Session
Organizer 1: Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Organizer 2: Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Organizer 2: Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 1: Vladimir Chorny, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 2: Agneris Sampieri, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 3: Veridiana Alimonti, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 4: Camila Leite Contri, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 5: Pedro Vaca Villarreal, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
Speaker 2: Agneris Sampieri, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 3: Veridiana Alimonti, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 4: Camila Leite Contri, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 5: Pedro Vaca Villarreal, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
Format
Roundtable
Duration (minutes): 90
Format description: We aim to have an open discussion and share fluent information where all participants can interact. With the roundtable, we will allow a first round of presentations by the speakers of the case studies in the InterAmerican region and deploy a normative basis to ground the conversation. After that, the table will be open to questions and share similar experiences so that participants can have a second round of speaker's commentaries to frame possible action strategies, advocacy, and/or litigation on these matters. We require 90 minutes of discussions to present the cases, discuss them with the audience, and then elaborate on possible strategies and actions further.
Duration (minutes): 90
Format description: We aim to have an open discussion and share fluent information where all participants can interact. With the roundtable, we will allow a first round of presentations by the speakers of the case studies in the InterAmerican region and deploy a normative basis to ground the conversation. After that, the table will be open to questions and share similar experiences so that participants can have a second round of speaker's commentaries to frame possible action strategies, advocacy, and/or litigation on these matters. We require 90 minutes of discussions to present the cases, discuss them with the audience, and then elaborate on possible strategies and actions further.
Policy Question(s)
A. How can the transparency regulations (or their absence) be relevant to accessing information related to content removals that can affect the right of freedom of expression online?
B. What role should civil society, academia, and international human rights organizations have in front of the regulatory debates on the accountability of digital platforms and the risks of government control resulting from them?
C. Which strategies can be used across countries with different legal landscapes to detect possible illegitimate content removals from authorities or platforms?
What will participants gain from attending this session? Participants will leave the room with concrete methodologies and case studies for legal research and litigation related to the workshop topics. They will also know the most relevant cases where these strategies have been successful in accessing relevant information and obtaining judicial decisions that protect the right of freedom of expression online.
Description:
Platforms and Governments have worked to remove legitimate and protected online content in different contexts. Through requests to remove content, State authorities develop mechanisms of censorship that are often hidden from the public due to the lack of transparency laws and/or the opacity in the platforms' transparency reports. The scope and dynamic of this problem are hard to grasp because the compliance of platforms on their transparency duties is insufficient or meaningless and because of the control of information interests from governments. Legal research and litigation can, notwithstanding, be a helpful and effective tool to expose the power dynamics behind the collaboration between platforms and governments and also to gain access to the authority requests and the platform's responses to scrutinize both the actions of the authorities and the duty of respect of human rights of the platforms. This workshop uses relevant case studies and experiences of such legal strategies to break the black box of content removal in platforms, call for accountability for the subjects involved, and produce concrete actions to demand meaningful transparency and responsibility for them. Using a legal approach from the InterAmerican System of Human Rights as a Kickstarter and national cases from this region, we aim to discuss different legal approaches for enforcing State and platforms' human rights obligations. As part of the discussion, we explore how other regional regulations, such as the Digital Services Act, can impact the regulations and strategies to enforce human rights and transparency.
Platforms and Governments have worked to remove legitimate and protected online content in different contexts. Through requests to remove content, State authorities develop mechanisms of censorship that are often hidden from the public due to the lack of transparency laws and/or the opacity in the platforms' transparency reports. The scope and dynamic of this problem are hard to grasp because the compliance of platforms on their transparency duties is insufficient or meaningless and because of the control of information interests from governments. Legal research and litigation can, notwithstanding, be a helpful and effective tool to expose the power dynamics behind the collaboration between platforms and governments and also to gain access to the authority requests and the platform's responses to scrutinize both the actions of the authorities and the duty of respect of human rights of the platforms. This workshop uses relevant case studies and experiences of such legal strategies to break the black box of content removal in platforms, call for accountability for the subjects involved, and produce concrete actions to demand meaningful transparency and responsibility for them. Using a legal approach from the InterAmerican System of Human Rights as a Kickstarter and national cases from this region, we aim to discuss different legal approaches for enforcing State and platforms' human rights obligations. As part of the discussion, we explore how other regional regulations, such as the Digital Services Act, can impact the regulations and strategies to enforce human rights and transparency.
Expected Outcomes
This session is expected to serve as a detonation space for thoughtful discussions on concrete strategies to access information on illegal content removals that affect the right to freedom of expression. Sharing experiences will also connect CSOs, academics, and other subjects interested in this topic to join efforts, share know-how, and even create joint strategies to demand accountability and transparency from governments and platforms. We aim to generate groups to follow up on their work and coordinate actions further.
Hybrid Format: We plan to allow one or two speakers (of five) to participate remotely, where they can present their case study and presentation virtually. Also, before we start the conversation, we will encourage online participants to comment and raise questions on the presentations or the discussion, which will then be introduced in the discussion either by the moderator or by the participants themselves. Using the screens and assigned platform for the online conversation, speakers will be encouraged to present their cases virtually to facilitate information sharing, and the audience will be able to share resources there to nourish the discussion.