Internet filtering trends in liberal democracies: French and German regulatory debates

Abstract

Liberal democracies are increasingly considering internet filtering as a means to assert state control over online information exchanges. A variety of filtering techniques have been implemented in Western states to prevent access to certain content deemed harmful. This development poses a series of democratic and ethical questions, particularly when states introduce regulation mandating internet service providers to block online content. In this article we examine the debates surrounding filtering that have played out in two key European states, France and Germany, focusing on the arguments used by opponents and proponents of internet blocking. We use these to explain and analyse the outcomes of both cases and, more broadly, the various challenges posed by internet blocking to democracy.

Cross‐Country Comparison of Internet Censorship: A Literature Review

“…Internet Censorship in France Information exchange and news coverage have long been exempted from state control and censorship in liberal democracies (Dick et al, 2012), because of the long-standing vow freedom of expression and privacy rights, defended online and offline (Breindl & Kuellmer, 2013). However, since the Gayssot law (1990), France has restricted certain content from being published online or offline such as hate speech, defamation, racist, anti-Semite, and xenophobic expressions, or any national, racial, or religious discrimination (Wright & Breindl, 2013). Publishing material considered inappropriate for a young public has been unlawful since 1949, and a 2011 modification of the law forbids publication of certain pornographic material, drugs usage, and any content promoting discrimination, violence, crime, or hate.…”

“…While the government promoted an open-access policy for the Internet and valued its informational and economic potential, it is gradually introducing online content regulations (Wright & Breindl, 2013). Pressure to ISPs for content regulations rose, as officials introduced technical measures blocking requirements into the legislation (Breindl & Kuellmer, 2013).…”

“…The main regulations on online content control came with two laws: the HADOPI (2009) and the LOPPSI 2 (2011) laws (Breindl & Kuellmer, 2013). HADOPI law targeted Internet activities not complying with France's strict copyright laws and protection of creative work enabling the ban of users violating these laws (Wright & Breindl, 2013). They classified the law unconstitutional, although reintroduced in amended form as HADOPI 2 (Breindl & Kuellmer, 2013).…”

“…In 2008 and 2009, two laws enacted allowed access blocking to child abuse material, racial violence, and terrorism that advanced the Internet filtering regulations. Despite harsh criticism by the civil society and activist groups, the constitutional court ruled all measures as proportionate in balancing public order and freedom of communication (Wright & Breindl, 2013).…”

“…None of the states have an independent supervisory authority to take on the important task of controlling governmental organizations (Ilhan, 2015;Sreberny & Khiabany, 2010;Tréguer, 2016a). Although France comes operationally closest to an independent supervision (CNIL, 2016; Freedom House, 2016a), the structures still do not satisfy the requirements of independent control (Breindl & Kuellmer, 2013;Tréguer, 2016a;Wright & Breindl, 2013). In addition, France, Turkey, and Iran make the private sector (most notably ISPs) responsible for the execution of Internet censorship decisions by government agencies.…”