Netherlands
Danny Mekić v. X (formerly Twitter) | Shadow Banning
Decision Date: July 5, 2024
A Dutch Court found that X (formerly Twitter) breached its contractual obligations and the Digital Services Act, 2022, by unjustly restricting a user’s account and failing to provide adequate reasons for the restriction. After X restricted the account when the user posted articles critiquing European policies relating to child pornography, the user asked X for the reason for the restriction, which he believed constituted a “search (suggestion) ban.” X responded that there had been an automatic restriction which, on review, had been incorrect, and it reinstated the user’s account. Although the Court acknowledged that X had not violated the Digital Services Act’s provisions concerning account restrictions as the user had eventually received the necessary information, it did find that X failed to provide an effective communication channel. The Court awarded damages for lost subscription fees paid during the restriction period and legal costs and mandated X establish a compliant contact point within two weeks, with a daily penalty for non-compliance. 

Danny Mekić v. X (formerly Twitter)
Decision Date: July 4, 2024
A Dutch Court ruled that X (formerly Twitter) failed to adequately respond to an individual’s request for access to information regarding a temporary restriction on his account. In October of 2023 Amsterdam based researcher Danny Mekić was informed by some of his account followers that his posts were not appearing in search results on X. In response, Mekić submitted a comprehensive data access request about the restriction, including the origin and source of his personal data, automated decision-making, reputation scores, labels, and the "Guano" system. Unsatisfied with X’s response, Mekić petitioned the Court to order X to respond to his access request as stipulated by Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and to supply specific information about automated decision-making and how X processed and utilized his personal data, under Article 22 of GDPR. The Court held that X had not provided sufficient transparency or detail, especially regarding automated decision-making, and ordered the company to fully comply with the request within one month, imposing a daily penalty of €4,000 for non-compliance. 

India
Sharma v. Squint Neon
Decision Date: February 22, 2024
An Indian High Court directed X (formerly Twitter) to remove offensive tweets directed against an individual. The individual had alleged that she had been a victim of online trolling and harassment, which began after she posted a tweet on X, and had filed an Interlocutory Application (I.A.) against X requesting the immediate removal of the defamatory tweets, as well as Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) for the anonymous X users who made posts about her. She argued a case of doxing, claiming that the trolls had disclosed her identity online without her consent. The Court noted that as the initial tweet was not completely anonymous, it did not fall within the ambit of doxing but it did find that the tweets were “offensive, defamatory and derogatory.”

Soukin v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi
Decision Date: April 24, 2024
The High Court of Delhi in India dismissed an anticipatory bail application of three individuals accused of involvement in a sextortion racket. The accused were charged with recording a compromising video and then threatening to release the video on social media unless a large sum of money was paid. The Court recognized sextortion as a “serious invasion of privacy and a growing social threat,” involving the misuse of intimate images to extort money from victims. It also acknowledged the psychological harm it causes and the difficulties in addressing it due to its cross-jurisdictional nature. Given the gravity of the allegations and the possibility of tampering with evidence, the Court rejected the plea for anticipatory bail.

Belgium
The Case of Nathan Vandergunst (Acid)
Decision Date: February 22, 2024
A Belgian First Instance Court convicted an influencer of electronic stalking and “doxing” and slander and defamation. The influencer had uploaded a video on YouTube in response to a controversial case in which members of a fraternity were given lenient sentences for their involvement in the death of a student during a hazing ritual. The influencer’s video named some of the fraternity members and identified a restaurant owned by one former fraternity member. That former member and his parents then subpoenaed the influencer. The Court rejected the influencer’s free speech defence and sentenced him to three months of imprisonment on probation, an €800 fine and a provisional civil compensation of €20,000 for defaming the restaurant.

● Upcoming Event: China, Belt and Road Initiative, and Implications on Digital Governance, Authoritarianism, and Future of Human Rights. The International Center for Cultural Studies (ICCS) at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University in Taiwan is hosting an online discussion on Beijing’s digital infrastructure expansion and its impact on human rights. How do digital technologies reshape logistics, infrastructure, and governance? How do cyber networks and data collection increase social control? The panel will welcome Michael Caster, ARTICLE 19; Lobsang Gyatso Sither, Tibet Action Institute; Cheng Sze Lut, formerly of the Labour Party in Hong Kong; and Mahesh Kumar Kushwaha, Centre for Social Innovation and Foreign Policy in Nepal. Dolma Tsering, ICCS, will moderate the conversation. Online. January 17, 2025. 2–4:30 PM (Taipei Time). Find more details here. 

● New UN Cybercrime Treaty Primed for Abuse, by Deborah Brown. This past December, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention against Cybercrime. A culmination of five-year negotiations and the first international criminal justice treaty adopted in more than twenty years, the convention received praise: “[It] creates an unprecedented platform for collaboration in the exchange of electronic evidence, protection for victims, and prevention, while ensuring human rights are protected online,” said the UN Secretary-General in a statement. But rights groups have pointed to the convention’s flaws. Deborah Brown, Human Rights Watch, calls on states to reject the convention because it lacks adequate human rights safeguards while giving governments broad surveillance powers to investigate various crimes – “including those that don’t involve information and communication systems” – punishable by at least four years in prison under domestic law. “Many governments treat activities protected by international human rights law as serious offenses,” Brown underscored, “such as criticism of the government, peaceful protest, same-sex relationships, investigative journalism, and whistleblowing.” 

● ACHPR Resolution 620 on the Protection of Data in the Digital Age. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) recently adopted Resolution 620 on Promoting and Harnessing Data Access as a tool for Advancing Human Rights and Sustainable Development in the Digital Age. IFEX welcomed the resolution. This agreement points to gaps in safeguarding privacy, raises concerns about data exploitation across the continent, and offers recommendations for states to “ensure that data collection, processing, storage, and access practices are transparent, accountable, and in line with regional and international standards.” The resolution also mandates the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa to conduct cross-continental consultations and develop guiding standards on data collection, use, and access.

Platform Accountability and Human Rights: A Rule-of-Law Checklist, by Eliška Pírková, Agneris Sampieri, and Aymen Zaghdoudi. Published by Access Now, this new report responds to states’ efforts to introduce platform regulation frameworks (like the EU’s Digital Services Act, for example). Many such laws aimed at regulating platforms turn into tools of oppression, as Access Now has documented extensively. To help ensure that policymakers seek platform accountability while respecting international human rights standards and the rule of law, the report offers a checklist consisting of five principles: 1) Ensuring institutional checks and balances of state power; 2) Safeguarding an independent and impartial judiciary; 3) Establishing transparent and good governance; 4) Protecting and enabling free and safe civic space; 5) Establishing and adequately enforcing data protection principles before regulating online platforms.

● Job Openings at Knight First Amendment Institute. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University is looking for a Research and Policy Program Coordinator to support the Institute’s research and policy work and an Administrative Coordinator to take on wide-ranging ​​administrative and financial tasks. Find out more here.

● New Knight Press Freedom Fellowship Program Offers Support for At-Risk Journalists. This January, together with other top academic institutions, the Journalism Protection Initiative, led by Joel Simon at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY, is launching a press freedom fellowship program aimed at journalists at risk – those facing censorship or other forms of repression anywhere in the world. The program’s goal is to help journalists continue their work. Learn more here.

In case you missed it…

● CFE Webinar: Freedom of Expression, Protests, and Encampments. In September 2024, the Centre for Free Expression (CFE), based at Toronto Metropolitan University, hosted a discussion on lessons from the events across Canadian and Quebec campuses following protests about the war in Gaza. As university administrations dealt with the protests in various ways – from calling in police to seeking injunctions to holding negotiations, how does that affect rights to freedom of expression and assembly on campus? Revisit the conversation, moderated by James L. Turk, CFE’s Director.