Skip to main content

The online world offers the promise of speech with minimal barriers and without borders. New technologies and widespread internet access have radically enhanced our ability to express ourselves; criticize those in power; gather and report the news; and make, adapt, and share creative works. Vulnerable communities have also found space to safely meet,  grow, and make themselves heard without being drowned out by the powerful. The ability to freely exchange ideas also benefits innovators, who can use all of their capabilities to build even better tools for their communities and the world.

In the U.S., the First Amendment grants individuals the right to speak without government interference. And globally, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protects the right to speak both online and offline. Everyone should be able to take advantage of this promise. And no government should have the power to decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t.

Government threats to online speakers are significant. Laws and policies have enabled censorship regimes, controlled access to information, increased government surveillance, and minimized user security and safety.

At the same time, online speakers’ reliance on private companies that facilitate their speech has grown considerably. Online services’ content moderation decisions have far-reaching impacts on speakers around the world. This includes social media platforms and online sites selectively enforcing their Terms of Service, Community Guidelines, and similar rules to censor dissenting voices and contentious ideas. That’s why these services must ground their moderation decisions in human rights and due process principles.

As the law and technology develops alongside our ever-evolving world, it’s important that these neither create nor reinforce obstacles to people’s ability to speak, organize, and advocate for change. Both the law and technology must enhance people’s ability to speak. That’s why EFF fights to protect free speech - because everyone has the right to share ideas and experiences safely, especially when we disagree.

Free Speech Highlights

Free Speech is Only as Strong as the Weakest Link

From Mubarak knocking a country offline by pressuring local ISPs to PayPal caving to political pressure to cut off funding to WikiLeaks, this year has brought us sobering examples of how online speech can be endangered. And it’s not only political speech that is threatened – in the United...

A person holding a megaphone that another person speaks through

Section 230

47 U.S.C. § 230The Internet allows people everywhere to connect, share ideas, and advocate for change without needing immense resources or technical expertise. Our unprecedented ability to communicate online—on blogs, social media platforms, and educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive—is not an accident. Congress recognized that...

Free Speech Updates

International issues banner, a colorful graphic of a globe

Brazil's Platform Regulation Debate: Robust Checks, Balances and Due Process Safeguards for Exceptional Measures in Crisis Situations

** This post is one section of a more extensive piece on Brazil’s platform accountability and regulation debate. Click here to read the entire content.PL 2630 establishes special obligations for when there is an imminent risk of damage or negligence of an application provider (Articles 12-15). In assessing this...

Privacy issue banner, a colorful graphical representation of a padlock

Brazil's Platform Regulation Debate: Repel Rules and Interpretations That Can Lead to Content Monitoring Obligations

** This post is one section of a more extensive piece on Brazil’s platform accountability and regulation debate. Click here to read the entire content.The Special Rapporteurs for Freedom of Expression have stated: "At a minimum, intermediaries should not be required to monitor user-generated content." And that:...

Preliminary Injunction Limiting Government Communications with Platforms Tackles Illegal “Jawboning,” But Fails to Provide Guidance on What’s Unconstitutional

A July 4 preliminary injunction issued by a federal judge in Louisiana limiting government contacts with social media platforms deals with government “jawboning”—urging private persons and entities to censor another’s speech—a serious issue deserving serious attention and judicial scrutiny.The First Amendment forbids the government from coercing a private entity...

Pages

Back to top

JavaScript license information