Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

International Experience of Legal Regulation of Freedom of Speech in the Global Information Society

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The article presents the results of the analysis of international legal regulation of the protection of freedom of speech, the right to freedom of expression within the UN and the Council of Europe. A comparative analysis of the definition of the right to express views and beliefs in various international legal acts was made. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights in cases related to the exercise of the right to express one's views and beliefs on the Internet was considered. The analysis of the legislation of foreign countries regulating the right to express views and beliefs online was carried out. The materials of the article are of practical value for scientists and practitioners dealing with the issues of legal regulation of freedom of speech, the right to express views and beliefs, for forecasting and planning scientific research, improving legislation, for higher education teachers in educational activities, as well as for all interested persons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yarmol, L.V. 2020. Concepts, meanings, types of views and ideas of man (theoretical and legal research). State and Regions. Series: Law 4 (58): 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Titko, E.B. 2011. Standards and understanding of the right to freedom of expression in Ukraine. Journal of Kyiv University of Law 4: 393–397.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Vashchenko, A.V. 2014. Freedom of expression on the internet: Pro et contra. Law and Innovation 3 (7): 49–54.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Yurinets, Y.L. 2011. Correlation between freedom of expression and protection of public morality in the legislation of Ukraine in the context of the European legal tradition. European Studies and Law 1 (3): 22–36.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Turuta, O. 2012. Internet and the right to freedom of speech (comparative legal aspect). Public Law 4 (8): 31–37.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Schulz, W. 2018. Regulating intermediaries to protect privacy online—The case of the german NetzDG (Discussion paper no. 2018–01) Berlin: Alexander von Humboldt institut für internet und gesellschaft. Retrieved from: https://www.hiig.de/publication/regulating-intermediaries-to-protect-privacy-online-the-case-of-the-german-netzdg/.

  7. Klonick, K. 2018. The new governors: The people, rules, and processes governing online speech. Harvard Law Review 131 (6): 1598–1670.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Guggenberger, N. 2017. The network enforcement act–well thought out, badly done. Legal Policy Journal 4: 98–101.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Heldt, A. 2019. Reading between the lines and the numbers: An analysis of the first NetzDG reports. Internet Policy Review. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Horowitz, J. 2021. The first amendment, censorship, and private companies: What does "free speech" really mean? Retrieved from: https://www.carnegielibrary.org/the-first-amendment-and-censorship/.

  11. Brannon, V. C. 2019. CRS report prepared for members and committees of congress. Retrieved from: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45650/2.

  12. Shigenori, M. 2021. Hate speech in Japan: The possibility of a non-regulatory approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jitsuhara, T. 2017. Guarantee of the right to freedom of speech in Japan—A comparison with doctrines in Germany. In Contemporary issues in human rights law, 169–191. Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Human Rights Committee. 2011. 102nd Session Geneva general comment no. 34. Retrieved from: https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.

  15. United Nations. 1948. The universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

  16. United Nations. 1966. International covenant on civil and political rights. Retrieved from: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx.

  17. UN Human Rights Council. 2016. Resolution A/HRC/32/L.20 on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the internet. Retrieved from: https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adopted

  18. Council of Europe. 2003. Additional protocol to the convention on cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems. Retrieved from: https://rm.coe.int/168008160f.

  19. Supreme Council of Ukraine. 1950. Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004#Text.

  20. K.U. v. Finland. 2008. Council of Europe. Retrieved from: https://www.juridice.ro/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/K.U.-v.-FINLAND-en.

  21. Yıldırım v. Turkey. 2012. Retrieved from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=002-7328

  22. Handyside v. the United Kingdom. 1976. Retrieved from: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1976/5.html.

  23. Editorial Board "Right Cause" and Shtykel v. Ukraine. 2011. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_807#Text.

  24. Stoll v. Switzerland. 2007. Council of Europe. Retrieved from: http://www.echr.ru/documents/doc/new2009/Shtoll_v_Shveyc.htm.

  25. Kachur, V., L. Protosavitska, L. Zasukha, and L. Golovko. 2020. The role of legal culture in maintaining social stability and countering separatist movements: Case of Ukraine. European Journal of sustainable development 9 (1): 294–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Buturuga v. Romania. 2020. European court of human rights. Retrieved from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-201342

  27. Golovko, L., O. Uliutina, I. Davydovych, and O. Ilina. 2021. Legal regulation of combating domestic violence in Eastern Europe. European Journal of Sustainable Development 10 (3): 253–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yara, O., A. Brazheyev, L. Golovko, and V. Bashkatova. 2021. Legal regulation of the use of artificial intelligence: Problems and development prospects. European Journal of Sustainable Development 10 (1): 281–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Paniouglu v. Romania. 2020. European court of human rights. Retrieved from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-206352

  30. Germany's Network Enforcement Act and its Impact on Social Networks. 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.taylorwessing.com/download/article-germany-nfa-impact-social.html.

  31. Pinkus, B.M. 2021. The limits of free speech in social media. Retrieved from: https://accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/limits-free-speech-social-media.

  32. Knight First Amendment Institute v. Donald J.Trump. 2019. Columbia university. Retrieved from: https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/knight-first-amendment-institute-v-donald-j-trump-2/.

  33. Holland A., Bavitz C., Hermes J., Sellars A., Budish R., Lambert M., and Decoster N. 2021. Good practices in online intermediary liability regimes. Retrieved from: https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/Online_Intermediaries_Research_Project_Good_Practice_Document.html.

  34. Wakabayashi, D. 2020. Legal shield for social media is targeted by lawmakers. The New York times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/business/section-230-internet-speech.html.

  35. Sableman, M. 2013. ISPs and content liability: The original Internet law twist. https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/blogs/internet-law-twists-turns/post/2013-07-09/isps-and-content-liability-the-original-internet-law-twist.

  36. Constitution of Japan. 1946. Retrieved from: https://japan.kantei.go.jp/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html.

  37. Cabinet Secretariat. 2021. Overview of the act on the protection of specially designated secrets (SDS). Retrieved from: https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/tokuteihimitsu/gaiyou_en.

  38. Freedom on the Net. 2016. Japan. Freedom house. Retrieved from: https://freedomhouse.org/country/japan/freedom-net/2016.

  39. Chambers and Partners Website. 2021. Copyright 2021. Retrieved from: https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/copyright-2021/japan/trends-and-developments.

  40. Freedom on the Net. 2020. Japan. Freedom house. Retrieved from: https://freedomhouse.org/country/japan/freedom-net/2020.

  41. Penal Code of Japan. 1907. Retrieved from: http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail_main?re=&vm=2&id=1960.

  42. Moynihan, H. and Patel, C. 2021. Restrictions on online freedom of expression in China. The domestic, regional and international implications of China’s policies and practices. Retrieved from: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/2021-03-17-restrictions-online-freedom-expression-china-moynihan-patel.

  43. Provisions on the Governance of the Online Information Content Ecosystem. 2020. Retrieved from: https://wilmap.stanford.edu/entries/provisions-governance-online-information-content-ecosystem.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Private and Public Law, Institute of Law and Modern Technologies, Kyiv National University of Technologies and Design, 2 Nemyrovycha-Danchenka Str, Kiev, 01011, Ukraine

    Yuriy Onishchyk

  2. Department of International Law and Comparative Law, National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, 15 Geroiv Oboroni Str, Kiev, 03041, Ukraine

    Liudmyla L. Golovko

  3. Department of Public Administration and Management, Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas, 15 Karpatska St, Ivano-Frankivsk, 76019, Ukraine

    Vasyl I. Ostapiak

  4. Department of Theory of Law and Constitutionalism, Institute of Jurisprudence, Psychology and Innovative Education, Lviv Polytechnic National University, 12 Bandera Str, Lviv, 79013, Ukraine

    Oleksandra V. Belichenko

  5. Department of Constitutional Law and Human Rights, National Academy of Internal Affairs, 1 Solomjanska Square, Kiev, 03035, Ukraine

    Yurii O. Ulianchenko

Authors
  1. Yuriy Onishchyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liudmyla L. Golovko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vasyl I. Ostapiak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oleksandra V. Belichenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yurii O. Ulianchenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuriy Onishchyk.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Onishchyk, Y., Golovko, L.L., Ostapiak, V.I. et al. International Experience of Legal Regulation of Freedom of Speech in the Global Information Society. Int J Semiot Law 36, 1325–1339 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10007-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10007-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation