and video games reflects the success of the film ratings system. During the 1990s, for example, the broadcasting industry introduced a voluntary rating system not unlike that used for films to accompany all TV shows. These ratings are displayed on screen during the first 15 seconds of a program and include TV-Y (all children), TV-Y7 (children ages 7 and up), TV-Y7-FV (older children—fantasy violence), TV-G (general audience), TV-PG (parental guidance suggested), TV-14 (parents strongly cautioned), and TV-MA (mature audiences only).

Table 15.2 Television Ratings System

Source: http://www.tvguidelines.org/ratings.htm

At about the same time that television ratings appeared, the Entertainment Software Rating Board was established to provide ratings on video games. Video game ratings include EC (early childhood), E (everyone), E 10+ (ages 10 and older), T (teen), M (mature), and AO (adults only).

Table 15.3 Video Game Ratings System

Source: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

Even with these ratings, the video game industry has long endured criticism over violence and sex in video games. One of the top-selling video game series in the world, Grand Theft Auto , is highly controversial because players have the option to solicit prostitution or murder civilians (Media Awareness). In 2010, a report claimed that “38 percent of the female characters in video games are scantily clad, 23 percent baring breasts or cleavage, 31 percent exposing thighs, another 31 percent exposing stomachs or midriffs, and 15 percent baring their behinds (Media Awareness).” Despite multiple lawsuits, some video game creators stand by their decisions to place graphic displays of violence and sex in their games on the grounds of freedom of speech.

Key Takeaways

• The U.S. Government devised the three-prong test to determine if material can be considered “obscene.” The FCC applies these guidelines to determine whether broadcast content can be classified as profane, indecent, or obscene.
• Established during the 1930s, the Hays Code placed strict regulations on film, requiring that filmmakers avoid portraying violence and sex in films.
• After the decline of the Hays Code during the 1960s, the MPAA introduced a self-policed film ratings system. This system later inspired similar ratings for television and video game content.

Look over the MPAA’s explanation of each film rating online at http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means . View a film with these requirements in mind and think about how the rating was selected. Then answer the following short-answer questions. Each response should be a minimum of one paragraph.

• Would this material be considered “obscene” under the Hays Code criteria? Would it be considered obscene under the FCC’s three-prong test? Explain why or why not. How would the film be different if it were released in accordance to the guidelines of the Hays Code?
• Do you agree with the rating your chosen film was given? Why or why not?

Arts Reformation, “The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 (Hays Code),” ArtsReformation, http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html .

Case Summaries, “First Amendment—Religion and Expression,” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ .

Federal Communications Commission, “Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity: Frequently Asked Questions,” http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html .

Film Reference, “Violence,” Film Reference, http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Romantic-Comedy-Yugoslavia/Violence-BEGINNINGS.html .

Media Awareness, Media Issues, “Sex and Relationships in the Media,” http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_girls/women_sex.cfm .

Media Awareness, Media Issues, “Violence in Media Entertainment,” http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/violence_entertainment.cfm .

Understanding Media and Culture Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Why Is Freedom Of The Press Important in a Democracy?

Freedom of the press states that expression and communication through published media – like in print and video – is a right. Freedom of the press is codified in multiple documents that set international standards . A government should not interfere with this freedom or censor media that’s critical of state power. For years, freedom of the press has been an essential part of democracy. In a democracy, people have the right to choose their government either directly or by electing representatives. Why is freedom of the press so important for democracy to thrive? What are the threats to this freedom?

Truth, accountability, and informed voting: reasons why freedom of the press matters

A healthy democracy has guiding principles like citizen rule, fair and free elections, the protection of individual rights, and cooperation. To ensure these principles become a reality, a free press is important. There are three main reasons why:

A free press fights for the truth

Freedom of the press matters because a free press uncovers the truth. There are many issues – often very complicated ones – that journalists are trained to analyze and explain. Without newspapers, radio shows, blogs, etc, the average person would have little to no knowledge of what’s going on around them. Most people lack the time and resources to investigate issues and stories that affect them and their communities. That’s where journalists come in. Armed with skills like research and critical thinking, the best journalists know what questions to ask , what leads to pursue, and how to fact-check. Fact-checking is a vital element of a free press. If the press is not able to fact-check safely and effectively, the truth remains buried.

A free press holds power accountable

Many entities can benefit from the truth staying hidden, including governments. One of the free press’ main missions is serving as a watchdog on power. The press is the bridge between the people and powerful entities. If the press is not free but instead beholden to power, it simply serves as an extension of that power. Without freedom of the press, journalists who try to tell the truth when it threatens the state are not protected by the law. This makes censorship and suppression inevitable. Even if a state made it a goal to be more truthful and transparent, there’s always an agenda they would need to serve. In the case of corruption and human rights violations , a free press is essential to exposing abuses of power.

A free press informs voters and strengthens democracy

Informed voting is the third reason why freedom of the press is so important. Democracies only thrive when voters are as informed as possible. Being informed ensures people understand the issues at hand and what policies and politicians best represent them. The press is the body that informs by analyzing information, encouraging discussion, and fact-checking. The freer the press, the better informed voters can be. Without this freedom, voters would be at the mercy of politicians and special interest groups that want to win elections and promote specific legislation. It would be very difficult and time-consuming for voters to do all their work on their own. A strong media makes the process less complicated and offers valuable insight.

How freedom of the press is threatened

The press is threatened around the world. Some places are worse than others, but even in democracies, press freedom can face many challenges. Organizations like Reporters Without Borders track the number of journalists harassed, imprisoned, or killed. This info gives the world a sense of how serious the problem is. There are many threats to a free press, including:

Legal threats

Legal threats like libel and privacy lawsuits, source intimidation, and subpoenas for confidential information drain money and resources from news sources, delay or block stories, and make people afraid to talk to journalists.

Governmental threats

Government officials can make a journalist’s job much harder and even dangerous. Actions include threatening to take away licenses, using inflammatory language against the press, and tracking or even arresting journalists. This abuse of power sows distrust in journalists, makes them a target for violence, and dampens the media’s ability to get out important stories.

Harassment and physical violence

Being a journalist can be a very dangerous job. Harassment is very common, especially for female journalists. Stalking, threatening, doxing, and trolling all serve to intimidate journalists and discourage them from working. Harassment can escalate to physical violence and include attacks, bomb threats, stolen equipment, and murder.

Protecting freedom of the press

What helps ensure that the press stays free and flourishing? Legislation that protects journalists and freedom of the press is one of the most important steps. “Shield laws,” which are laws that provide journalists with an absolute or qualified privilege to refuse to reveal their sources, are found in many places. A shield law protects both the journalist and their source. In the United States, there is no federal shield law, so many activists are working toward this goal. On an individual level, citizens can help protect freedom of the press by staying informed about threats to press freedom and efforts to support free media. Supporting local newspapers is another way to stay informed and ensure that the issues most relevant to your daily life are being reported on. For the sake of democracy, freedom of the press is a right that every entity in society must care about and commit to protecting.

Learn more about freedom of the press in an online course .

You may also like

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger 

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

Democracy, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression: Hate, Lies, and the Search for the Possible Truth

• Share Chicago Journal of International Law | Democracy, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression: Hate, Lies, and the Search for the Possible Truth on Facebook
• Share Chicago Journal of International Law | Democracy, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression: Hate, Lies, and the Search for the Possible Truth on Twitter
• Share Chicago Journal of International Law | Democracy, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression: Hate, Lies, and the Search for the Possible Truth on Email
• Share Chicago Journal of International Law | Democracy, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression: Hate, Lies, and the Search for the Possible Truth on LinkedIn

Download PDF

This Essay is a critical reflection on the impact of the digital revolution and the internet on three topics that shape the contemporary world: democracy, social media, and freedom of expression. Part I establishes historical and conceptual assumptions about constitutional democracy and discusses the role of digital platforms in the current moment of democratic recession. Part II discusses how, while social media platforms have revolutionized interpersonal and social communication and democratized access to knowledge and information, they also have led to an exponential spread of mis- and disinformation, hate speech, and conspiracy theories. Part III proposes a framework that balances regulation of digital platforms with the countervailing fundamental right to freedom of expression, a right that is essential for human dignity, the search for the possible truth, and democracy. Part IV highlights the role of society and the importance of media education in the creation of a free, but positive and constructive, environment on the internet.

I. Introduction

Before the internet, few actors could afford to participate in public debate due to the barriers that limited access to its enabling infrastructure, such as television channels and radio frequencies. 1 Digital platforms tore down this gate by creating open online communities for user-generated content, published without editorial control and at no cost. This exponentially increased participation in public discourse and the amount of information available. 2 At the same time, it led to an increase in disinformation campaigns, hate speech, slander, lies, and conspiracy theories used to advance antidemocratic goals. Platforms’ attempts to moderate speech at scale while maximizing engagement and profits have led to an increasingly prominent role for content moderation algorithms that shape who can participate and be heard in online public discourse. These systems play an essential role in the exercise of freedom of expression and in democratic competence and participation in the 21st century.

In this context, this Essay is a critical reflection on the impacts of the digital revolution and of the internet on democracy and freedom of expression. Part I establishes historical and conceptual assumptions about constitutional democracy; it also discusses the role of digital platforms in the current moment of democratic recession. Part II discusses how social media platforms are revolutionizing interpersonal and social communication, and democratizing access to knowledge and information, but also lead to an exponential spread of mis- and disinformation, hate speech and conspiracy theories. Part III proposes a framework for the regulation of digital platforms that seeks to find the right balance with the countervailing fundamental right to freedom of expression. Part IV highlights the role of society and the importance of media education in the creation of a free, but positive and constructive, environment on the internet.

II. Democracy and Authoritarian Populism

Constitutional democracy emerged as the predominant ideology of the 20th century, rising above the alternative projects of communism, fascism, Nazism, military regimes, and religious fundamentalism . 3 Democratic constitutionalism centers around two major ideas that merged at the end of the 20th century: constitutionalism , heir of the liberal revolutions in England, America, and France, expressing the ideas of limited power, rule of law, and respect for fundamental rights; 4 and democracy , a regime of popular sovereignty, free and fair elections, and majority rule. 5 In most countries, democracy only truly consolidated throughout the 20th century through universal suffrage guaranteed with the end of restrictions on political participation based on wealth, education, sex, or race. 6

Contemporary democracies are made up of votes, rights, and reasons. They are not limited to fair procedural rules in the electoral process, but demand respect for substantive fundamental rights of all citizens and a permanent public debate that informs and legitimizes political decisions. 7 To ensure protection of these three aspects, most democratic regimes include in their constitutional framework a supreme court or constitutional court with jurisdiction to arbitrate the inevitable tensions that arise between democracy’s popular sovereignty and constitutionalism’s fundamental rights. 8 These courts are, ultimately, the institutions responsible for protecting fundamental rights and the rules of the democratic game against any abuse of power attempted by the majority. Recent experiences in Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Venezuela, and Nicaragua show that when courts fail to fulfill this role, democracy collapses or suffers major setbacks. 9

In recent years, several events have challenged the prevalence of democratic constitutionalism in many parts of the world, in a phenomenon characterized by many as democratic recession. 10 Even consolidated democracies have endured moments of turmoil and institutional discredit, 11 as the world witnessed the rise of an authoritarian, anti-pluralist, and anti-institutional populist wave posing serious threats to democracy.

Populism can be right-wing or left-wing, 12 but the recent wave has been characterized by the prevalence of right-wing extremism, often racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, and homophobic. 13 While in the past the far left was united through Communist International, today it is the far right that has a major global network. 14 The hallmark of right-wing populism is the division of society into “us” (the pure, decent, conservatives) and “them” (the corrupt, liberal, cosmopolitan elites). 15 Authoritarian populism flows from the unfulfilled promises of democracy for opportunities and prosperity for all. 16 Three aspects undergird this democratic frustration: political (people do not feel represented by the existing electoral systems, political leaders, and democratic institutions); social (stagnation, unemployment, and the rise of inequality); and cultural identity (a conservative reaction to the progressive identity agenda of human rights that prevailed in recent decades with the protection of the fundamental rights of women, African descendants, religious minorities, LGBTQ+ communities, indigenous populations, and the environment). 17

Extremist authoritarian populist regimes often adopt similar strategies to capitalize on the political, social, and cultural identity-based frustrations fueling democratic recessions. These tactics include by-pass or co-optation of the intermediary institutions that mediate the interface between the people and the government, such as the legislature, the press, and civil society. They also involve attacks on supreme courts and constitutional courts and attempts to capture them by appointing submissive judges. 18 The rise of social media potentializes these strategies by creating a free and instantaneous channel of direct communication between populists and their supporters. 19 This unmediated interaction facilitates the use of disinformation campaigns, hate speech, slander, lies, and conspiracy theories as political tools to advance antidemocratic goals. The instantaneous nature of these channels is ripe for impulsive reactions, which facilitate verbal attacks by supporters and polarization, feeding back into the populist discourse. These tactics threaten democracy and free and fair elections because they deceive voters and silence the opposition, distorting public debate. Ultimately, this form of communication undermines the values that justify the special protection of freedom of expression to begin with. The “truth decay” and “fact polarization” that result from these efforts discredit institutions and consequently foster distrust in democracy. 20

III. Internet, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression 21

The third industrial revolution, also known as the technological or digital revolution, has shaped our world today. 22 Some of its main features are the massification of personal computers, the universalization of smartphones and, most importantly, the internet. One of the main byproducts of the digital revolution and the internet was the emergence of social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and messaging applications like WhatsApp and Telegram. We live in a world of apps, algorithms, artificial intelligence, and innovation occurring at breakneck speed where nothing seems truly new for very long. This is the background for the narrative that follows.

A. The Impact of the Internet

The internet revolutionized the world of interpersonal and social communication, exponentially expanded access to information and knowledge, and created a public sphere where anyone can express ideas, opinions, and disseminate facts. 23 Before the internet, one’s participation in public debate was dependent upon the professional press, 24 which investigated facts, abided by standards of journalistic ethics, 25 and was liable for damages if it knowingly or recklessly published untruthful information. 26 There was a baseline of editorial control and civil liability over the quality and veracity of what was published in this medium. This does not mean that it was a perfect world. The number of media outlets was, and continues to be, limited in quantity and perspectives; journalistic companies have their own interests, and not all of them distinguish fact from opinion with the necessary care. Still, there was some degree of control over what became public, and there were costs to the publication of overtly hateful or false speech.

The internet, with the emergence of websites, personal blogs, and social media, revolutionized this status quo. It created open, online communities for user-generated texts, images, videos, and links, published without editorial control and at no cost. This advanced participation in public discourse, diversified sources, and exponentially increased available information. 27 It gave a voice to minorities, civil society, politicians, public agents, and digital influencers, and it allowed demands for equality and democracy to acquire global dimensions. This represented a powerful contribution to political dynamism, resistance to authoritarianism, and stimulation of creativity, scientific knowledge, and commercial exchanges. 28 Increasingly, the most relevant political, social, and cultural communications take place on the internet’s unofficial channels.

However, the rise of social media also led to an increase in the dissemination of abusive and criminal speech. 29 While these platforms did not create mis- or disinformation, hate speech, or speech that attacks democracy, the ability to publish freely, with no editorial control and little to no accountability, increased the prevalence of these types of speech and facilitated its use as a political tool by populist leaders. 30 Additionally, and more fundamentally, platform business models compounded the problem through algorithms that moderate and distribute online content. 31

B. The Role of Algorithms

The ability to participate and be heard in online public discourse is currently defined by the content moderation algorithms of a couple major technology companies. Although digital platforms initially presented themselves as neutral media where users could publish freely, they in fact exercise legislative, executive, and judicial functions because they unilaterally define speech rules in their terms and conditions and their algorithms decide how content is distributed and how these rules are applied. 32

Specifically, digital platforms rely on algorithms for two different functions: recommending content and moderating content. 33 First, a fundamental aspect of the service they offer involves curating the content available to provide each user with a personalized experience and increase time spent online. They resort to deep learning algorithms that monitor every action on the platform, draw from user data, and predict what content will keep a specific user engaged and active based on their prior activity or that of similar users. 34 The transition from a world of information scarcity to a world of information abundance generated fierce competition for user attention—the most valuable resource in the Digital Age. 35 The power to modify a person’s information environment has a direct impact on their behavior and beliefs. Because AI systems can track an individual’s online history, they can tailor specific messages to maximize impact. More importantly, they monitor whether and how the user interacts with the tailored message, using this feedback to influence future content targeting and progressively becoming more effective in shaping behavior. 36 Given that humans engage more with content that is polarizing and provocative, these algorithms elicit powerful emotions, including anger. 37 The power to organize online content therefore directly impacts freedom of expression, pluralism, and democracy. 38

In addition to recommendation systems, platforms rely on algorithms for content moderation, the process of classifying content to determine whether it violates community standards. 39 As mentioned, the growth of social media and its use by people around the world allowed for the spread of lies and criminal acts with little cost and almost no accountability, threatening the stability of even long-standing democracies. Inevitably, digital platforms had to enforce terms and conditions defining the norms of their digital community and moderate speech accordingly. 40 But the potentially infinite amount of content published online means that this control cannot be exercised exclusively by humans.

Content moderation algorithms optimize the scanning of published content to identify violations of community standards or terms of service at scale and apply measures ranging from removal to reducing reach or including clarifications or references to alternative information. Platforms often rely on two algorithmic models for content moderation. The first is the reproduction detection model , which uses unique identifiers to catch reproductions of content previously labeled as undesired. 41 The second system, the predictive model , uses machine learning techniques to identify potential illegalities in new and unclassified content. 42 Machine learning is a subtype of artificial intelligence that extracts patterns in training datasets, capable of learning from data without explicit programming to do so. 43 Although helpful, both models have shortcomings.

The reproduction detection model is inefficient for content such as hate speech and disinformation, where the potential for new and different publications is virtually unlimited and users can deliberately make changes to avoid detection. 44 The predictive model is still limited in its ability to address situations to which it has not been exposed in training, primarily because it lacks the human ability to understand nuance and to factor in contextual considerations that influence the meaning of speech. 45 Additionally, machine learning algorithms rely on data collected from the real world and may embed prejudices or preconceptions, leading to asymmetrical applications of the filter. 46 And because the training data sets are so large, it can be hard to audit them for these biases. 47

Despite these limitations, algorithms will continue to be a crucial resource in content moderation given the scale of online activities. 48 In the last two months of 2020 alone, Facebook applied a content moderation measure to 105 million publications, and Instagram to 35 million. 49 YouTube has 500 hours of video uploaded per minute and removed more than 9.3 million videos. 50 In the first half of 2020, Twitter analyzed complaints related to 12.4 million accounts for potential violations of its rules and took action against 1.9 million. 51 This data supports the claim that human moderation is impossible, and that algorithms are a necessary tool to reduce the spread of illicit and harmful content. On the one hand, holding platforms accountable for occasional errors in these systems would create wrong incentives to abandon algorithms in content moderation with the negative consequence of significantly increasing the spread of undesired speech. 52 On the other hand, broad demands for platforms to implement algorithms to optimize content moderation, or laws that impose very short deadlines to respond to removal requests submitted by users, can create excessive pressure for the use of these imprecise systems on a larger scale. Acknowledging the limitations of this technology is fundamental for precise regulation.

C. Some Undesirable Consequences

One of the most striking impacts of this new informational environment is the exponential increase in the scale of social communications and the circulation of news. Around the world, few newspapers, print publications, and radio stations cross the threshold of having even one million subscribers and listeners. This suggests the majority of these publications have a much smaller audience, possibly in the thousands or tens of thousands of people. 53 Television reaches millions of viewers, although diluted among dozens or hundreds of channels. 54 Facebook, on the other hand, has about 3 billion active users. 55 YouTube has 2.5 billion accounts. 56 WhatsApp, more than 2 billion. 57 The numbers are bewildering. However, and as anticipated, just as the digital revolution democratized access to knowledge, information, and public space, it also introduced negative consequences for democracy that must be addressed. Three of them include:

a) the increased circulation of disinformation, deliberate lying, hate speech, conspiracy theories, attacks on democracy, and inauthentic behavior, made possible by recommendation algorithms that optimize for user engagement and content moderation algorithms that are still incapable of adequately identifying undesirable content;

b) the tribalization of life, with the formation of echo chambers where groups speak only to themselves, reinforcing confirmation bias, 58 making speech progressively more radical, and contributing to polarization and intolerance; and

c) a global crisis in the business model of the professional press. Although social media platforms have become one of the main sources of information, they do not produce their own content. They hire engineers, not reporters, and their interest is engagement, not news. 59 Because advertisers’ spending has migrated away from traditional news publications to technological platforms with broader reaches, the press has suffered from a lack of revenue which has forced hundreds of major publications, national and local, to close their doors or reduce their journalist workforce. 60 But a free and strong press is more than just a private business; it is a pillar for an open and free society. It serves a public interest in the dissemination of facts, news, opinions, and ideas, indispensable preconditions for the informed exercise of citizenship. Knowledge and truth—never absolute, but sincerely sought—are essential elements for the functioning of a constitutional democracy. Citizens need to share a minimum set of common objective facts from which to inform their own judgments. If they cannot accept the same facts, public debate becomes impossible. Intolerance and violence are byproducts of the inability to communicate—hence the importance of “knowledge institutions,” such as universities, research entities, and the institutional press. The value of free press for democracy is illustrated by the fact that in different parts of the world, the press is one of the only private businesses specifically referred to throughout constitutions. Despite its importance for society and democracy, surveys reveal a concerning decline in its prestige. 61

In the beginning of the digital revolution, there was a belief that the internet should be a free, open, and unregulated space in the interest of protecting access to the platform and promoting freedom of expression. Over time, concerns emerged, and a consensus gradually grew for the need for internet regulation. Multiple approaches for regulating the internet were proposed, including: (a) economic, through antitrust legislation, consumer protection, fair taxation, and copyright rules; (b) privacy, through laws restricting collection of user data without consent, especially for content targeting; and (c) targeting inauthentic behavior, content control, and platform liability rules. 62

Devising the proper balance between the indispensable preservation of freedom of expression on the one hand, and the repression of illegal content on social media on the other, is one of the most complex issues of our generation. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right incorporated into virtually all contemporary constitutions and, in many countries, is considered a preferential freedom. Several reasons have been advanced for granting freedom of expression special protection, including its roles: (a) in the search for the possible truth 63 in an open and plural society, 64 as explored above in discussing the importance of the institutional press; (b) as an essential element for democracy 65 because it allows the free circulation of ideas, information, and opinions that inform public opinion and voting; and (c) as an essential element of human dignity, 66 allowing the expression of an individual’s personality.

The regulation of digital platforms cannot undermine these values but must instead aim at its protection and strengthening. However, in the digital age, these same values that historically justified the reinforced protection of freedom of expression can now justify its regulation. As U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres thoughtfully stated, “the ability to cause large-scale disinformation and undermine scientifically established facts is an existential risk to humanity.” 67

Two aspects of the internet business model are particularly problematic for the protection of democracy and free expression. The first is that, although access to most technological platforms and applications is free, users pay for access with their privacy. 68 As Lawrence Lessig observed, we watch television, but the internet watches us. 69 Everything each individual does online is monitored and monetized. Data is the modern gold. 70 Thus, those who pay for the data can more efficiently disseminate their message through targeted ads. As previously mentioned, the power to modify a person’s information environment has a direct impact on behavior and beliefs, especially when messages are tailored to maximize impact on a specific individual. 71

The second aspect is that algorithms are programmed to maximize time spent online. This often leads to the amplification of provocative, radical, and aggressive content. This in turn compromises freedom of expression because, by targeting engagement, algorithms sacrifice the search for truth (with the wide circulation of fake news), democracy (with attacks on institutions and defense of coups and authoritarianism), and human dignity (with offenses, threats, racism, and others). The pursuit of attention and engagement for revenue is not always compatible with the values that underlie the protection of freedom of expression.

IV. A Framework for the Regulation of Social Media

Platform regulation models can be broadly classified into three categories: (a) state or government regulation, through legislation and rules drawing a compulsory, encompassing framework; (b) self-regulation, through rules drafted by platforms themselves and materialized in their terms of use; and (c) regulated self-regulation or coregulation, through standards fixed by the state but which grant platform flexibility in materializing and implementing them. This Essay argues for the third model, with a combination of governmental and private responsibilities. Compliance should be overseen by an independent committee, with the minority of its representatives coming from the government, and the majority coming from the business sector, academia, technology entities, users, and civil society.

The regulatory framework should aim to reduce the asymmetry of information between platforms and users, safeguard the fundamental right to freedom of expression from undue private or state interventions, and protect and strengthen democracy. The current technical limitations of content moderation algorithms explored above and normal substantive disagreement about what content should be considered illegal or harmful suggest that an ideal regulatory model should optimize the balance between the fundamental rights of users and platforms, recognizing that there will always be cases where consensus is unachievable. The focus of regulation should be the development of adequate procedures for content moderation, capable of minimizing errors and legitimizing decisions even when one disagrees with the substantive result. 72 With these premises as background, the proposal for regulation formulated here is divided into three levels: (a) the appropriate intermediary liability model for user-generated content; (b) procedural duties for content moderation; and (c) minimum duties to moderate content that represents concrete threats to democracy and/or freedom of expression itself.

A. Intermediary Liability for User-Generated Content

There are three main regimes for platform liability for third-party content. In strict liability models, platforms are held responsible for all user-generated posts. 73 Since platforms have limited editorial control over what is posted and limited human oversight over the millions of posts made daily, this would be a potentially destructive regime. In knowledge-based liability models, platform liability arises if they do not act to remove content after an extrajudicial request from users—this is also known as a “notice-and-takedown” system. 74 Finally, a third model would make platforms liable for user-generated content only in cases of noncompliance with a court order mandating content removal. This latter model was adopted in Brazil with the Civil Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil da Internet). 75 The only exception in Brazilian legislation to this general rule is revenge porn: if there is a violation of intimacy resulting from the nonconsensual disclosure of images, videos, or other materials containing private nudity or private sexual acts, extrajudicial notification is sufficient to create an obligation for content removal under penalty of liability. 76

In our view, the Brazilian model is the one that most adequately balances the fundamental rights involved. As mentioned, in the most complex cases concerning freedom of expression, people will disagree on the legality of speech. Rules holding platforms accountable for not removing content after mere user notification create incentives for over-removal of any potentially controversial content, excessively restricting users’ freedom of expression. If the state threatens to hold digital platforms accountable if it disagrees with their assessment, companies will have the incentive to remove all content that could potentially be considered illicit by courts to avoid liability. 77

Nonetheless, this liability regime should coexist with a broader regulatory structure imposing principles, limits, and duties on content moderation by digital platforms, both to increase the legitimacy of platforms’ application of their own terms and conditions and to minimize the potentially devastating impacts of illicit or harmful speech.

B. Standards for Proactive Content Moderation

Platforms have free enterprise and freedom of expression rights to set their own rules and decide the kind of environment they want to create, as well as to moderate harmful content that could drive users away. However, because these content moderation algorithms are the new governors of the public sphere, 78 and because they define the ability to participate and be heard in online public discourse, platforms should abide by minimum procedural duties of transparency and auditing, due process, and fairness.

1. Transparency and Auditing

Transparency and auditing measures serve mainly to ensure that platforms are accountable for content moderation decisions and for the impacts of their algorithms. They provide users with greater understanding and knowledge about the extent to which platforms regulate speech, and they provide oversight bodies and researchers with information to understand the threats of digital services and the role of platforms in amplifying or minimizing them.

Driven by demands from civil society, several digital platforms already publish transparency reports. 79 However, the lack of binding standards means that these reports have significant gaps, no independent verification of the information provided, 80 and no standardization across platforms, preventing comparative analysis. 81 In this context, regulatory initiatives that impose minimum requirements and standards are crucial to make oversight more effective. On the other hand, overly broad transparency mandates may force platforms to adopt simpler content moderation rules to reduce costs, which could negatively impact the accuracy of content moderation or the quality of the user experience. 82 A tiered approach to transparency, where certain information is public and certain information is limited to oversight bodies or previously qualified researchers, ensures adequate protection of countervailing interests, such as user privacy and business confidentiality. 83 The Digital Services Act, 84 recently passed in the European Union, contains robust transparency provisions that generally align with these considerations. 85

The information that should be publicly provided includes clear and unambiguous terms of use, the options available to address violations (such as removal, amplification reduction, clarifications, and account suspension) and the division of labor between algorithms and humans. More importantly, public transparency reports should include information on the accuracy of automated moderation measures and the number of content moderation actions broken down by type (such as removal, blocking, and account deletion). 86 There must also be transparency obligations to researchers, giving them access to crucial information and statistics, including to the content analyzed for the content moderation decisions. 87

Although valuable, transparency requirements are insufficient in promoting accountability because they rely on users and researchers to actively monitor platform conduct and presuppose that they have the power to draw attention to flaws and promote changes. 88 Legally mandated third-party algorithmic auditing is therefore an important complement to ensure that these models satisfy legal, ethical, and safety standards and to elucidate the embedded value tradeoffs, such as between user safety and freedom of expression. 89 As a starting point, algorithm audits should consider matters such as how accurately they perform, any potential bias or discrimination incorporated in the data, and to what extent the internal mechanics are explainable to humans. 90 The Digital Services Act contains a similar proposal. 91

The market for algorithmic auditing is still emergent and replete with uncertainty. In attempting to navigate this scenario, regulators should: (a) define how often the audits should happen; (b) develop standards and best practices for auditing procedures; (c) mandate specific disclosure obligations so auditors have access to the required data; and (d) define how identified harms should be addressed. 92

2. Due Process and Fairness

To ensure due process, platforms must inform users affected by content moderation decisions of the allegedly violated provision of the terms of use, as well as offer an internal system of appeals against these decisions. Platforms must also create systems that allow for the substantiated denunciation of content or accounts by other users, and notify reporting users of the decision taken.

As for fairness, platforms should ensure that the rules are applied equally to all users. Although it is reasonable to suppose that platforms may adopt different criteria for public persons or information of public interest, these exceptions must be clear in the terms of use. This issue has recently been the subject of controversy between the Facebook Oversight Board and the company. 93

Due to the enormous amount of content published on the platforms and the inevitability of using automated mechanisms for content moderation, platforms should not be held accountable for a violation of these duties in specific cases, but only when the analysis reveals a systemic failure to comply. 94

C. Minimum Duties to Moderate Illicit Content

The regulatory framework should also contain specific obligations to address certain types of especially harmful speech. The following categories are considered by the authors to fall within this group: disinformation, hate speech, anti-democratic attacks, cyberbullying, terrorism, and child pornography. Admittedly, defining and consensually identifying the speech included in these categories—except in the case of child pornography 95 —is a complex and largely subjective task. Precisely for this reason, platforms should be free to define how the concepts will be operationalized, as long as they guide definitions by international human rights parameters and in a transparent manner. This does not mean that all platforms will reach the same definitions nor the same substantive results in concrete cases, but this should not be considered a flaw in the system, since the plurality of rules promotes freedom of expression. The obligation to observe international human rights parameters reduces the discretion of companies, while allowing for the diversity of policies among them. After defining these categories, platforms must establish mechanisms that allow users to report violations.

In addition, platforms should develop mechanisms to address coordinated inauthentic behaviors, which involve the use of automated systems or deceitful means to artificially amplify false or dangerous messages by using bots, fake profiles, trolls, and provocateurs. 96 For example, if a person publishes a post for his twenty followers saying that kerosene oil is good for curing COVID-19, the negative impact of this misinformation is limited. However, if that message is amplified to thousands of users, a greater public health issue arises. Or, in another example, if the false message that an election was rigged reaches millions of people, there is a democratic risk due to the loss of institutional credibility.

The role of oversight bodies should be to verify that platforms have adopted terms of use that prohibit the sharing of these categories of speech and ensure that, systemically, the recommendation and content moderation systems are trained to moderate this content.

V. Conclusion

The World Wide Web has provided billions of people with access to knowledge, information, and the public space, changing the course of history. However, the misuse of the internet and social media poses serious threats to democracy and fundamental rights. Some degree of regulation has become necessary to confront inauthentic behavior and illegitimate content. It is essential, however, to act with transparency, proportionality, and adequate procedures, so that pluralism, diversity, and freedom of expression are preserved.

In addition to the importance of regulatory action, the responsibility for the preservation of the internet as a healthy public sphere also lies with citizens. Media education and user awareness are fundamental steps for the creation of a free but positive and constructive environment on the internet. Citizens should be conscious that social media can be unfair, perverse, and can violate fundamental rights and basic rules of democracy. They must be attentive not to uncritically pass on all information received. Alongside states, regulators, and tech companies, citizens are also an important force to address these threats. In Jonathan Haidt’s words, “[w]hen our public square is governed by mob dynamics unrestrained by due process, we don’t get justice and inclusion; we get a society that ignores context, proportionality, mercy, and truth.” 97

• 1 Tim Wu, Is the First Amendment Obsolete? , in The Perilous Public Square 15 (David E. Pozen ed., 2020).
• 2 Jack M. Balkin, Free Speech is a Triangle , 118 Colum. L. Rev. 2011, 2019 (2018).
• 3 Luís Roberto Barroso, O Constitucionalismo Democrático ou Neoconstitucionalismo como ideologia vitoriosa do século XX , 4 Revista Publicum 14, 14 (2018).
• 4 Id. at 16.
• 7 Ronald Dworkin, Is Democracy Possible Here?: Principles for a New Political Debate xii (2006); Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously 181 (1977).
• 8 Barroso, supra note 3, at 16.
• 9 Samuel Issacharoff, Fragile Democracies: Contested Power in the Era of Constitutional Courts i (2015).
• 10 Larry Diamond, Facing up to the Democratic Recession , 26 J. Democracy 141 (2015). Other scholars have referred to the same phenomenon using other terms, such as democratic retrogression, abusive constitutionalism, competitive authoritarianism, illiberal democracy, and autocratic legalism. See, e.g. , Aziz Huq & Tom Ginsburg, How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy , 65 UCLA L. Rev. 91 (2018); David Landau, Abusive Constitutionalism , 47 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 189 (2013); Kim Lane Scheppele, Autocratic Legalism , 85 U. Chi. L. Rev. 545 (2018).
• 11 Dan Balz, A Year After Jan. 6, Are the Guardrails that Protect Democracy Real or Illusory? , Wash. Post (Jan. 6, 2022), https://perma.cc/633Z-A9AJ; Brexit: Reaction from Around the UK , BBC News (June 24, 2016), https://perma.cc/JHM3-WD7A.
• 12 Cas Mudde, The Populist Zeitgeist , 39 Gov’t & Opposition 541, 549 (2004).
• 13 See generally Mohammed Sinan Siyech, An Introduction to Right-Wing Extremism in India , 33 New Eng. J. Pub. Pol’y 1 (2021) (discussing right-wing extremism in India). See also Eviane Leidig, Hindutva as a Variant of Right-Wing Extremism , 54 Patterns of Prejudice 215 (2020) (tracing the history of “Hindutva”—defined as “an ideology that encompasses a wide range of forms, from violent, paramilitary fringe groups, to organizations that advocate the restoration of Hindu ‘culture’, to mainstream political parties”—and finding that it has become mainstream since 2014 under Modi); Ariel Goldstein, Brazil Leads the Third Wave of the Latin American Far Right , Ctr. for Rsch. on Extremism (Mar. 1, 2021), https://perma.cc/4PCT-NLQJ (discussing right-wing extremism in Brazil under Bolsonaro); Seth G. Jones, The Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the United States , Ctr. for Strategic & Int’l Stud. (Nov. 2018), https://perma.cc/983S-JUA7 (discussing right-wing extremism in the U.S. under Trump).
• 14 Sergio Fausto, O Desafio Democrático [The Democratic Challenge], Piauí (Aug. 2022), https://perma.cc/474A-3849.
• 15 Jan-Werner Muller, Populism and Constitutionalism , in The Oxford Handbook of Populism 590 (Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser et al. eds., 2017).
• 16 Ming-Sung Kuo, Against Instantaneous Democracy , 17 Int’l J. Const. L. 554, 558–59 (2019); see also Digital Populism , Eur. Ctr. for Populism Stud., https://perma.cc/D7EV-48MV.
• 17 Luís Roberto Barroso, Technological Revolution, Democratic Recession and Climate Change: The Limits of Law in a Changing World , 18 Int’l J. Const. L. 334, 349 (2020).
• 18 For the use of social media, see Sven Engesser et al., Populism and Social Media: How Politicians Spread a Fragmented Ideology , 20 Info. Commc’n & Soc’y 1109 (2017). For attacks on the press, see WPFD 2021: Attacks on Press Freedom Growing Bolder Amid Rising Authoritarianism , Int’l Press Inst. (Apr. 30, 2021), https://perma.cc/SGN9-55A8. For attacks on the judiciary, see Michael Dichio & Igor Logvinenko, Authoritarian Populism, Courts and Democratic Erosion , Just Sec. (Feb. 11, 2021), https://perma.cc/WZ6J-YG49.
• 19 Kuo, supra note 16, at 558–59; see also Digital Populism , supra note 16.
• 20 Vicki C. Jackson, Knowledge Institutions in Constitutional Democracy: Reflections on “the Press” , 15 J. Media L. 275 (2022).
• 21 Many of the ideas and information on this topic were collected in Luna van Brussel Barroso, Liberdade de Expressão e Democracia na Era Digital: O impacto das mídias sociais no mundo contemporâneo [Freedom of Expression and Democracy in the Digital Era: The Impact of Social Media in the Contemporary World] (2022), which was recently published in Brazil.
• 22 The first industrial revolution is marked by the use of steam as a source of energy in the middle of the 18th century. The second started with the use of electricity and the invention of the internal combustion engine at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. There are already talks of the fourth industrial revolution as a product of the fusion of technologies that blurs the boundaries among the physical, digital, and biological spheres. See generally Klaus Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2017).
• 23 Gregory P. Magarian, The Internet and Social Media , in The Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech 350, 351–52 (Adrienne Stone & Frederick Schauer eds., 2021).
• 24 Wu, supra note 1, at 15.
• 25 Journalistic ethics include distinguishing fact from opinion, verifying the veracity of what is published, having no self-interest in the matter being reported, listening to the other side, and rectifying mistakes. For an example of an international journalistic ethics charter, see Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists , Int’l Fed’n of Journalists (June 12, 2019), https://perma.cc/7A2C-JD2S.
• 26 See, e.g. , New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
• 27 Balkin, supra note 2, at 2018.
• 28 Magarian, supra note 23, at 351–52.
• 29 Wu, supra note 1, at 15.
• 30 Magarian, supra note 23, at 357–60.
• 31 Niva Elkin-Koren & Maayan Perel, Speech Contestation by Design: Democratizing Speech Governance by AI , 50 Fla. State U. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2023).
• 32 Thomas E. Kadri & Kate Klonick, Facebook v. Sullivan: Public Figures and Newsworthiness in Online Speech , 93 S. Cal. L. Rev. 37, 94 (2019).
• 33 Elkin-Koren & Perel, supra note 31.
• 34 Chris Meserole, How Do Recommender Systems Work on Digital Platforms? , Brookings Inst.(Sept. 21, 2022), https://perma.cc/H53K-SENM.
• 35 Kris Shaffer, Data versus Democracy: How Big Data Algorithms Shape Opinions and Alter the Course of History xi–xv (2019).
• 36 See generally Stuart Russell, Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control (2019).
• 37 Shaffer, supra note 35, at xi–xv.
• 38 More recently, with the advance of neuroscience, platforms have sharpened their ability to manipulate and change our emotions, feelings and, consequently, our behavior in accordance not with our own interests, but with theirs (or of those who they sell this service to). Kaveh Waddell, Advertisers Want to Mine Your Brain , Axios (June 4, 2019), https://perma.cc/EU85-85WX. In this context, there is already talk of a new fundamental right to cognitive liberty, mental self-determination, or the right to free will. Id .
• 39 Content moderation refers to “systems that classify user generated content based on either matching or prediction, leading to a decision and governance outcome (e.g. removal, geoblocking, account takedown).” Robert Gorwa, Reuben Binns & Christian Katzenbach, Algorithmic Content Moderation: Technical and Political Challenges in the Automation of Platform Governance , 7 Big Data & Soc’y 1, 3 (2020).
• 40 Jack M. Balkin, Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big Data, Private Governance, and New School Speech Regulation , 51 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1149, 1183 (2018).
• 41 See Carey Shenkman, Dhanaraj Thakur & Emma Llansó, Do You See What I See? Capabilities and Limits of Automated Multimedia Content Analysis 13–16 (May 2021),https://perma.cc/J9MP-7PQ8.
• 42 See id. at 17–21.
• 43 See Michael Wooldridge, A Brief History of Artificial Intelligence: What It Is, Where We Are, and Where We Are Going 63 (2021).

Perceptual hashing has been the primary technology utilized to mitigate the spread of CSAM, since the same materials are often repeatedly shared, and databases of offending content are maintained by institutions like the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and its international analogue, the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC).

• 45 Natural language understanding is undermined by language ambiguity, contextual dependence of words of non-immediate proximity, references, metaphors, and general semantics rules. See Erik J. Larson, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can’t Think the Way We Do 52–55 (2021). Language comprehension in fact requires unlimited common-sense knowledge about the actual world, which humans possess and is impossible to code. Id . A case decided by Facebook’s Oversight Board illustrates the point: the company’s predictive filter for combatting pornography removed images from a breast cancer awareness campaign, a clearly legitimate content not meant to be targeted by the algorithm. See Breast Cancer Symptoms and Nudity , Oversight Bd. (2020), https://perma.cc/U9A5-TTTJ. However, based on prior training, the algorithm removed the publication because it detected pornography and was unable to factor the contextual consideration that this was a legitimate health campaign. Id .
• 46 See generally Adriano Koshiyama, Emre Kazim & Philip Treleaven, Algorithm Auditing: Managing the Legal, Ethical, and Technological Risks of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Associated Algorithms , 55 Computer 40 (2022).
• 47 Elkin-Koren & Perel, supra note 31.
• 48 Evelyn Douek, Governing Online Speech: From “Posts-as-Trumps” to Proportionality and Probability , 121 Colum. L. Rev. 759, 791 (2021).
• 53 See Martha Minow, Saving the Press: Why the Constitution Calls for Government Action to Preserve Freedom of Speech 20 (2021). For example, the best-selling newspaper in the world, The New York Times , ended the year 2022 with around 10 million subscribers across digital and print. Katie Robertson, The New York Times Company Adds 180,000 Digital Subscribers , N.Y. Times (Nov. 2, 2022), https://perma.cc/93PF-TKC5. The Economist magazine had approximately 1.2 million subscribers in 2022. The Economist Group, Annual Report 2022 24 (2022), https://perma.cc/9HQQ-F7W2. Around the world, publications that reach one million subscribers are rare. These Are the Most Popular Paid Subscription News Websites , World Econ. F. (Apr. 29, 2021), https://perma.cc/L2MK-VPNX.
• 54 Lawrence Lessig, They Don’t Represent Us: Reclaiming Our Democracy 105 (2019).
• 55 Essential Facebook Statistics and Trends for 2023 , Datareportal (Feb. 19, 2023), https://perma.cc/UH33-JHUQ.
• 56 YouTube User Statistics 2023 , Glob. Media Insight (Feb. 27, 2023), https://perma.cc/3H4Y-H83V.
• 57 Brian Dean, WhatsApp 2022 User Statistics: How Many People Use WhatsApp , Backlinko (Jan. 5, 2022), https://perma.cc/S8JX-S7HN.
• 58 Confirmation bias, the tendency to seek out and favor information that reinforces one’s existing beliefs, presents an obstacle to critical thinking. Sachin Modgil et al., A Confirmation Bias View on Social Media Induced Polarisation During COVID-19 , Info. Sys. Frontiers (Nov. 20, 2021).
• 59 Minow, supra note 53, at 2.
• 60 Id. at 3, 11.
• 61 On the importance of the role of the press as an institution of public interest and its “crucial relationship” with democracy, see id. at 35. On the press as a “knowledge institution,” the idea of “institutional press,” and data on the loss of prestige by newspapers and television stations, see Jackson, supra note 20, at 4–5.
• 62 See , e.g. , Jack M. Balkin, How to Regulate (and Not Regulate) Social Media , 1 J. Free Speech L. 71, 89–96 (2021).
• 63 By possible truth we mean that not all claims, opinions and beliefs can be ascertained as true or false. Objective truths are factual and can thus be proven even when controversial—for example, climate change and the effectiveness of vaccines. Subjective truths, on the other hand, derive from individual normative, religious, philosophical, and political views. In a pluralistic world, any conception of freedom of expression must protect individual subjective beliefs.
• 64 Eugene Volokh, In Defense of the Marketplace of Ideas/Search for Truth as a Theory of Free Speech Protection , 97 Va. L. Rev. 595, 595 (May 2011).
• 66 Steven J. Heyman, Free Speech and Human Dignity 2 (2008).
• 67 A Global Dialogue to Guide Regulation Worldwide , UNESCO (Feb. 23, 2023), https://perma.cc/ALK8-HTG3.
• 68 Can We Fix What’s Wrong with Social Media? , Yale L. Sch. News (Aug. 3, 2022), https://perma.cc/MN58-2EVK.
• 69 Lessig, supra note 54, at 105.
• 71 See supra Part III.B.
• 72 Doeuk, supra note 48, at 804–13; see also John Bowers & Jonathan Zittrain, Answering Impossible Questions: Content Governance in an Age of Disinformation , Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. (Jan. 14, 2020), https://perma.cc/R7WW-8MQX.
• 73 Daphne Keller, Systemic Duties of Care and Intermediary Liability , Ctr. for Internet & Soc’y Blog (May 28, 2020), https://perma.cc/25GU-URGT.
• 75 Decreto No. 12.965, de 23 de abril de 2014, Diário Oficial da União [D.O.U.] de 4.14.2014 (Braz.) art. 19. In order to ensure freedom of expression and prevent censorship, providers of internet applications can only be civilly liable for damages resulting from content generated by third parties if, after specific court order, they do not make arrangements to, in the scope and technical limits of their service and within the indicated time, make unavailable the content identified as infringing, otherwise subject to the applicable legal provisions. Id .
• 76 Id. art. 21. The internet application provider that provides content generated by third parties will be held liable for the violation of intimacy resulting from the disclosure, without authorization of its participants, of images, videos, or other materials containing nude scenes or private sexual acts when, upon receipt of notification by the participant or its legal representative, fail to diligently promote, within the scope and technical limits of its service, the unavailability of this content. Id .
• 77 Balkin, supra note 2, at 2017.
• 78 Kate Klonick, The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech , 131 Harv. L. Rev. 1598, 1603 (2018).
• 79 Transparency Reporting Index, Access Now (July 2021), https://perma.cc/2TSL-2KLD (cataloguing transparency reporting from companies around the world).
• 80 Hum. Rts. Comm., Rep. of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, ¶¶ 63–66, U.N. Doc A/HRC/32/35 (2016).
• 81 Paddy Leerssen, The Soap Box as a Black Box: Regulating Transparency in Social Media Recommender Systems , 11 Eur. J. L. & Tech. (2020).
• 82 Daphne Keller, Some Humility About Transparency , Ctr. for Internet & Soc’y Blog (Mar. 19, 2021), https://perma.cc/4Y85-BATA.
• 83 Mark MacCarthy, Transparency Requirements for Digital Social Media Platforms: Recommendations for Policy Makers and Industry , Transatlantic Working Grp. (Feb. 12, 2020).
• 84 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1 [hereinafter DSA].
• 85 The DSA was approved by the European Parliament on July 5, 2022, and on October 4, 2022, the European Council gave its final acquiescence to the regulation. Digital Services: Landmark Rules Adopted for a Safer, Open Online Environment , Eur. Parliament (July 5, 2022), https://perma.cc/BZP5-V2B2. The DSA increases transparency and accountability of platforms, by providing, for example, for the obligation of “clear information on content moderation or the use of algorithms for recommending content (so-called recommender systems); users will be able to challenge content moderation decisions.” Id .
• 86 MacCarthy, supra note 83, 19–24.
• 87 To this end, American legislators recently introduced a U.S. Congressional bill that proposes a model for conducting research on the impacts of digital communications in a way that protects user privacy. See Platform Accountability and Transparency Act, S. 5339, 117th Congress (2022). The project mandates that digital platforms share data with researchers previously authorized by the Federal Trade Commission and publicly disclose certain data about content, algorithms, and advertising. Id .
• 88 Yifat Nahmias & Maayan Perel, The Oversight of Content Moderation by AI: Impact Assessment and Their Limitations , 58 Harv. J. on Legis. 145, 154–57 (2021).
• 89 Auditing Algorithms: The Existing Landscape, Role of Regulator and Future Outlook , Digit. Regul. Coop. F. (Sept. 23, 2022), https://perma.cc/7N6W-JNCW.
• 90 See generally Koshiyama et al., supra note 46.
• 91 In Article 37, the DSA provides that digital platforms of a certain size should be accountable, through annual independent auditing, for compliance with the obligations set forth in the Regulation and with any commitment undertaken pursuant to codes of conduct and crisis protocols.
• 92 Digit. Regul. Coop. F., supra note 89.
• 93 In a transparency report published at the end of its first year of operation, the Oversight Board highlighted the inadequacy of the explanations presented by Meta on the operation of a system known as cross-check, which apparently gave some users greater freedom on the platform. In January 2022, Meta explained that the cross-check system grants an additional degree of review to certain content that internal systems mark as violating the platform’s terms of use. Meta submitted a query to the Board on how to improve the functioning of this system and the Board made relevant recommendations. See Oversight Board Published Policy Advisory Opinion on Meta’s Cross-Check Program , Oversight Bd. (Dec. 2022), https://perma.cc/87Z5-L759.
• 94 Evelyn Douek, Content Moderation as Systems Thinking , 136 Harv. L. Rev. 526, 602–03 (2022).
• 95 The illicit nature of child pornography is objectively apprehended and does not implicate the same subjective considerations that the other referenced categories entail. Not surprisingly, several databases have been created to facilitate the moderation of this content. See Ofcom, Overview of Perceptual Hashing Technology 14 (Nov. 22, 2022), https://perma.cc/EJ45-B76X (“Several hash databases to support the detection of known CSAM exist, e.g. the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) hash database, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) hash list and the International Child Sexual Exploitation (ICSE) hash database.”).
• 97 Jonathan Haidt, Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid , Atlantic (Apr. 11, 2022), https://perma.cc/2NXD-32VM.

Language selection

Freedom of expression and media freedom.

Canada believes freedom of expression is at the core of human individuality and is one of the essential foundations of a safe and prosperous society.

The right of everyone to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression are in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights .

This includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether orally, in writing or in print, or through any other media of choice. Certain restrictions are only permissible when in line with international human rights law.

On this page

Canada’s support for freedom of expression, media freedom, canada-u.k. media freedom award, policy papers on media freedom, regional consultations on media freedom.

Canada actively raises concerns about violations of freedom of expression, including freedom of the media, in bilateral and multilateral meetings. These forums include UN General Assembly, the UN Human Rights Council, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and other international gatherings.

In line with the need to protect freedom of expression, Canada led a new resolution in July 2020 alongside other partners to put the issue of freedom of expression back on the agenda of the Human Rights Council. The resolution ensures that evolving international norms take into account contemporary issues facing freedom of expression. Canada co-sponsored in December 2019 the most recent UN General Assembly resolution on the safety of journalists ( A/RES/74/157 ).

Canada strongly believes that media freedom remains an important part of democratic societies and essential to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. People need free media to provide them with accurate information and informed analysis to hold governments to account.

What Canada is doing to support media freedom

Canada is playing an international leadership role on the issue of media freedom. We co-hosted the Global Conference for Media Freedom, in July 2019, in London, United Kingdom. We are applying the outcomes of this event and, in particular, the Global Pledge on Media Freedom. Governments that signed the pledge commit to working together through the newly created Media Freedom Coalition. The coalition launched on September 25, 2019, on the margins of the UN General Assembly. There are 42 signatories.

In June 2019, Canada launched updated guidelines to support human rights defenders around the world with specific guidance for journalists. In July 2019, Canada announced $1 million in funding to the new Global Media Defence Fund, administered by UNESCO. In November 2020, Canada announced an additional $1 million in funding to the Fund to help enhance media access to legal assistance.

Currently, Canada funds media freedom projects in the Middle East and Africa. These Canadian projects train journalists to accurately and responsibly report on human rights in their communities. The journalists work with local civil society and host governments. The projects encourage a better understanding that a free press promotes accountable governance, which effectively meets the needs of its citizens.

Canada is committed to making sure that its initiatives align with the UN Plan of Action and are consistent with its overall objective.

In November 2020, Canada and Botswana co-hosted the second Global Conference for Media Freedom. The online event featured the first Ministerial meeting of the Media Freedom Coalition,. The conference provided a forum to strengthen joint efforts in defending media freedom worldwide. It also provided a platform to connect with journalists, civil society and governments.

Current state of media freedom worldwide

Laws, punitive legal measures and physical violence are restricting journalists’ and media organizations’ vital work. There has been a significant decline in the environments that allow media professionals to do their work. These issues are especially critical in regions facing social, ethnic and political stress, armed conflicts or disaster situations.

Another outstanding issue is the large number of unresolved murders of journalists and the perpetrators going unpunished. According to the International Federation of Journalists, 60 journalists and media workers were killed in 2020. Non-lethal attacks also range from intimidation to harassment and arbitrary detention; misogynistic attacks are also common.

Journalism continues to evolve into the digital space, and there is a need to address new threats to media freedom. Digital security concerns have increased as lines blur between online and offline activity. There are also signs of organized disinformation campaigns, which can be led by state actors and third parties. Journalists and other media professionals are some of the main targets of digital attacks and abuse. Any discussion on media freedom must reflect the growing concerns over digital threats.

The Canada-U.K. Media Freedom Award was launched in 2020 to recognize individuals or organizations advocating for media freedom. It provides an opportunity to honour the less recognized grassroots organizations, campaign groups, lawyers and media outlets defending media freedom and fighting against impunity. The award is a way for Canada and the United Kingdom to show their support for the work of these individuals and organizations.

The winner of the 2020 Canada-U.K. Media Freedom Award was the Belarusian Association of Journalists for its ongoing commitment to journalistic ethics and principles and its perseverance and self-sacrifice in the face of increased targeted crackdowns on media in Belarus.

In the lead up to the second Global Conference for Media Freedom, Canada commissioned a set of independent policy papers on media freedom. The aim of these policy papers is to engage in a broader discussion with experts on challenges facing media freedom; stimulate debate and discussion on policy recommendations; and help inform the Media Freedom Coalition’s future work.

• Amplifying Voices, Protecting Lives: Addressing Systemic Racism in Media
• Freedom of the media and artificial intelligence
• Media Freedom and COVID-19
• Media independence and sustainability
• New Challenges for Media Freedom and Democracy
• Threats against journalists

In the lead up to the second Global Conference for Media Freedom, Canada carried out a number of regional consultations to engage directly with stakeholders and gather knowledge about media freedom challenges at the regional and sub-regional level.

• Latin America
• Middle East and North Africa
• Southeast Asia
• Sub Saharan Africa - Anglophone
• Sub Saharan Africa - Francophone
• 2023-05-03 - Media Freedom Coalition Statement: World Press Freedom Day
• 2023-05-01 - Canada and United Kingdom announce recipient of the 2023 Media Freedom Award
• 2023-04-12 - Media Freedom Coalition Executive Group Statement: Detention of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich
• 2022-12-01 - Media Freedom Coalition Statement on Iran
• 2022-11-02 - Media Freedom Coalition statement on International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists
• 2022-09-16 - Media Freedom Coalition Statement on the Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh
• 2022-07-04 - Media Freedom Coalition statement on Venezuela
• 2022-05-03 - Statement by Media Freedom Coalition on World Press Freedom Day
• 2022-03-10 - Media Freedom Coalition Statement on Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine and Assault on Media Freedom
• 2022-03-08 - International Women’s Day 2022: Media Freedom Coalition Statement
• 2022-02-09 - Global Conference for Media Freedom: Joint communiqué
• 2022-02-07 - Media Freedom Coalition statement on closure of media outlets in Hong Kong
• 2022-02-04 - Media Freedom Coalition statement on media freedom and safety of journalists in Myanmar
• 2021-11-02 - Media Freedom Coalition on International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists
• 2021-10-28 - Media Freedom Coalition Statement Concerning Media Freedom in Russia
• 2021-07-09 - Media Freedom Coalition statement on anniversary of inaugural Global Conference for Media Freedom
• 2021-07-09 - Media Freedom Coalition statement on closure of Apple Daily newspaper in Hong Kong
• 2021-05-28 - Media Freedom Coalition statement on arrest of Roman Protasevich
• 2021-02-05 - Media Freedom Coalition statement concerning media freedom in Belarus
• 2021-01-20 - Media Freedom Coalition statement concerning media freedom on China
• 2021-01-08 - Statement by the Media Freedom Coalition on the situation in Uganda
• 2020-11-13 - Media Freedom Coalition’s Executive Group statement on media freedom in Egypt
• 2020-11-02 - Statement by Media Freedom Coalition on International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists
• 2020-10-07 - Media Freedom Coalition’s Executive Group statement on Miroslava Breach case in Mexico
• 2020-09-24 - Media Freedom Coalition’s Executive Group statement concerning media freedom in Belarus
• 2020-07-10 - Canada and United Kingdom mark first anniversary of Global Conference for Media Freedom
• 2020-07-09 - Statement by Media Freedom Coalition on situation in the Philippines
• 2020-06-25 - Media Freedom Coalition’s Executive Group statement concerning media freedom in Yemen
• 2020-05-03 - Statement by the Media Freedom Coalition on World Press Freedom Day
• 2020-04-06 - Media Freedom Coalition Executive Group statement on COVID-19
• 2020-02-25 - Statement by the Media Freedom Coalition on its first meeting

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, please contact us .

Essay on Media Freedom

Over the last decade, media freedom has deteriorated globally, threatening the fundamental right to seek and distribute information through an independent press. This has a continuing negative impact on the state of democracy by limiting the democratic principle of transparency. By making various government operations available to the public for debate and scrutiny, free media helps to ensure transparency. This has not been the case in recent years, with attempts from all levels of government to infringe on this right. Populist leaders have attempted to stifle media freedom in a variety of ways, influencing the media to no longer provide unbiased news and information. Some of these attempts have included: public shaming of honest journalists’ moral standings, proactive support for friendly media outlets, governments taking over media houses, regulatory and financial pressure, all in an attempt to coerce them to comply on the type of information to report. Financial resilience crises in the media sector in South Africa have recently been exacerbated by the outbreak of the COVID19 pandemic; threats to the point of harassment against journalists by politicians and even the police; and job losses by journalists have all contributed significantly to recent key media freedom inhibitors.

During the recent Covid 19 pandemic, media freedom was put to the test by the coverage of the Covid vaccine rollout. Despite the government’s efforts to encourage its citizens to take the vaccines, the public has raised a number of concerns about them. As ethical journalists, the media must take a neutral stance in reporting on the roll out in order to provide accurate and unbiased information. There are important guidelines that should be followed by an ethical journalist when reporting on the issue.

All data gathered and reported should come from reputable sources. Any information used should come from well-informed sources who are well-versed in covid 19 and vaccines. For up-to-date information on any developments, this could include material from the World Health Organization or the country’s science media center.

As a journalist, you must be cautious not to blindly trust any data. One should be willing and ready to question stakeholders about any data collected, including raw data and research methods. This will aid in preventing the publication or reporting of doctored information, which would otherwise mislead the public.

Any data reported should be the result of extensive research. Preliminary data may not provide the required complete peer-reviewed report, resulting in misinformation. In the case of comprehensive reports or studies, they should be critically read to ensure comprehension of information and thus improve accuracy of reporting. The information reported should not be based solely on press releases, but rather on a deeper dive into the studies or research.

The benefits of the vaccine should also be clearly communicated in order to provide information to anyone who may have been interested in getting vaccinated. This should be supported by facts and figures on vaccine efficacy throughout history. Any potential side effects should also be specified. The demographics of trial participants should be included in the reporting to help people understand the efficacy of the vaccines across different populations.

Reid, J., Skinner, K. and Daniels, G., 2020. Media freedom in South Africa today: unravelling multifarious threats toward a research and advocacy response. Communicatio: South African Journal of Communication Theory and Research, 46(3), pp.1-19.

Repucci, S., 2019. Freedom and the media: A downward spiral. Freedom House. Available at https://freedomhouse. org/report/freedom-media/freedom-media-2019. Accessed, 12.

Repucci, S., 2019. Media freedom: a downward spiral. Pribavljeno, 20, p.2020.

WHO, 2020. Tips for professional reporting on COVID-19 vaccines.

Cite this page

Similar essay samples.

• Essay on Bullying in Schools
• Supply Chain Issues in the United Kingdom
• Hadools Cookies Business Plan
• Essay on Unemployment and the Lack of Economic Opportunity Due to Auto...
• Literature Review: ‘How Do Children Learn Geometry?’
• Essay on Nursing Informatics Project To Improve Patient-Care Efficienc...

Essay on Freedom of the Press for Students and Others in Simple language

Table of Contents

Freedom of The Press Essay: Freedom of the press or media is the belief system that communications to the public through the medium of print, television and, these days, internet should be free of oversight from the government. Different countries have different provisions to guarantee this right. Below you will find essays on freedom of the press and how it relates to India and its role and importance in a democracy. The essays vary in length and should prove useful for your exams. Feel free to select the essays as per your need.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Also Check: World Press Freedom Day 2024

Long and Short Essay on Freedom of the Press in English

We have provided below short and long essays on freedom of press in English. These freedom of press essays have been written in simple yet effective sentences to convey a fact based information.

After reading these freedom of press essays you will know what is freedom of press and what role does it plays in a democracy.

Also you will know how freedom of press is essential for keeping democracy safe and making the voice of people heard.

You can use these essays on Freedom of Press in your school or college competition where you have to write an essay, give a speech or take part in debate competitions.

Essay on Freedom of Press and Judiciary – Essay 1 (350 words)

Introduction

A free press and a free judiciary are two very important cornerstones of a democracy. Together, they are responsible for ensuring transparency and holding those in power accountable for their policies and actions. Although their actual functions are different, both institutions act as checks and balances for the government and, therefore, their roles are complementary.

Roles of Press and Judiciary

It is the responsibility of the media to bring forth news and facts that will shape public opinion and allow the citizens of a country to exercise their rights. The judiciary’s role is to protect those rights. Therefore, it becomes clear that in order to function efficiently, both the media and the judiciary must be independent of any outside influences that may attempt to skew information or legal decisions.

However, the roles of these two institutions do not end here. The judiciary is also responsible for protecting the freedom of the press. At the same time, the press is responsible for reporting facts and events in a manner that helps the judiciary make impartial legal decisions that can affect the course of a nation. While it is the media’s job to raise important issues and update the citizens of a country, it is the judiciary’s job to ensure that it can do so without interference.

The two systems also act as checks and balances for each other. The right to freedom of speech and expression isn’t absolute and it is up to the judiciary to decide when the press is being denied this right and when it cannot exercise this right. On the other hand, it is up to the media to ensure that the judiciary dispenses justice in a transparent and effective manner.

There are four pillars that support a working democracy – the executive, legislature, judiciary and press. Of these, the latter two are vital to the proper functioning of a democracy. Each must protect and reinforce the other in order for the power to remain in the hands of the people in a democracy.

Also Check: Speech on Freedom of Press

Essay on Freedom of Press in Democracy – Essay 2 (400 WORDS)

A democracy is a system wherein power is supposed to lie in the hands of the people. They may choose to exercise this power directly or to elect representatives from amongst their numbers. These representatives then form a governing body such as a parliament.

In order for a democracy to work, it needs to have four solid aspects – free and fair elections, protection of the people’s human rights, the participation of citizens and the rule of law applied equally to everyone. However, without the freedom of the press, all of this is moot.

Freedom of Press in Democracy

There can be no denying the fact that a democracy will only survive if there is freedom of the press or media. Since a democracy depends upon its citizens, these citizens must be well-informed so that they can make political decisions and elect their representatives appropriately. However, it is impossible or creates difficulty for every citizen to go searching for such information themselves.

This is where the press comes in. It falls upon the news media to collect, verify and disseminate the information that can help people make the decisions that allow a democracy to work. As such, the press becomes a powerful tool for the efficient functioning of a democratic government. By reporting verified facts, the press not only allows people to be knowledgeable about what is going on but also acts as a check on the government.

It becomes obvious, then, that the press must be free to do its job. It should not have to face censorship that hides crucial information from the public. The right to freedom of speech and expression also includes the right of the press to the same freedom. If members of the press are intimidated and harassed or are discredited without reason, the people lose the only tool they have to participate effectively in the running of their country.

Without freedom of the press, no government can be considered ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’. Unfortunately, the past few years have seen increasing curbs, direct or indirect, on the media and its ability to report. These curbs have come in the form of harassment, threats and intimidation and are having increasingly disastrous consequences for the dissemination of unbiased information. Unless this trend is reversed, we may see some of the most powerful democracies in the world collapsing soon.

Essay on Importance of Freedom of Press and Media – Essay 3 (450 words)

It has been said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. The institution that maintains that vigil is the press or the media. In other words, if the people are to be free, it is the job of the media to ensure that it keeps a watch on those in power in whose hands the freedom lies. In order to do so, press that is free of any outside influences or influencers is absolutely vital.

Importance of Freedom of Press

The press has a responsibility to act as check and balance for the administration and the government. It is the press that raises its voice against social ills, malpractices, corruption and oppression. It is also the press that gathers, verifies and distributes events, facts and information that allow the people of a country to make sound judgments.

However, none of this is possible if the press itself is silenced or if its voice is only allowed when those in power permit. The information that comes from the press at such a time becomes suspect. Worse yet, the press may not be allowed to report news or express opinions that run contrary to what the people in power want. This means a citizenry that is woefully uninformed and, therefore, powerless.

This is not mere speculation. Time and time again, recent history has proven that censorship of the press is one of the most common features of a dictatorship. The censorship may not even be direct or obvious at first. A government may often start by discrediting the news media and what is being reported. It may stridently reinforce the notion that the media cannot be trusted by undermining the news and facts that media presents to the public.

This is when the media begins to exercise self-censorship to avoid outrage manufactured by the government. As time passes, this self-censorship may become more ingrained or such distrust for the news media may develop among the people that they call for the government to intervene. Of course, once the media is muzzled, there is no one to report truths. In the absence of those truths, the citizenry has no power to affect the necessary changes and the government reigns supreme.

No right is absolute. This is true even for the right to freedom of speech or expression. However, the right does exist and as long as it does, the power lies in the hands of the people. Since the freedom of the press also falls under this right, it is clear that the press is the tool that indirectly protects all other rights that a people may enjoy. Curbing the freedom of the press is, thus, curbing the freedom of the people.

Essay on Freedom of Press and Social Responsibility – Essay 4 (500 words)

Social responsibility is the obligation to guide one’s actions on the basis of the effect the actions will have on society, economy, culture and environment. What this means is that everyone has a responsibility to express themselves in a way that doesn’t harm the social, economic, cultural and environmental aspects of the world we live in.

Social Responsibility and Freedom of the Press

The press has a powerful role to play in any setting. It disseminates information and expresses opinions that guide and shape the public’s opinion and stances. Nowhere can this be seen better than in the reporting done in the 20 th and 21 st centuries across the globe. This is the time that reporting of facts became widespread and print media came into its own.

The theory of social responsibility of the press lies between total authoritarianism and libertarianism. As per the theory, a free press should be allowed without any censorship but the content should be self-regulated and open to discussion in public panels. It helps establish guidelines for professionalism in reporting and insists upon high standards of quality in terms of truth, accuracy and information.

The fact is that media without any fetters can be dangerous. It can report anything, twist any facts or even present outright lies in order to maintain its influence. It can be manipulated quite easily and, in turn, can manipulate the very public opinion it is supposed to shape. Responsible journalism doesn’t only mean reporting facts. It also means placing those facts in context and, under certain circumstances, even refraining from reporting facts or expressing opinions that can cause harm.

Specific Example

The perfect example of this situation is the Mumbai attacks on November 26. When the Rapid Action Force, Marine Commandos and National Security Guard surrounded the Taj Hotel and the Oberoi Trident, 67 channels were on hand to broadcast live the proceedings. Thanks to minute-by-minute updates, the terrorists knew exactly what was going on outside and were able to plan their defence accordingly. The job of the commandos became infinitely more difficult as they tried to subdue the terrorists and rescue hostages.

After the event, the Supreme Court ruled that the media had been extremely irresponsible and endangered the lives of not only the rescue teams but also the hostages. In their bid to increase their ratings, various TV channels cast aside all common sense and carelessly and ceaselessly released updates that helped the terrorists while hindering security forces. While freedom of expression is a right, it isn’t without its limitations and during those fateful days, the news media flagrantly violated those limitations for revenue.

There can be no doubt that a strong and free press is crucial to the functioning of any democracy. However, like any other right, the right to freedom of expression must be exercised with caution lest it does more harm than good. Unfortunately, news media depends on ratings to generate revenue and has demonstrated time and again that it will cross many moral lines to get both. In order to be truly effective, the press needs to remember that it has a responsibility to its audience and to society as a whole to be rational and conscientious in its reporting.

Essay on Freedom of the Press/Media in India – Essay 5 (650 words)

The belief that expressions and communiqués through various media such as print, television and the internet are a right to be exercised freely without government intervention is known as freedom of the press and media. This freedom is considered one of the cornerstones of democracy. In order to keep checks and balances on the government and its activities, the public must be adequately informed. This information is supposed to be dispensed by the press.

History of the Press in India

The Indian press is deeply rooted in Indian history and had its beginnings under the aegis of the British Raj. During the Indian struggle for freedom, various acts were enacted by the British government to censor press coverage of parties such as the Congress which were in the forefront of the independence movement. These acts included the Indian Press Act (1910), Indian Press (Emergency) Act (1931-32) and the Defence of India Act during the Second World War (1939-1945).

Freedom of the Press/Media in India

With the advent of independence, Indian leaders laid out the Constitution of India which guaranteed certain rights to all its citizens as part of being a democracy. While there is no specific Act in the constitution regarding the freedom of the press, Article 19 (1) a guarantees the right of freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. The freedom of the press is deemed to be part of this right. Ideally, this means that the communiqués and expressions in various media cannot be censored by the government.

However, there are limitations to this freedom – limitations that apply to both private citizens and member of the press. The limitations are listed in Article 19 (2) and restrict freedom of speech and expression if said freedom interferes with the following:

• Security of the State
• Sovereignty and Integrity of India
• Public Order
• Friendly Relations with Foreign States
• Contempt of Court
• Decency or Morality

The offence of sedition as laid out in Article 124A is also something that can be used to curb the freedom of the media. The article states ‘Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which a fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.’

However, this isn’t absolute as laid out in Explanation 3 which states ‘Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.’

Current Position

Although India is considered the largest democracy in the world, the freedom of the press is declining in the country. As per the World Press Freedom Index of 2018, India holds a position of 138 out of 180. This has slipped down two points from 136 in 2017. The highest position the country achieved was in 2002 when it was ranked at 80. Since then there has been an alarming decline. Reporter without Borders, the organization that releases the index, cites growing intolerance and the murders of journalists as the reasons behind this decline.

As the world’s largest democracy, India has a duty to ensure that the press has the right to disseminate information and express opinions without excessive censorship. Unfortunately, in recent years, this right has been increasingly curbed. This oppression of the press is an alarming trend as it does not allow for proper checks and balances on the government and its activities. The Indian people need to remember that in order to have a strong democracy they need a strong and free press.

Related Information:

• Essay on India
• Essay on Democracy in India
• Essay on Fundamental Rights
• Essay on Freedom of Speech
• Essay on Nationalism
• Essay on Newspaper
• Slogans on Newspaper
• Speech on Newspaper
• Essay on Social Media

Related content

Talk to our academic expert!

Language --- English Hindi Marathi Tamil Telugu Malayalam

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

UK court to rule on Julian Assange extradition appeal: What could happen?

If the High Court agrees to the extradition, only Europe’s human rights court could block Assange’s transfer to the US.

WikiLeaks’s founder Julian Assange is set to attend a crucial court hearing in London on Monday which could mark a pivotal moment in his years-long legal battle to avoid extradition to the United States.

London’s High Court is expected to rule on whether it accepts US assurances that Assange, 52, will be given a fair trial and will not face the death penalty, and therefore can safely extradite him to the US. The ruling could pave the way for Assange to be transferred across the Atlantic to face 18 charges – all except one under the Espionage Act – over Wikileaks’s release of thousands of confidential US military records and diplomatic cables.

Keep reading

The pentagon papers, julian assange and the right to know, the trials of julian assange: a death sentence for democracy, media heroes and traitors – assange vs navalny.

These include secret US military reports about the Afghanistan and Iraq wars released in 2010. WikiLeaks also published a US military video showing what it described as the “indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people”, including two Reuters news staff, by Apache helicopters in Iraq’s capital, Baghdad.

The US said the release of confidential documents had imperilled the lives of its agents. The upcoming hearing could take the US a step closer to prosecuting the biggest security breach in its military history, setting a precedent that may have ripple effects for global media freedom .

What assurances had the UK court sought from the US?

The British court sought two sets of assurances from the US in order to decide whether the extradition is lawful under domestic and international law.

In 2021, it asked the Joe Biden administration to provide diplomatic assurances that Assange would not be held in a maximum security prison or subject to “Special Administrative Measures”, which allow the US government to restrict a prisoner’s contact with the outside world. Critics claim these measures can result in people being held in solitary confinement for extensive periods of time.

During the court’s last hearing in March, it gave the US three weeks to provide guarantees that Assange, who was born in Australia, would be entitled to seek a First Amendment right to free speech in a US trial and that there would be no prospect for new charges carrying the death penalty.

The US responded to both requests with written assurances, paving the way for the decisive extradition hearing to take place on May 20.

How reliable are US assurances?

Critics say US assurances are not reliable because they contain caveats. Julia Hall, Amnesty International’s expert on counterterrorism and criminal justice in Europe, said they were “inherently unreliable because the US government gives itself an out”.

In court documents made public in July 2021, the US made written assurances to the United Kingdom that Assange would not immediately be detained in a maximum security prison but reserved the right to do so based on his conduct. “The way the US government has treated Assange thus far indicates pretty strongly that they’d find something that he would do that allegedly requires them to put him in a maximum security prison,” Hall told Al Jazeera.

Similarly, the more recent set of assurances issued on April 16 stated Assange would have the ability to raise and rely upon the First Amendment during trial, but included the caveat that a decision on its applicability would be “exclusively within the purview of the US courts”.

“What this is saying is that whether or not he will be able to argue a freedom of expression defence will be left up to the court,” Hall said. “So again, this is a non-assurance.”

Assange’s wife, Stella, who is also a human rights lawyer, said the guarantees were “blatant weasel words”. “The diplomatic note does nothing to relieve our family’s extreme distress about his future, his grim expectation of spending the rest of his life in isolation in US prison for publishing award-winning journalism,” she said.

What could London’s High Court decide?

London’s High Court could rule that the assurances provided by the US are sufficient and agree to the request for extradition.

Alternatively, the UK court could deem the US assurances not satisfactory and grant Assange permission to launch an appeal against extradition.

In a written decision on March 26, British judges found Assange had a “real prospect of success” in fighting extradition on three of the grounds on which he was seeking to appeal. They said such an appeal may not go ahead in the UK, however, if the US government provided “satisfactory assurances” addressing them.

What could the court’s decision mean for Assange?

If the High Court in London refuses US assurances on Monday, his appeal on these three grounds identified by the High Court judges can go forward.

If the court accepts the US assurances, however, Assange can be extradited to the US. His only remaining option would then be to appeal against extradition at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The Strasbourg-based court could decide to issue interim measures, or an injunction against sending Assange to the US, until it can decide whether the UK government is complying with its obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights by deciding to extradite Assange.

The ECHR’s interim measures would prevent immediate extradition, allowing Assange to remain in the UK until the European court reaches a decision. This process can take several years but the court has powers to expedite the proceedings if it believes a person is kept in harsh prison conditions. It is unclear whether UK authorities would continue to detain Assange at the Belmarsh maximum security prison for the duration of the dispute, or whether he would be bailed.

Should the ECHR decide against ordering interim measures, Assange would be extradited and face charges in the US.

What are the implications of the High Court ruling for press freedom?

Human rights observers and organisations say that if the court decides to extradite Assange, this would establish a dangerous precedent and have a chilling effect on freedom of speech for publishers and journalists around the world.

“It’s not just Julian Assange in the dock,” Hall said. “Silence Assange and others will be gagged.”

US authorities, however, say Assange is not being prosecuted for the publication of the leaked materials but for the criminal act of conspiring to unlawfully obtain them and hacking.

The case lays bare the tension between the US Espionage Act – which criminalises a wide range of activities that critics say may bear little resemblance to classic espionage and which does not take account of a defendant’s motives – and the First Amendment, which protects those who publish classified information without government authorisation.

In an expert testimony submitted to the UK court in 2020, Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said the case crossed “a new legal frontier”.

“The government’s use of the Espionage Act against government insiders who supply classified information to the press poses a serious threat to the ability of the press to inform the public about matters relating to war and security,” Jaffer said.

“Against this background, I believe that the indictment of Mr Assange must be understood as a deliberate effort… to deter journalism that is vital to American democracy. The government’s successful prosecution of him would certainly have this effect.”