Skip to main content

Upholding Digital Rights and Media Plurality: Does Self-regulation by Social Media Platforms Contravene Freedom of Expression?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Media Misinformation

Abstract

This chapter questions whether the big tech giants, such as Facebook and Twitter, are breaching freedom of expression by regulating and blocking content on their platforms. Does this amount to self-regulatory censorship by enforcing their own rules and ‘by-laws’ on their users? Are they right to ban the promotion of self-harm, suicide, bullying and incitement to racial hatred? The Facebook Oversight Board is assessed and the meaning of media plurality is explored as well as re-examining fake news and disinformation on social media platforms. Legislative steps taken by the EU Commission and the UK Government in relation to ‘online harms and safety’ end the discussion, asking whether it is possible to legislate the internet or whether the big social media tech giants should self-regulate content on their platforms?

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Source: ‘In Response to Oversight Board, Trump Suspended for Two Years; Will Only Be Reinstated if Conditions Permit’, by Nick Clegg, VP of Global Affairs June 4, 2021: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/06/facebook-response-to-oversight-board-recommendations-trump/

  2. 2.

    FB-S6NRTDAJ Case decision 2021-002-FB-UA Zwarte Piet (originally in Dutch) of April 2021: https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-S6NRTDAJ

  3. 3.

    Facebook’s Oversight Board cases can be read here: https://transparency.fb.com/oversight/oversight-board-cases/

  4. 4.

    Facebook Community Standards: https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/

  5. 5.

    See: Facebook’s Commitment to the Oversight Board by Mark Zuckerberg, 17 September 2019: https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/letter-from-mark-zuckerberg-on-oversight-board-charter.pdf

  6. 6.

    See: Facebook’s Oversight Board Bylaws: https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Bylaws_v6.pdf

  7. 7.

    Source: ‘Inside the Making of Facebook’s Supreme Court. The company has created a board that can overrule even Mark Zuckerberg. Soon it will decide whether to allow Trump back on Facebook,’ by Kate Klonick, The New Yorker, 12 February 2021.

  8. 8.

    Marengo, D., Sindermann C., Elhai J.D. and Montag, C. (2020) ‘One Social Media Company to Rule Them All: Associations Between Use of Facebook-Owned Social Media Platforms, Sociodemographic Characteristics, and the Big Five Personality Traits’. Front. Psychol. 11:936. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00936: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00936/full

  9. 9.

    Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v Italy (Application No 38433/09), [2012] ECHR 974 (ECtHR). Grand Chamber judgment of 7 June 2012. The applicants were Centro Europa 7 S.R.L., an Italian analog TV company based in Rome, and Francescantonio Di Stefano, its statutory representative.

  10. 10.

    Ibid. at para. 129 (Françoise Tulkens, President, Grand Chamber, ECtHR).

  11. 11.

    Ibid. at paras 214–227.

  12. 12.

    Reno v American Civil Liberties Union (1997) 521 U.S. 844 (US Supreme Court).

  13. 13.

    Lunney (Alexander G.) & c. v Prodigy Services Company et al. (1999) 99 NY Int 0165.

  14. 14.

    [2001] QB 201.

  15. 15.

    [2010] EWHC 616 (QB).

  16. 16.

    [2012] EWHC 449 (QB).

  17. 17.

    Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2001] QB 967; [2001] 2 WLR 992.

  18. 18.

    Campbell (Naomi) v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457, [2004] UKHL 22.

  19. 19.

    Mosley (Max) v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB).

  20. 20.

    von Hannover v Germany (No 1) (2005) 40 EHRR 1 (Application no 59320/00), [2004] EMLR 21 (ECtHR).

  21. 21.

    von Hannover v Germany (No 2) [2012] ECHR 228; (2012) (Application Numbers – 40,660/08, 60,641/08) Judgment of 7 February 2012; Axel Springer v Germany (2012) (Application No 39954/08) Judgment of 7 February 2012 (ECtHR (Grand Chamber) (ECtHR).

References

  • House of Commons. (2019, April). Department of culture, digital media and sport ‘online harms white paper’. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport and the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty. CP 57.

    Google Scholar 

Legislation

  • Communications Decency Act of 1996 47 U.S.C. (USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Digital Economy Act 2017 (c. 30).

    Google Scholar 

  • Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002. Implement in UK law by the provisions of Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council dated 8 June 2000 relating to electronic commerce (E-Commerce Directive).

    Google Scholar 

Cases

  • Budu v BBC [2010] EWHC 616 (QB).

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell (Naomi) v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457, [2004] UKHL 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v Italy (Application No 38433/09), [2012] ECHR 974 (ECtHR).

    Google Scholar 

  • Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd, Maximillian Schrems. Intervening parties: The United States of America, Electronic Privacy Information Centre, BSA Business Software Alliance Inc., Digitaleurope (Case C-311/18) Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) 16 July 2020 (CJEU) (‘Schrems II’).

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey v Demon Internet [2001] QB 201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunney (Alexander G.) & c. v Prodigy Services Company et al. (1999) 99 NY Int 0165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosley (Max) v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB).

    Google Scholar 

  • Privacy International (Joined Cases C-623/17 and C-511/18); La Quadrature du Net and Others (C-512/18), French Data Network and Others, (C-520/18), Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others. CJEU (Grand Chamber) 6 October 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reno, Attorney General of the United States et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al. (No. 96-511), 521 U.S. 844, decided June 26. 1997. United States Supreme Court. On appeal from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrems (Maximilian) v Facebook Ireland Limited (2016) (Case C-498/16). Decision by the CJEU (Third Chamber). 19 September 2016 (‘Schrems I’).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrems (Maximilian) v Data Protection Commissioner (2015) (Case C-362/14) [2015] All ER 34 (CJEU) Luxembourg, 6 October 2015 (‘Schrems I’).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrems (Maximilian) v Data Protection Commissioner (2014) (Case C-362/14) High Court of Ireland 25 July 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamiz v Google inc. [2012] EWHC 449 (QB).

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hannover v Germany (No 1) (2005) 40 EHRR 1 (Application no 59320/00), [2004] EMLR 21 (ECtHR).

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hannover v Germany (No 2) [2012] ECHR 228; (2012) (Application Numbers – 40660/08, 60641/08) (unreported) Judgment of 7 February 2012 (sub nom von Hannover No 2), Axel Springer v Germany (2012) (Application No 39954/08) Judgment of 7 February 2012 (ECtHR (Grand Chamber) (ECtHR).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ursula Smartt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix 1: The Facebook Oversight Board Members (2021)

Appendix 1: The Facebook Oversight Board Members (2021)

  • Catalina Botero-Marino, a Colombian attorney who was the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States from 2008 to 2014. Presently Dean of the Universidad de los Andes Faculty of Law.

  • Jamal Greene, a Columbia law professor whose scholarship focuses on constitutional rights adjudication and the structure of the legal and constitutional argument. Greene was a law clerk for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

  • Michael McConnell, a constitutional law professor at Stanford Law School, was a U.S. federal circuit judge appointed by President George W. Bush, once a possible U.S. Supreme Court nominee. McConnell is an expert on religious freedom and is a Supreme Court advocate who has previously represented clients in First Amendment cases.

  • Helle Thorning-Schmidt was the first woman prime minister of Denmark. Thorning-Schmidt is a Social Democrat who led a coalition government from 2011 to 2015 and later served as chief executive of the charity organisation, Save the Children International.

  • Afia Asantewaa Asare-Kyei, a dual citizen of Ghana and South Africa, is a human rights advocate focusing on women’s rights, media freedom and access to information issues across Africa at the Open Society Initiative for West Africa.

  • Evelyn Aswad, a University of Oklahoma law professor, was a senior U.S. State Department lawyer. Aswad specialises in the application of international human rights standards to content moderation issues.

  • Endy Bayuni, an Indonesian journalist who twice served as the editor-in-chief of the Jakarta Post, involved with media advocacy organisations.

  • Katherine Chen, a former national communications regulator in Taiwan. Chen is a professor in public relations and statistics at Taiwan’s National Chengchi University. Her research focuses on social media, mobile news and privacy.

  • Nighat Dad, a Pakistani lawyer and internet activist who runs the Digital Rights Foundation, a non-profit organisation focused on cyber harassment, data protection and free speech online in Pakistan and South Asia.

  • Suzanne Nossel, CEO at PEN America, a non-profit organisation. Nossel was previously Chief Operating Officer of Human Rights Watch, an executive director of Amnesty International USA. Nossel has also held roles in the administrations of former U.S. Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.

  • Tawakkol Karman, a Yemeni human rights activist and journalist who became the first Arab woman to win a Nobel Peace Prize in 2011 for her nonviolent push for change during the Arab Spring.

  • Maina Kiai, a Kenyan lawyer and human rights activist who is director of Human Rights Watch’s Global Alliances and Partnerships Program. Kiai also served as the United Nations special rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association from 2011 to 2017.

  • Sudhir Krishnaswamy, the vice chancellor of the National Law School of India University, a civil society activist and an expert on constitutional law in India.

  • Ronaldo Lemos is a Brazilian academic and lawyer who co-created a national internet rights law in Brazil and co-founded a non-profit focused on technology and policy issues. Lemos teaches law at the Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.

  • Julie Owono, a lawyer and the executive director of Internet Sans Frontières, a digital rights organisation based in France. Owono campaigns against internet censorship in Africa and around the world.

  • Emi Palmor, a former director-general of the Israeli Ministry of Justice who led initiatives to address racial discrimination and advance access to justice via digital services and platforms.

  • Alan Rusbridger, a British journalist who was the editor-in-chief of the Guardian newspaper. Rusbridger is principal of Lady Margaret Hall, an Oxford College.

  • Andras Sajo, a Hungarian legal academic and former judge at the European Court of Human Rights. Sajo is an expert in comparative constitutionalism and was involved in the drafting of the Ukrainian, Georgian and South African constitutions.

  • John Samples is a vice president at the Cato Institute, a U.S. libertarian think tank. Samples advocates against restrictions on online expression and writes on social media and speech regulation.

  • Nicolas Suzor, an associate law professor at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia who studies the governance of social networks and the regulation of automated systems

  • For current members see: https://www.oversightboard.com/meet-the-board/

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Smartt, U. (2023). Upholding Digital Rights and Media Plurality: Does Self-regulation by Social Media Platforms Contravene Freedom of Expression?. In: Fowler-Watt, K., McDougall, J. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Media Misinformation. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11976-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics