[1] A German court convicted the local manager of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) because a subscriber to the service used it to transmit pornographic material. China has made it a crime to access or spread anti-government material. Singapore requires ISPs to block designated websites. The UK has encouraged its ISPs to participate in a scheme of "self-regulation" under which ISPs remove offending material without the user's consent. A comprehensive assessment of instances of governmental efforts to limit freedom of expression on the Internet was compiled by Human Rights Watch in a report entitled "Silencing the Net: The Threat to Freedom of Expression On-Line" (May 1996), gopher://gopher.igc.apc.org:5000/00/int/hrw/expression/7. More recent is the "Internet Censorship Report: The Challenges for Free Expression On-Line" (April 1998), by the Canadian Committee to Protect Journalists, http://www.ccpj.ca/publications/internet/index.html. See also the GILC Alerts, archived at http://www.gilc.org/alert/. [2] http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/internet/content/communic.html. [3] European Commission Legal Advisory Board, Response to the Green Paper on the Protection of Minors and Human Dignity in Audiovisual and Information Services (1997), available at http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/internet/gplabreply.html. [4] A full explanation of the unique features of the Internet as they relate to the question of government controls appears in the Findings of Fact by the federal District Court in the litigation in the United States over the Communications Decency Act. ACLU v. Reno. The findings of the three judge District Court panel were based on a stipulation of facts agreed to by the government. The court's detailed description of the various methods of communication that comprise the Internet should serve as the model for any analysis of the validity of government controls. The landmark ruling of the Supreme Court was based directly on the findings of the District Court. The District Court's opinion, which includes the detailed findings of fact, can be found at http://www.ciec.org/decision_PA/decision_text.html. The Supreme Court opinion is found at http://www.ciec.org/SC_appeal/decision.shtml. [5] A collection of articles about on-line democracy initiatives from around the world appears at http://www.state.mn.us/gol/democracy/. [6] For a English language description of the Bologna system, see http://www.state.mn.us/gol/democracy/final/italy.htm. [7] David Marcus, "Indonesia revolt was Net driven," Boston Globe (May 23, 1998) http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe/globehtml/143/Indonesia_revolt_was_Net_driven.htm. [8] William J. Dobson, "Protest.org," The New Republic (July 6, 1998), p. 18. [9] See note 1, supra. [10] In that case, the Communications Decency Act was found to be in violation of the United States constitutional protection of free speech. See note 4, supra. [11] U.N.G.A. Res. 217 (Dec. 10, 1948), http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html. [12] The extent to which some or all of the provisions of the Declaration have become binding on Member States of the UN is a subject of ongoing debate among legal scholars. [13] Although a particular state may not recognize the principle of free expression in its domestic law, it is bound by international norms that are "supported by patterns of generally shared legal expectation and generally conforming behavior." Jordan J. Paust, "The Complex Nature, Sources and Evidences of Customary Human Rights Law," 25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 147, 151 (1996). See also Richard B. Lillich, International Human Rights 89, 127 (2d ed. 1991). Sources of international law include international conventions and treaties, international custom, and general principles of law recognized by civilized nations. Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 38(1). The Statute also states that "judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations" are a "subsidiary" means for determining the content of international law. Id., art. 38(1)(d). One recognized source of international law is "international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law." Id., art. 38(1)(b). In addition to the numerous international agreements embodying the principle of free expression, national constitutions, laws, and decisions of international and domestic tribunals provide ample evidence of an international custom recognizing the freedom of expression. For evidence of international customs based on the principles embodied by the Universal Declaration, see Article 19, The Article 19 Freedom of Expression Handbook: International and Comparative Law, Standards and Procedures (1993) (listing domestic court decisions incorporating the freedom of expression in accordance with domestic laws). As both positive and customary international law, all countries are bound to respect the principle of free expression. [14] See generally Allston, "The Commission on Human Rights," in P. Allston (ed.), The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal (1992). [15] http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu4/chrrep/98chr40.htm#impact. [16] 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (Dec. 16, 1966), http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm. [17] See "The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information," Principle 1.1(a) (Oct. 1, 1995), http://www.osi.hu/colpi/a19/joburg.htm. [18] Id. at principle 1(d); see also id. at Section II. [19] http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_opt.htm. [20] HRC, Revised Guidelines for the Preparation of State Party Reports, Report of the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. 40 (A/46/40), Annex VIII (1191). [21] 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (Dec. 16, 1966), http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm. [22] 312 U.N.T.S. 221 (Nov. 4, 1950), http://www.coe.fr/eng/legaltxt/e-dh.htm#conv-dh. [23] Forty nations are currently members of the Council. http://www.coe.fr/eng/std/states.htm. All Members have ratified the Convention, and ratification of the Convention is now a condition for admission to the Council. [24] Article 8 provides: "(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence. "(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." [25] See generally Anthony Lester "Freedom of Expression," in MacDonald, Matscher and Petzold, The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993); "The Caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights on the Freedom of Expression Guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights," report by Rolv Ryssdal, president of the Court, presented at the 10th Conference of the European Constitutional Courts (1996). [26] The Court's Web site is http://www.dhcour.coe.fr. The Convention is a product of the Council of Europe and the Court is a body of the Council. However, the Convention is also highly relevant to the European Union. The European Court of Justice, http://europa.eu.int/cj/en/index.htm, the EU entity that deals mainly with issues affecting the single market, also derives guidance from the rights stated in the Convention. Article 10 has a potential role in connection with competition law and rules on the free movement of goods and services. In addition, in its legislative capacity, the Council of the European Union has referred to Article 10 as a relevant norm for EU legislation. [27] Since the entry into force of Protocol No. 9 to the Convention in October 1994, it is also possible for individual applicants to refer their cases to the Court, provided the respondent State has ratified the Protocol. [28] A summary of the case law of the court in the field of free expression is beyond the scope of this paper and quite unnecessary in the light of several treatments by other authors. E.g., Sally Burnheim, Freedom of Expression on Trial: Caselaw under European Convention on Human Rights, KO'AGA RO‹E'ETA (1997) http://www.derechos.org/koaga/i/burnheim.html; Anthony Lester "Freedom of Expression," in MacDonald, Matscher and Petzold, The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993); O'Boyle, Right to Speak and Associate Under Strasbourg Case-Law with reference to Eastern and Central Europe, 8 Connecticut Journal of Int'l Law 263 (1993). [29] Handyside v. United Kingdom, Series A, no. 24, 1 EHRR 737 (1979). [30] Castells v. Spain, 14 EHRR 445 (1992). See also The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (No. 2), 14 EHRR 229 para. 45 (1992). [31] The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (No. 2), 14 EHRR 229 para. 50 (1992). [32] See Anthony Lester "Freedom of Expression," in MacDonald, Matscher and Petzold, The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993) at pp. 468-69. [33] Jerslid v. Denmark, Series A, no. 298, 19 EHRR 1 (1995). [34] See ACLU v. Reno, supra, n. 4, and the Commission Communication, supra n. 2. [35] GILC Submission on PICS, http://www.gilc.org/speech/ratings/gilc-pics-submission.html; American Civil Liberties Union, "Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? -- How Rating and Blocking Proposals May Torch Free Speech on the Internet," http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/burning.html; Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, "Filtering FAQ." http://quark.cpsr.org/~harryh/faq.html; Electronic Privacy Information Center, "Faulty Filters: How Content Filters Block Access to Kid-Friendly Information on the Internet." http://www2.epic.org/reports/filter-report.html.; [36] The Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom, 14 EHRR 153 (1992), and The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (No. 2), 14 EHRR 229 (1992). [37] Jerslid v. Denmark, series A, no. 298, 19 EHRR 1 (1995). [38] Judgement of 25 March 1987, Series A, no. 116. [39] Hempfing v. Germany, Application No. 14622/89, admissibility decision of March 1991. [40] Numerous other OSCE document reaffirm the freedom of expression. The charter of Paris, The Budapest Declaration, and other OSCE documents are available at http://www.osce.org/docs/chronos.htm. Excerpts of OSCE documents relating specifically to the media are available at http://www.osceprag.cz/inst/odihr/hdinfo/them/media.htm. [41] 1989 Vienna Concluding Document. [42] 9 I.L.M. 673 (1970) (signed on Nov. 22, 1969), http://www.umn.edu/humanrts/oasinstr/zoas3con.htm. [43] "Compulsory Membership" case. [44] Inter-American Comm'n on Human Rights, "Report on the Compatibility of åDesacato' Laws with The American Convention," 1994 Annual Report 204. [45] 21 I.L.M. 59 (1981) (signed June 27, 1981), http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/z1afchar.htm. [46] J. Scott Davidson, The Inter-American Human Rights System (Dartmouth Publishing Co., 1997) at p. 157. [47] The Observer and the Guardian v. United Kingdom, 14 EHRR 153 (1992). [48] http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/internet/content/communic.html. [49] http://www.iid.de/rahmen/iukdgebt.html#a1. [50] http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/internet/communic.html. [51] http://www2.echo.lu/bonn/final.html. [52] http://www.gilc.org/speech/ratings/gilc-oecd-398.html. [53] See Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK), "Who Watches the Watchmen, Part II: Accountability and Effective Self-Regulation in the Information Age (1998), http://cyber-rights.org/watchmen-ii.htm. [54] See http://www.gilc.org/speech/ratings/gilc-oecd-398.html. See also GILC Submission on PICS, http://www.gilc.org/speech/ratings/gilc-pics-submission.html.