Pandemics and infodemics: How COVID-19 is reshaping content regulation

The debate about tackling online misinformation and disinformation is not unique to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the health crisis has elevated the danger of misleading information circulated on social media. Labelled as 'infodemic', the problem of COVID-19-related misinformation and disinformation prompted governments and social media platforms around the globe to impose various speech restrictions. The public and private policy frameworks aiming to curb the spread of the infodemic were adopted in a state of emergency and without proper scrutiny. Yet, they are shaping the future of content regulation, possibly affecting freedom of speech and other democratic values for years to come. This chapter looks at the key problematic aspects of actions taken by governments and social media platforms to address COVID-19-related misinformation and disinformation and discusses the possible long-term effects of these measures. © 2023 the authors.

The Impact of the Pandemic on the Greek Constitution

This chapter discusses the main legal problems Greece faced during the various phases of the COVID-19 crisis. The impact of the pandemic on the protection of civil rights seems to be lasting and nefarious. Fundamental rights were subject to unprecedented restrictions for the sake of public health, without any effective judicial protection. Free movement, the right of assembly, religious liberty, freedom of speech, economic liberty, and ultimately personal autonomy limited by compulsory vaccination, were regulated exhaustively by detailed and intrusive administrative rules and prohibitions. Moreover, the pandemic put under great pressure the existing framework for the constitutional protection of fundamental rights where the principle of proportionality is the cornerstone of judicial review. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022.

A Policy Perspective on Regulating Disinformation in Romania during the Covid-19 Pandemic

Romania is one of the countries that adopted temporary sanctions against disinformation during the state of emergency, which lasted between March 16 and May 14, 2020. The scope of this paper is to analyze the decisions adopted by the National Authority for Administration and Regulation of Communications, which was the institution responsible for regulating the spread of fake news on the internet. We analyzed the motivation to block access to false information and the type of news classified as disinformation. In addition, we analyzed decisions adopted by the National Council of Audio‐visual starting with the end of February 2020, both in terms of recommendations and the sanctions imposed on audio‐visual channels of communication, as well as the decisions to sanction noncompliance with the correct information of the audience. The findings show a limited effect in containing disinformation. Access to a limited number of websites was blocked and after the state of emergency was lifted, access was granted again. Removing access to a website did not stop the authors from continuing their activity by opening a new website. The lack of a definition of false information allowed discretion power in blocking access to news containing information that later proved to be correct. The activity of audio‐visual channels was regulated instead through soft legislation, such as recommendations and instructions, as well as through sanctions. Overall the analysis shows temporary and limited effects of the legislation sanctioning disinformation in Romania. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration & Policy is the property of Sciendo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Raise Your Voice!? German Artists' Protest Campaign #allesdichtmachen and the Question of Freedom of Expression During the Pandemic

Both the Covid-19 pandemic as well as the political and social discussions it forced upon liberal Western democracies on limitations of fundamental rights provide me with the framework for this paper's topic. I will address it through the question of how German artists – in this case mostly TV actors – with the social Media campaign #allesdichtmachen drew attention to their situation in times of widespread lockdown and contact restrictions in spring 2021. The question will be whether the constraints of free expression felt by these artists, or the public reactions to their voicing a sense of being unheard, can be captured by the vocabulary of censorship in the narrower or broader sense. © 2023, Grotowski Institute in Wroclaw. All rights reserved.

Lockdown of expression: civic space restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic as a response to mass protests

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments across the globe implemented severe restrictions of civic freedoms to contain the spread of the virus. The global health emergency posed the risk of governments seizing the pandemic as a window of opportunity to curb (potential) challenges to their power, thereby reinforcing the ongoing, worldwide trend of shrinking civic spaces. In this article, we investigate whether and how governments used the pandemic as a justification to impose restrictions of freedom of expression. Drawing on the scholarship on the causes of civic space restrictions, we argue that governments responded to COVID-19 by curtailing the freedom of expression when they had faced significant contentious political challenges before the pandemic. Our results from a quantitative analysis indeed show that countries who experienced high levels of pro-democracy mobilization before the onset of the pandemic were more likely to see restrictions of the freedom of expression relative to countries with no or low levels of mobilization. Additional three brief case studies (Algeria, Bolivia and India) illustrate the process of how pre-pandemic mass protests fostered the im-position of restrictions on the freedom of expression during the pandemic. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

The Limitation of Freedom of Expression by State as a Crime during Pandemic Covid-19 in Indonesia

Freedom of expression (FE) is a pillar of a democratic society. Various democratic nations promote freedom of expression (FOE) to increase self-reliance and self-assurance among individuals by affording them diverse possibilities to share their thoughts. Hence, continual technological advancement has led to the use of various social media platforms to express one's ideas and opinions. Thus, during global crises, FOE is typically constrained in light of public interests. During the covid-19 epidemic, for instance, many governments implemented restrictions on FOE to avoid disseminating false information about covid-19, which could influence public views and lead to public uproar. Indonesia has similarly criminalized FOE. As a result, numerous human rights advocates and journalists have been assaulted for expressing their opinions in public, which may harm society. These laws are press and media constraints on freedom of expression. Thus, the Indonesian government rationalized these actions as national and regional laws violations. To justify restrictions on FOE, the Indonesian government highlighted common interests, such as public health and public order. The primary objective of this study was to legitimize the state's restrictions on freedom of expression as a criminal during the covid-19 pandemic in Indonesia. The present study employed a justificatory technique within the context of legal and normative regulations for this goal. According to the findings of this study, FOE was classified as a criminal offense during the covid-19 epidemic. In this manner, all FOEs in public and media spheres were criminalized, restricting the FOE. Thus, the present study suggests that Article 127 of the "Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) Law" in Indonesia be repealed to encourage the treatment of FOE activities as "civil litigation.".

Patient satisfaction and patient costs associated with telephone clinic appointments in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) following the pandemic

Background: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, conventional management of outpatient care in IBD predominantly revolved around face-to-face clinic appointments. In the changing landscape of care provision during the pandemic, appointments were conducted almost exclusively through telephone consultation. An electronic questionnaire was developed to assess patient satisfaction and patient costs. Method(s): A pilot was carried out with 15 patients to identify any technical issues with e-mail delivery of the questionnaire and gauge face validity of the questionnaire content. 1400 patients registered with the TrueColours-IBD remote digital monitoring system were sent the questionnaire link via e-mail in May 2021. No demographic data were collected by design, in order to avoid the perception of bias and ensure freedom of expression through anonymity. Result(s): 506 responses were received including 21 duplicates which were excluded, totalling 485 valid responses. 408/485 patients reported having a telephone appointment with the IBD service since March 2020, 484/485 reported having had a face-to-face appointment in the past. 348/408 (86%) were either 'very satisfied' or 'somewhat satisfied' with their most recent telephone consultation, while 22 (6%) were either 'very dissatisfied' or 'somewhat dissatisfied'. 247/408 (61%) were also either 'very satisfied' or 'somewhat satisfied' with the ease of accessing further care if required, compared to 33/408 (8%) who were either 'very dissatisfied' or 'somewhat dissatisfied'. Given the choice, 195/408 (48%) patients preferred to receive a telephone appointment in the future;147/408 (36%) would opt for face-to-face and 66/408 (16%) stated no preference, all with the option of changing that choice if needed. Telephone appointments were associated with a mean total patient time off-work or leisure of 23 minutes (S.D. 51, n=408) compared to 190 minutes (S.D. 96, n=484) for face-to-face appointments. The average cost of time off work or leisure associated with telephone appointments was 5.55 (S.D. = 15.74, n=408), compared to 43.42 (S.D. = 31.27, n=484) for face-to-face appointments (Table 1). Costs of transport add further to face-to-face appointment costs. Greater proportions of patients had a companion for their face-to-face appointment and required childcare compared to telephone consultations (Table 2), which again increases the difference in costs. Conclusion(s): Almost half of surveyed patients stated a preference for telephone appointments, although a third still preferred traditional follow-up. An evolution of care pathways is supported by patient preference and the statistically significant time and cost savings to patients receiving telephone appointments. (Figure Presented).

Corporate social responsibility and public diplomacy as formulas to reduce hate speech on social media in the fake news era

PurposeAnalyse the presence of hate speech in society, placing special emphasis on social media. In this sense, the authors strive to build a formula to moderate this type of content, in which platforms and public institutions cooperate, from the fields of corporate social responsibility and public diplomacy, respectively.Design/methodology/approachTo this aim, it is important to focus efforts on the creation of counter-narratives;the establishment of content moderation guidelines, which are not necessarily imposed by unilateral legislation;the promotion of suitable scenarios for the involvement of civil society;transparency on the part of social media companies;and supranational cooperation that is as transnational as possible. To exemplify the implementation of initiatives against hate speech, two cases are analysed that are paradigmatic for assuming two effective approaches to the formula indicated by the authors.FindingsThe authors analyse, in the case of the European Union, its "Code of conduct to counteract illegal online hate speech”, which included the involvement of different social media companies. And in the case of Canada, the authors discuss the implementation of the bill to include a definition of hate speech and the establishment of specific sanctions for this in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Penal Code.Originality/valueThe case of the European Union was a way of seeking consensus with social media companies without legislation, while the case of Canada involved greater legislative and penalisation. Two ways of seeking the same goal: curbing hate speech.

Freedom of Expression and Misinformation Laws During the COVID-19 Pandemic and the European Court of Human Rights

This article assesses the European Court of Human Rights' possible responses to post-COVID-19 misinformation laws. These laws are intended to protect society but may become dangerous weapons if used by governments wishing to silence opponents. We identify four categories of speech restrictions that appeared during the COVID-19 pandemic. We then present the recent misinformation laws from Council of Europe member states as well as various potential arguments when cases appear before the Court, and assess their potential weight. We also analyze the expected post-pandemic development of the European Convention on Human Rights' Article 10 jurisprudence. © 2023 Lex localis.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN TIMES OF COVID-19: CHILLING EFFECT IN HUNGARY AND SERBIA

New technologies have opened several risks to safety of journalists. More importantly, in the state of emergency caused by the Covid-19 outbreak, journalists and media actors have shifted their activities online more than ever, which also made them more prone to digital threats and attacks. In some regimes there are even organized intimidation campaigns against political opponents causing chilling effect and self-censorship, and jeopardizing freedom of expression in general. Hungary as a member of the European Union since 2004 and Serbia as a leading candidate to join the EU are two countries where the problems and concerns about media freedom is growing every day. The fear from the unknown during the international pandemic gave opportunity to some governments to hide their real political agendas and cover their desire for the 'good-old-fashioned' censorship. The number of countries where some kind of censorship could be found is growing every day. The authors will show two country-case-studies from Hungary and Serbia, where the leaders and the political situations are very similar and could show a (good or bad) example to other countries that would like to follow the illiberal views on media issues.

A caregiver's view, a citizen's view of the Covid-19 pandemic

The pandemic linked to Covid-19 let the notion of freedom rights arise: freedom of expression, of movement, of vaccination, etc. In this context, this article focuses on the vaccination process. Between pro-vaccination, "anti-vax" and undecided, the question of freedom, of the individual decisional autonomy of the citizen and the collective/societal benefit to be oriented towards a choice arises. The dispensation of information, via the media (television, written, radio) and the multitude of sources available on the Web, may or may not facilitate decision-making. But what about the position of caregivers? Beyond the principle of wanting to care without counting, the Hippocratic oath ("I will respect all persons, their autonomy and their will, without any discrimination according to their condition or their convictions"), is it easy to keep these convictions? Is it legitimate to ask the question "Would it be ethical to prioritize vaccinated patients in intensive care?", a question joined by certain doctors of Wallonia (Belgium) in an approach of ethical debate. A look at the literature tries to understand this questioning, which can be both positive and disturbing. Level of Evidence: NA. Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS

Coronavirus containment depends on human rights: freedom of expression and press are needed to fight pandemic

Purpose>The purpose of this paper is to describe restrictions on freedoms of expression and press that have arisen during the coronavirus pandemic and to show the public health impact of these restrictions.Design/methodology/approach>General PubMed and Google searches were used to review human rights violations both historically and during the current coronavirus pandemic. Special attention was paid to publications produced by groups dedicated to monitoring human rights abuses.Findings>During the coronavirus pandemic, many governments have used the guise of controlling the virus to silence critics and stifle the press. Though these restrictions were supposedly orchestrated to fight the virus, they have done just the opposite: suppression of expression and press has hindered public health efforts and exacerbated the spread of the virus. By reducing case reporting, allowing for the spread of misinformation and blocking productive debate, violations of human rights to free expression and press have worsened the coronavirus outbreak.Originality/value>This study shows the ways in which human rights are both threatened and particularly important in crises.

Spread of misinformation during COVID-19: The case of Mauritius

As COVID-19 continues to spread rapidly across the globe, it is imperative to regulate the content of information such that people have access to accurate information. Nevertheless, there is the fear that governments are abusing legislation to limit freedom of expression and that the pandemic is simply being used as an excuse to further obstruct free speech. As such, it is through the lens of human rights that this research critically examines the approaches undertaken by the Mauritian authorities to deal with misinformation during COVID-19. To achieve this research objective, the related laws on misinformation are critically assessed and a comparative analysis is caried out of international responses to misinformation during COVID-19. It has been noted that the law alone is not sufficient to deal with misinformation, and media literacy among citizens is also essential in this endeavour.

Print Rights with a Thousand Masks: Migrant Vulnerability, Resistance, and Human Rights Law

PrintRights, a co-operative of undocumented asylum seekers in Amsterdam, manufactured facemasks during the COVID-19 pandemic, first distributing them to undocumented migrants residing in the city’s emergency shelter system and then selling them to the wider public. By distributing facemasks with messages, PrintRights framed its action within the human right to freedom of expression to legally resist alienage law prohibitions on employment. Engaging Judith Butler’s theory, this article analyzes the relationship between PrintRights’ resistance, vulnerability, and strategic engagement with human rights law. Drawing on fieldwork conducted with PrintRights, I explore how vulnerability discourse in human rights law can support undocumented migrant organizing.. © Dez, J. 2022.

HOW TO COPE WITH COUNTER-PERFORMANCE IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION. THE CASE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF DURING THE PANDEMIC

The Covid-19 pandemic crisis serves as a genuine natural experiment for societies worldwide, as the health-related crisis allowed governments to implement extreme measures that impacted people’s rights and freedoms, challenging the boundaries of democracy and rule of law. In the context of religious life, Romania was pointed by the OSCE as being one of the countries that have opted for the harshest measures to restrict religious life since the beginning of the pandemic. In this paper we present a case study of Romania’s restrictions imposed on religious life during the Covid-19 crisis, using secondary data analysis stemming from the UN, the OSCE, the Court of Appeal of Bucharest etc., as a framework to objectively analyze how the government should act regarding religious life, by enforcing the principles enshrined by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. no. 18. Our main findings suggest that, in Romania, during the pandemic, the restrictions imposed on religious life were politically bargained by the government rather than being mediated through national law and international standards and commitments on Freedom of Religion or Belief and based on the democratic principles of the rule of law. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences is the property of Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Disinformation regarding COVID-19 in light of the priorities of the European Commission and the legal regulations binding and currently drafted in Poland

Disinformation regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is a global phenomenon. It constitutes a threat to the values protected under the law, health in particular. The primary issue tackled in "Disinformation regarding COVID-19 in the light of priorities of the European Commission and the legal regulations binding and currently drafted in Poland" paper is an attempt at answering the following question: Is eliminating COVID-19 disinformation from public space possible in light of the priorities of the European Commission and the legal regulations already effective and currently being drafted in Poland? The analyses conducted under the paper lead to the conclusions that the provisions currently regulating freedom of expression theoretically constitute a basis for eliminating disinformation from public space but are, in practice, not very effective. This leads to the need for searching for other, more effective legal instruments in this field, both on the level of European Union law making and domestic legislation. Although we may speak of a consensus concerning assessment of the very phenomenon of disinformation the legislative and practical actions taken, both on the domestic level and the European Union level, enable us to indicate substantial and frequently disturbing differences regarding shifting the aspects emphasized by legislation. As compared to the proposed solutions drafted by the European Commission and the drafts of domestic acts, the vastly different approach to the idea of controlling disinformation is clearly visible. Therefore, it must be stated that such circumstances will lead to development of varied legal effects of the drafted regulations that will decide, among other issues, the practical effectiveness or lack thereof in the case of the drafted solutions. In the course of the analysis of the issue constituting the subject of this paper we should concurrently bear in mind that freedom of expression is one of the principles in a democratic state governed by the rule of law.

Freedom of Expression of Legal Entities on the Internet from the Point of View of the European Court of Human Rights

Rapid development of new technologies, including the Internet, demonstrates the need for legal regulation of the content that appears on the websites of Internet platforms. However, the regulation of such content must not interfere with the very essence of the right to freedom of expression. The restrictions set forth by the governments should pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society. The aim of this paper is to describe the basic rules for the protection of the right to freedom of expression of legal entities under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in relation to Internet speeches and reflect on the legal regulation of debates concerning Covid-19. Given this objective, the research is divided into three parts. The first part defines the general principles of the ECHR concerning the right to freedom of expression, and specifically emphasizes the rules for the protection of speech on the Internet. The second part of the manuscript offers an analysis of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning legal persons’ complaints under Article 10 of the ECHR in connection with the activities on the Internet. The last third part of the manuscript is devoted to the reflection on the restriction of the expressions concerning Covid-19, namely, their compliance with Article 10 of the ECHR. © 2022, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of State and Law. All rights reserved.

Tinker, Tailor, Twitter, Lie: Government Disinformation and Freedom of Expression in a Post-Truth Era

The spread of disinformation has received significant attention in recent years, yet little has been paid to government disinformation, and whether governments may violate freedom of expression not only in how they regulate disinformation, but also in how they facilitate, sow and spread it. This article analyses whether and to what extent Article 10 of the ECHR is engaged by government disinformation. It extends the analysis from well-established violations of freedom of expression—overt censorship and withholding information—into novel forms of government interference in the ‘post-truth’ age: false claims of ‘fake news’ levelled at the press and intentional lies about matters of public importance. These latter categories warrant further attention, as governments can cause just as much harm to public discourse and debate by intentionally injecting falsehoods as by censoring truth. A purposive approach to freedom of expression is needed to protect not only the means of expression, but also the ends—vibrant democratic discourse and meaningful public debate. © The Author(s) [2022]. Published by Oxford University Press.

The Evolution of Data and Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech Concerns with Artificial Intelligence

This opinion article, by Channarong Intahchomphoo and Christian Tschirhart, explains the evolution of data and how it becomes useful information and then insightful knowledge. In the current era we are witnessing a high increase in the development and adaptation of artificial intelligence (AI) in society. AI technologies have the ability to process large volumes of data and information to help in finding insightful knowledge. However, AI is not perfect and there are ethical concerns, particularly when unintended negative consequences result from it;this paper also discusses ethical concerns currently confronting our society related to the freedom of expression and hate speech issues with AI. Importantly, this paper notes that governments are working to find ways to regulate social media and internet companies through legal channels as governments are no longer confident in the ability of social media and internet companies to self-regulate and thereby to guide society on what content is right or wrong. This is a critical new development in internet and AI governance that information and technology professionals and public and private organizations need to monitor closely the situation as it evolves.

Should Critique on Governmental Policy Regarding Covid-19 Be Tolerated on Online Platforms? An Analysis of Recent Case-Law in the Netherlands.

This policy and practice note describes and discusses two recent decisions by the District Court in Amsterdam regarding the applicability of YouTube's and Facebook's Community Guidelines on Covid-19 misinformation. The decisions (Café Weltschmerz/YouTube and Smart Exit/Facebook) illustrate the tense intersection between, on the one hand, the freedom to express criticism of the government's policy for fighting the outbreak of Covid-19 in the Netherlands, and on the other hand, the prevention of (dis)information with the potential to harm public health. The author will point out that the two decisions, although covering the same subject matter, differ significantly in argumentation regarding the (scope of the) application of the freedom of expression. Analysing this divergence in argumentation will show that its roots can be traced back to a different valuation of the role of the online platforms regarding the dissemination of speech. A debate on this divergence is needed to prevent inconsistency in future decisions and to contribute to the broader discussion on content regulation in the European Union.