dirightDigital Law JournalЦифровое право2686-9136Maxim Inozemtsev10.38044/2686-9136-2021-2-3-55-70diright-67Research ArticleARTICLESСТАТЬИThe realization of the right to freedom of speech on the InternetРеализация свободы слова в цифровой средеФлитерЯ. С.FliterI. S.

Флитер Яна — аспирант отдела конституционного права 

117218, Россия, Москва, ул. Б. Черемушкинская, 34 

Iana S. Fliter — LIana S. Fliter – Ph. D. Student, Department of Constitutional Law

34, B. Cheremushkinskaya st., Moscow, Russia, 117218

yanafliter@yahoo.comИнститут законодательства и сравнительного правоведения при Правительстве Российской ФедерацииРоссияThe Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian FederationRussian Federation202103112021235570Copyright © Fliter I.S., 20212021Флитер Я.С.Fliter I.S.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.digitallawjournal.org/jour/article/view/67

The expression of opinions on the Internet has a number of features in comparison with traditional means of information dissemination. Firstly, imposition of classical measures of legal liability can be difficult due to the peculiarities of cyber space: anonymity and erasure of jurisdictional boundaries. In this regard, a new mechanism of restrictions has appeared, which consists in the withdrawal of information that violates the law or the rights of other citizens from the Internet at the direction of state bodies. The trends in this area are the predominance of the administrative procedure for making decisions on the withdrawal of information from public access, and the use of vague and evaluative terms as grounds for restrictions. Secondly, in most cases, in the process of realizing freedom of speech, intermediaries are involved — companies that provide a public forum for millions of users. The activities of these companies are also associated with new mechanisms for restricting freedom of speech: from blocking content to deleting users’ accounts. Such companies have a dual responsibility: to monitor the placement of content in order to prevent abuse of freedom of speech and to prevent violations of freedom of expression with their own corporate rules. The purpose of this article is to identify, through the method of analytical jurisprudence, the problems that arise when restricting freedom of speech, implemented in the digital environment, and to establish the reasons for their occurrence. To do this, the author has carried out a review of Russian legislation and the practice of its application, as well as the practice of restrictions, applied by corporations, and an analysis of foreign literature.

Выражение мнений в сети «Интернет» имеет ряд особенностей по сравнению с традиционными средствами распространения информации. Во-первых, применение классических мер юридической ответственности может быть затруднено в силу особенностей кибер-пространства: анонимности и стирания юрисдикционных границ. В этой связи появился новый механизм ограничений, который заключается в изъятии по указанию государственных органов из просторов сети той информации, которая нарушает законодательство или права других граждан. При этом тенденциями в данной сфере являются преобладание административного порядка принятия решений об изъятии информации из общественного доступа, использование неопределенных и оценочных терминов в качестве оснований для ограничений. Во-вторых, в большинстве случаев в процессе реализации свободы слова задействованы посредники — компании, которые и предоставляют публичный форум миллионам пользователей. Деятельность указанных компаний также связана с новыми механизмами ограничения свободы слова: начиная от блокировки контента, до удаления аккаунтов пользователей. При этом на таких компаниях лежит ответственность двойственного характера: осуществлять контроль за размещением контента в целях недопущения злоупотреблений свободой слова и не допускать нарушений свободы выражения мнений собственными корпоративными правилами. Целью настоящей статьи является выявление посредством метода аналитической юриспруденции возникающих проблем при ограничении свободы слова, реализуемой в цифровой среде, и установление причин их появления. Для этого автором осуществлен обзор российского законодательства и практики его применения, а также практики применяемых ограничений со стороны интернет-корпораций и анализ иностранной литературы.

цифровая средаограничения свободы словараспространение информацииблокировка сайтовмодерирование контентаdigital environmentrestrictions on freedom of speechdissemination of informationblocking sitescontent moderationReferencesBalkin, J. M. (2018). Free Speech is a Triangle. Columbia Law Review, 118(7), 2011–2055. https://columbialawa-review.org/content/free-speech-is-a-triangle/Balkin, J. M. (2018). Free Speech is a Triangle. Columbia Law Review, 118(7), 2011–2055. https://columbialawa-review.org/content/free-speech-is-a-triangle/De Gregorio, G. (2020). Democratising online content moderation: A constitutional framework. Computer Law and Security Review, 36, Article 105374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105374De Gregorio, G. (2020). Democratising online content moderation: A constitutional framework. Computer Law and Security Review, 36, Article 105374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105374Dobber, T., Farthaigh, R. O., & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J. (2019). The regulation of online political micro-targeting in Europe. Internet Policy Review, 8(4), Article 1440. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1440Dobber, T., Farthaigh, R. O., & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J. (2019). The regulation of online political micro-targeting in Europe. Internet Policy Review, 8(4), Article 1440. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1440Hartmann, I. A. (2020). A new framework for online content moderation. Computer Law and Security Review, 36, Article 105376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105376Hartmann, I. A. (2020). A new framework for online content moderation. Computer Law and Security Review, 36, Article 105376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105376Kuczerawy, A. (2017). The power of positive thinking. Intermediary liability and the effective enjoyment of the Right to Freedom of Expression. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 8(3), 226 para1. https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-8-3-2017/4623Kuczerawy, A. (2017). The power of positive thinking. Intermediary liability and the effective enjoyment of the Right to Freedom of Expression. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 8(3), 226 para1. https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-8-3-2017/4623Land, M. K. (2020). The problem of platform law: Pluralistic legal ordering on social media. In P. S. Berman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of global legal pluralism (pp.975–994). Oxford. http://doi.org//10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197516744.013.12Land, M. K. (2020). The problem of platform law: Pluralistic legal ordering on social media. In P. S. Berman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of global legal pluralism (pp.975–994). Oxford. http://doi.org//10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197516744.013.12Murray, D., & Fussey, P. (2019). Bulk surveillance in the digital age: Rethinking the human rights law approach to bulk monitoring of communications data. Israel Law Review, 52(1), 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223718000304Murray, D., & Fussey, P. (2019). Bulk surveillance in the digital age: Rethinking the human rights law approach to bulk monitoring of communications data. Israel Law Review, 52(1), 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223718000304Oliva, T. D. (2020). Content moderation technologies: Applying human rights standards to protect freedom of expression. Human Rights Law Review, 20(4), 607–640. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaa032Oliva, T. D. (2020). Content moderation technologies: Applying human rights standards to protect freedom of expression. Human Rights Law Review, 20(4), 607–640. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaa032Sander, B. (2021). Democratic disruption in the age of social media: Between marketized and structural conceptions of human rights law. European Journal of International Law, 32(1), 159–193. http://www.ejil.org/archive.php?issue=155Sander, B. (2021). Democratic disruption in the age of social media: Between marketized and structural conceptions of human rights law. European Journal of International Law, 32(1), 159–193. http://www.ejil.org/archive.php?issue=155Stepanov, S. K., & Nektov, A. V. (2021). Digital forum as a challenge to jurisdiction of a modern statе. In S. I. Ashmarina & V. V. Mantulenko (Eds.), Current Achievements, Challenges and Digital Chances of Knowledge Based Economy (pp. 59–69). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47458-4_8Stepanov, S. K., & Nektov, A. V. (2021). Digital forum as a challenge to jurisdiction of a modern statе. In S. I. Ashmarina & V. V. Mantulenko (Eds.), Current Achievements, Challenges and Digital Chances of Knowledge Based Economy (pp. 59–69). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47458-4_8Suzor, N. (2018). Digital constitutionalism: Using the rule of law to evaluate the legitimacy of governance by platforms. Social Media and Society, 4(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118787812Suzor, N. (2018). Digital constitutionalism: Using the rule of law to evaluate the legitimacy of governance by platforms. Social Media and Society, 4(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118787812Weber, R. H. (2020). Socio-ethical values and legal rules on automated platforms: The quest for a symbiotic relationship. Computer Law and Security Review, 36, article 105380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105380Weber, R. H. (2020). Socio-ethical values and legal rules on automated platforms: The quest for a symbiotic relationship. Computer Law and Security Review, 36, article 105380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105380

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.