OHCHR - Press conference: UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us today at this press conference. Our speaker today is Irene Kahn, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression. She will brief you today on her final report to the Human Rights Council as Mandate Holder, Freedom of Expression: A New Frontiers. We will begin with opening remarks by the Special Rapporteur before moving to questions. Miss Kahn, you have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank you to those who are in the room or listening online. I'm going to give you a very brief introduction highlighting the points of my last report and the work that I'm doing— that I've done, and then, of course, look forward to your questions and comments. My last report is about the biggest factor that has affected freedom of expression, I would say, for centuries, and that is digital technology. As well as the shrinking of the space for freedom of expression. Uh, it is shrinking dangerously because many states are actually using digital technology to, uh, actually, uh, suppress, uh, dissent. And the corporate digital giants on their side are manipulating the online space to enrich themselves. Now, I want to highlight a few of the trends that I see, dangerous trends and factors that are supporting this strategy of states and companies. The first is, of course, the digital revolution itself. It has brought transformative change, but it has come at a huge cost, and the cost is not being borne by those who are profiting from it. The cost is actually being borne by ordinary people, women who are being attacked online, children who feel endangered, whose health and safety are also endangered online, journalists and the media that has suffered very much. And as you know, there are media deserts in parts of the world now as a result of that. And of course, the public who no longer even control their own freedom of opinion, and who are being manipulated and struggling in information environments that are polluted by hate and lies. AI has complicated the whole issue, artificial intelligence. And there we see governments talking about AI as a driver of economic growth and downplaying the risks of it. So far, the legal frameworks are extremely weak. And there are no human rights guardrails, it seems, for innovation. The second factor, of course, is the asymmetry between the power of the states and the power of these digital giants, the oligarchs and the companies. Just a handful, a very small number of big tech companies and oligarchs are actually making decisions that affect the human rights of billions of people people around the world, and they do so with no accountability through a democratic process, no meaningful oversight, and often they face no consequences even when it is clear that their platforms may have contributed to genocide. And such asymmetry of power actually challenges the human rights business model, which is one where states have the primary, primary obligation to protect the rights of people in their jurisdiction. So the line between the regulator and the regulated has become blurred. And this is more so in cases, of course, where the states themselves are colluding and working with companies to undermine freedom of expression. So I want to also make the point that the problem that we see now in the digital sector, the problem that the digital sector has in terms of freedom of expression, is not only a result of corporate greed or corporate power. It is also as a result of the impulse of states themselves to use their authority to regulate, not to regulate to promote human rights, but to regulate, to promote censorship of speech very often. And we have seen governments, including liberal democracies, increasingly use criminal laws to suppress dissenting voices. We've seen populist governments and pop— political leaders weaponizing freedom of expression to incite violence, discrimination, hostility, against those who are most vulnerable in our society, minorities, migrants, and often also attacking women leaders in political or women journalists, for example, or media as a whole. And what is perhaps the most dangerous factor of all this is that there is a rupture of international cooperation. And there is an erosion of international human rights law taking place, and that is, of course, being instigated by very powerful states. And in my report and in my press release, I have highlighted this issue where freedom of expression has become a factor— a fodder for geopolitics. It's become something that is being used in the tariff wars. Freedom of expression is actually an inalienable fundamental human rights. It's been privatized, monetized, manipulated, and unlawfully restricted. Now what can we do about it? In my report, I have put forward a number of recommendations. In my previous reports, I've talked about content moderation. I've talked about trust and safety, how you enhance that. I've talked about all those issues of the day-to-day business of digital platforms and AI companies. Here, what I'm talking about, I'm giving a higher-level picture to governments, a kind of a pathway to deal with these issues. The first of all, I'm telling them they need to build coalitions. Coalitions of multi-stakeholders, not just of governments themselves. They, of course, have to be there, but also civil society, with experts, with activists, and others. Because they need that power of the many in order to resist the few. Secondly, I'm asking for strengthening of institutions. Institutional counterweights, as I put it, and that's particularly of regulation that is rooted in human rights law. Not excessive regulation, but smart regulation based on international human rights law, regulators that are independent, not under political influence, so they can actually regulate the sector without being distracted by political pressure. And also to look at how to reduce the monopoly, the monopoly in the digital sector there. The reliance on large companies must be broken. That must become a priority, because as long as you have companies that have more revenue— a single company, digital company, has more revenue than 133— 130 governments, more than GDP of 130 governments, then you need to worry. When the user, monthly user of a platform is 3 billion, then it exceeds the population of any country, even the largest country in this world. In that kind of a situation, it becomes almost impossible for governments to be able to regulate such companies. Therefore, breaking the monopoly must be a priority. At the same time, states must also create an enabling environment for independent, diverse, pluralistic media. That is disappearing. The diversity and pluralism of media is disappearing. That needs to be brought back because, as you know, media is a very important pillar of democracy. And then, of course, there are lots and lots of new ideas that are coming. Green shoots. I call them green shoots coming through the scorched earth of information environments that companies have created. Those green shoots, small projects, novel ways of approaching regulation as has happened in South Africa, alternative information spaces, federated information spaces, for example, not centralized ones, those are great ideas. Lots of them are coming up. Those— more investment has to be done in that. So what I'm saying is the game has to change. There have been game-changing shifts, but they have gone against freedom of expression. Now we need to come together to protect the right to freedom of expression, but to also ensure that digital technology and artificial intelligence which can do a lot of good, must not do a great deal of harm in this area, and states have to exercise their responsibility seriously here, the human rights responsibility to uphold freedom of expression. Most governments today in the Council supported me, and yesterday many of them, all of them almost, supported me, agreed with me, and my question to them is, what are you going to do about it now? So, I'm going to open it now for your questions. I should mention, by the way, that there was another document that I also submitted at the Council that is going to be of great interest to you, and that is Guidelines for the Safety of Journalists in Armed Conflicts. In this report, I don't name a single state from the beginning to the end because this is not a report actually to look at what is happening on the ground. This is a— these guidelines are practical tools They are normative guidance on what governments, belligerent parties, journalists themselves should do to ensure safety and protection on the front lines. When journalists are working on the front lines, how can we make it safe for them? And of course, one of the big issues I touch is impunity, but I also look at how human rights law actually operates in conflict situations, but we need to make it real, not just on paper, the human rights protection that journalists enjoy. And we also need to deal with very practical issues of how do you protect a journalist when he puts on or she puts on her jacket which says press. Does it protect her or does she become a target? So these are the kinds of practical questions normative questions and guidance for states that these guidelines provide, and I will be promoting them. A number of governments have actually welcomed them and are already working to see how we can take that further. So something for you and something for all of us in my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Khan. The Special Rapporteur will now take questions. Please state your name and organization before asking a question.

Kazmira Jafford from Geneva Solutions. Thank you very much for this briefing and important report. A few questions. You mentioned the need for— in your recommendations, the need for independent regulators, new coalitions to reduce the monopoly. But in an era where rule of force is overcoming rule of law, and we've seen this erosion of international law. What hope do you have that governments and these coalitions can, can change the status quo? Do you think it'll get worse before it gets better? And on the guidelines that you've issued for journalists, what kind of triggered this decision to, to issue these alongside the report? And in the guidelines you mentioned that you kind of addressed the gaps between international human rights law and international humanitarian law, where did you see— yeah, where were gaps existing in current guidelines that these guidelines now issue? Sorry, that was a bit of a ramble. Thank you.

Well, on your first question about coalitions, you know, there are, of course, many kinds of coalitions. There is the Media Freedom Coalition, the Freedom Online Coalition, There's the Internet Governance Forum. There are many, many of those groups that are coming together around the issue of digital technology. What I'm asking for is a much more focused, uh, multi-stakeholder, multilateral, uh, uh, forum now, uh, to focus very clearly on the importance of ensuring that human rights framework is central to the development of technology, of the new technologies. And a very clear message this forum, this coalition should also be giving to governments. Governments should live up to international law obligations. They were the ones who created these obligations. We are just asking them to stay true to their obligations. —because if they don't, they actually create an environment in which companies feel they have a license to pursue profit rather than protecting people. Now, the climate—you're absolutely right—the climate for multilateralism is under huge pressure. Despite the meeting of the G7 and so on, we know that cooperation, international cooperation, is going through a period of great stress. However, we have seen time and time again that when governments come together, when people come together, they can do things better than when they work singly. I'm asking for governments and people to come together here. It has been done in the past, and— particularly the global majority, the medium-sized powers, the smaller countries need to come together, support each other, and send clear messages to those who are powerful where these companies are located in countries that human rights, particularly freedom of expression, cannot be treated as an object for tariff negotiations. It cannot become an issue of geopolitics. It's a right and therefore deserves respect, deserves protection. I think if the strong message goes out together— we have seen time and time again smaller countries have come together. You look at the history of the United Nations and you see there are moments where they have come together and they've done it. We've seen strong statements from some of these middle powers about being at the table, otherwise, you know, you're on the menu. So what I'm telling them, well, you're saying those things, well, do it. Here's an issue on which you can be at the table. Bring everyone around the table and find solutions. Make it happen. Because if you don't, the costs are very high. Women, children, media. We see the cost they're paying very visibly in front of us. But there is a bigger cost to elections, democracy, to ability for the state and the citizen to communicate because corporate lobbying has always been there. Corporate profits have always been there. But here we are talking about something that is actually an issue of public interest. It is a public a public good. Information is a public service. And if you don't protect that, then you're destroying communities, you're destroying your own democracies. So our message goes very strongly to liberal democracies because here we see a backsliding. They need to wake up and take control of this situation. And they need to bring on board other governments who don't have capacity, governments, for example, in the global majority, Capacitate them, bring in NGOs, listen to them because you have to listen to the truth tellers, bring in the media and listen to them and work together. Because this right cuts across all human rights. You don't stand up for freedom of expression and opinion, you don't protect that, well, you're not going to get other rights, education, elections, down the line environmental protection. All depends on strong respect and protection of freedom of expression. On guidelines, well, international humanitarian law operates in armed conflict situations. That's a clean statement that many people are not aware of, including people who are actually on the battlefield. Many armies do not realize, many governments do not realize that freedom of expression exists during war times. Journalists have to be protected. So first of all, these guidelines hopefully will educate them about what are the principles that are applicable there. But it goes beyond that. It also gives clarity on issues such as, for example, journalism is not espionage. How do you differentiate between journalism and espionage? Journalists enjoy civilian protection. But when is that civilian protection lost? When do journalists actually become direct participants in hostilities? Not when the government that has killed a journalist says so. And we know many— look at Gaza. The excuse we have heard time and time again from the Israeli Defense Forces is, "Mr. So-and-so was a member of Hamas, and that's why he was killed." What we are saying here is there are criteria, there's a definition, there are standards that have to be applied. So we're clarifying those kinds of things. We are also looking at practical protection, as I said, whether it's labels or, you know, other means of protection. We are looking at how do you strengthen— what are the risk areas when journalists go into dangerous situations? How do you make sure— how do media companies make sure that they have the protection. Where is the training? Has the military been trained? Are the fighters, belligerents, do they understand their responsibilities? So it's, in a sense, it's guidance there. But most important of all, we're looking at the issue of impunity. We know that if you allow impunity to happen, then the crime will— if there's impunity for a crime, then you can bet that there will be repetitions of that crime time and time again. And that's exactly what's happening with the killing of journalists. So we are looking at whose responsibility it is. The country, the state where it has happened, yes. But other states can also take action under international law, under their own national law. For example, if the journalist comes from a particular country, that national country can take responsibility and investigate the crime. We are also looking at what international community can do. How can international mechanisms come into play when journalists are being killed. So this is obviously— these are guidelines, and their value will lie on whether those who are in the field, governments, belligerent parties, but other governments as well who are supporting one side or the other, how they pick these guidelines up and work with them. And that is where I have said it openly, these guidelines are not cast in stone. They're out there. Discuss it, learn about it, uh, revise it if you want to make it more effective, but use it, promote it, stand up for journalists, because if you don't have good independent journalism in armed conflict situations, then all of us suffer. Makes peace more difficult, crimes get away, war crimes get away with no witnesses, and the world becomes a less safer place. And that's why we need to make sure that journalists themselves are safe.

Thank you. Next question.

Thank you very much. Maeva Shawi for Kyodo News Agency, Japan's leading news agency. So I just have a few questions. You know, when we are reporting, normally we need examples. So as you said, your, your report doesn't mention so many, uh, doesn't mention any examples, but, um, you also mentioned that some countries are supporting you. Uh, could you name a few of them? Um, and which guidelines is the most, like, realistic for them? What could we really apply on the ground? Then about the journalist protection, could you mention a few conflict zones where journalists are especially at risk? Could you also tell us if you are able to discuss with the belligerents you know, the parties involved, to protect them? And finally, you also mentioned the visible cost of people raising their voice. And maybe now we can look at the situation in Switzerland. As you know, there has been an important demonstration in Geneva for the No G7 demonstration. So people got caught by the— in a police mechanism for 10 hours with no access to toilets, food, and very insufficient amount of water. Have you been looking to this case? Are you going to a bit investigate on it? And what are your advices? Thank you very much.

When I've said there are no examples, in my thematic report about digital, the digital actors and governments, there are plenty of examples there. So obviously, I followed the normal rule of naming names and making clear who's doing what. On the issue of journalists in armed conflict, I have had many reports over the last 6 years, many press releases, many public statements, uh, and so on, which also have named names about who has done what. The guidelines are drawn from that experience, but I don't want the guidelines to become accusatory. The guidelines apply across the board to those who have violated them, uh, to those who may violate them, to those who do not violate them but have the power to ensure that others stop violating them, to all of them, to all member states, to all parties, including, as I said, to media companies and to journalists. Those guidelines are meant for journalists to also read and find out how they can keep themselves safe. So that is why it is not a document in which I'm analyzing situations, but I do have an introduction where I'm setting out why do we need these guidelines. We need these guidelines because of the level of risk that journalists are facing, because of the level of impunity with which others are operating on the ground. So I do point out the risks there. I point out the legal framework that exists where humanitarian law does not stop working in armed conflict situations. Freedom of expression does not disappear in an armed conflict. In fact, it becomes even more important. And then set out, you know, what are the things that can be done and explaining why things are this way or that way, how do you behave. Now, conflict zones, we know the dangerous conflict zones, we know the bloodiest of all conflict zones has been Gaza. The highest number killed with total impunity, with no investigation of a single case in the West Bank or in the Gaza and the occupied territories, Palestine, not just now, but going back decades. Of course, Ukraine is another area. Sudan has been others. These are really hotspots of conflict where journalists have given their lives, but it happens every day in smaller conflicts as well where the news may not get out so fast. So it is a global problem, and that's why it needs more attention. You've talked about raising— the cost of raising voices. Yes, you're absolutely right. And in my work over the last few years, I've also focused on what I call backslide— what we call backsliding democracies. Liberal democracies that are supposed to be protecting people's voices when they raise them are actually doing the reverse. This year, earlier this year in January, I visited— made an official country visit to Germany. My report of— on Germany is also available, presented it to the council at this session, although of course I had made a previous public statement at the end of my mission, and where I highlighted the risks that people take in Germany, Palestinian activists, climate activists, and the response of the government has been extremely harsh. Laws have been used, criminal laws have been used, in my view excessively. Ideas, concepts like what is antisemitism, what is counter-terrorism, have been used in very loose ways so that there has been unnecessary restriction of lawful speech. But Germany is not alone in Western Europe, or not alone among liberal democracies, that are using these very tough, harsh methods of silencing voices. You mentioned Switzerland, but look at the UK where Palestine Action supporters, 80-year-old retired schoolteachers, are being arrested for holding up a poster saying, "I support Palestine Action." That is not terrorism. So I think these security laws are being used too loosely. Illegally, and therefore very dangerously to suppress lawful speech. Governments should not— let me give you the exact quote that I have in my report because I think it is worth looking at it. States must never seek to legitimize prohibited speech nor prohibit a legitimate freedom of expression. I think those are the limits. That's the standard that international law requires governments to uphold. And the sad thing is that when you talk about Switzerland or UK or Germany or these liberal democracies, they are the champions of freedom of expression. But they cannot expect their policies outside their borders to be effective, their foreign policies to be effective if they do not follow those policies in their own domestic arena. Double standards in human rights effectively undermine human rights both at home and abroad.

Thank you. Any follow-up questions in the room before we move to those online?

Yes, please.

Oh, sorry, another follow-up question. Um, in your report, you, you addressed this, uh, you know, wave of governments introducing social media bans for children and teenagers under 16, um, with the G7 last, uh, this week also adopting a statement on protecting children online. I mean, what concerns does this, uh, pose regarding children's rights to freedom of expression? And, uh, does this in a sense, lets companies off the hook. I mean, we should be seeking ways to ensure that companies uphold those— their obligations to human rights. Thank you.

Very much for raising the issue of protection of children and children's freedom of expression. On the 2nd of June, I, together with the regional special rapporteurs of the American the Inter-American System, of the OSCE, and the African Union issued a joint statement about precisely this area about protecting children. Now, the response, unfortunately, that we see around the world in many governments— the UK has recently announced it, Australia has already put it into place, several of the European member states are considering it, and the European Union itself is considering it— is about a social media ban. For children below the age of 16. We don't think it's effective for teenagers. Anyone who's had a teenage child will know that this kind of ban doesn't work. Didn't work when we were teenagers. It's not going to work now. So I think one has to look at effective ways of addressing this. A blanket ban is not only not going to work, it's actually going to damage children, because it deprives them. This is the generation, this is the digital age generation. You are pulling them out of the digital world, locking them up until they are 16, and then releasing them back into that world. That is not the way to deal with digital technology. The real issue is not about children being pulled out of social media, but social media companies being compelled to ensure that these spaces are safe for children. And therefore, that is where the government should be focusing on. They shouldn't— they need to take up the hard end of this problem, dealing with these companies rather than pocketing the revenue from these companies and then depriving children of access to information, to the main source of information in these days, this day and age. And companies themselves need to take the responsibilities very safe— very seriously to ensure how do you design products with human rights in mind right from the beginning. How do you ensure that you've done your human rights due diligence when it comes to children? Children have a right to freedom of expression. Of course, that right takes into account the best interests of the child, the maturity of the child, the progressive majority the maturity of the child and the specificities of children, but you don't deprive them of the right and then fail to carry out your own obligation as a member state to ensure that people are safe from corporate actors when it comes to their human rights.

Thank you. Do we have any questions online? Or any other follow-up questions in the room? Thank you very much. If there are no further questions, we will now close this press conference. Thank you all for joining us, and thank you, Ms. Khan.