Vol. 15 No. 1 (2021)
DOCTRINA

The boundaries of freedom of expression on social media

José Armando Madrigal Segura
Universidad Latinoamericana de Ciencia y Tecnología

Published 2023-12-21

Keywords

  • Freedom of expression, freedom of thought, human rights, technology, social media, internet, offense.

How to Cite

Madrigal Segura, J. A. (2023). The boundaries of freedom of expression on social media. Derecho En Sociedad, 15(1), 68–94. Retrieved from https://revistas.ulacit.ac.cr/index.php/derecho-en-sociedad/article/view/153

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Abstract

Technological advances have impacted life in society and how human beings relate and communicate. Access to information is now greater than at any other time in history. Human beings today, are a social being with a greater capacity to express his thoughts and ideas with great simplicity, especially through social media and internet. Also, the human right to freedom of expression is transformed into an applicability in these digital media, where there are a series of limitations to this right, ranging from international treaties, State power, to private enterprises, as intermediaries, who dictate on what is correct to say or not. With a
series of variables such as culture, territory and a specific context, the conception of freedom of expression may vary, but in the end, it must be assured by states and international law as part of human thinking and development, and life in democracy. Furthermore, is necessary to consider freedom of expression from the current and future reality, national and international regulations, doctrine, and contemplate a way of guaranteeing it without harming other rights.

References

  1. Aronson, E. (2018). The Social Animal. Worth Publishers. Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas. (1968). Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos. http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.as px?param1=NRTC&param2=1&nValor1=1&nValor2=20579&n
  2. Asamblea Legislativa de la República de Costa Rica. (1970). Código Penal. Ley N.° 4573. http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?nValor1=1&nValor2=5027
  3. Asamblea Nacional Constituyente. (1949). Constitución Política de Costa Rica. https://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.a spx?n-Valor1=1&nValor2=871
  4. Balkin, J. (2018). Free speech is a triangle. Columbia Law Review, 118(2011), 2011-2056. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a101/37caa258d39a2ff6bf4e959d38fa3602f28d.pdf?_ga=2.173043363.1245713619.1590219791-1670482375.1590219791
  5. Barata, J. (2019, septiembre). Libertad de expresión. [Conferencia]. Celebración del XXX aniversario de la Sala Constitucional, Poder Judicial, San José, Costa Rica. https://livestream.com/poderjudicialcostarica/aniversariosalaconstitucional/videos/196912134
  6. Barrantes, D. (2018). Alegoría de la caverna: caverna publicitaria o de la alienación de la sociedad. Revista Hoja Filosófica, 47, 1-50.
  7. Bavitz, C. (2018). The Right to be Forgotten and Internet Governance: Challenges and Opportunities. Latin American Law Review, 2(2019), 1-21.
  8. BBVA. (2019). ¿Sabes cuántas horas al día pasas en el móvil? https://www.bbva.com/es/sabes-cuantas-horas-al-dia-pasas-en-el-movil/
  9. Beach, S. (2019). Hashtag hate: the need for regulating malignant rhetoric online. Vermont Law Review, 44(1), 129-163.
  10. Beausoleil, L. (2019). Free, hateful, and posted: rethinking First Amendment protection of hate speech in a social media world. Boston College Law Review, 60(7), 2101-2144.
  11. Corte Suprema de Justicia. (2006a). Sala Constitucional. RES: 05977-2006. https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-346738
  12. Corte Suprema de Justicia. (2006b). Sala Tercera de la Corte. RES: 00932-2006. https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-367614
  13. Corte Suprema de Justicia. (2010a). Sala Constitucional. RES: 12790-2010. https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-483874
  14. Corte Suprema de Justicia. (2010b). Sala Constitucional. RES: 16202-2010. https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-488742
  15. Corte Suprema de Justicia. (2016). Sala Constitucional. RES: 15220-2016. https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-708660
  16. Countries are increasingly willing to censor speech online. (2019, 7 de noviembre). The Economist. https://www.economist.com/international/2019/11/07/countries-are-increasinglywilling-to-censor-speech-online
  17. Dentzel, Z. (2013). El impacto de internet en la vida diaria, en C@mbio: 19 ensayos clave sobre cómo internet está cambiando nuestras vidas. https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/articulos/el-impacto-de-internet-en-la-vida-diaria/
  18. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (s. f.). Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. https://www.eff.org/es/issues/cda230
  19. Estrada, A., Alfaro, K., y Saavedra V. (2020). Disinformation y misinformation, posverdad y fake News. Precisiones conceptuales, diferencias, similitudes y yuxtaposiciones. Información, cultura y sociedad, 42, 93-106.
  20. Facebook. (2020). Normas comunitarias. https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/
  21. Flores, J. (2019). Inteligencia artificial y periodismo: diluyendo el impacto de la desinformación y las noticias falsas a través de los bots. Doxa Comunicación, 29, 197-212.
  22. Global Freedom of Expression Columbia University. (2020a). Handyside v. United Kingdom. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/handyside-v-uk/
  23. Global Freedom of Expression Columbia University. (2020b). Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/herreraulloa-v-costa-rica/
  24. Global Freedom of Expression Columbia University. (2020c). Savva Terentyev v. Russia. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/savvaterentyev-v-russia/
  25. González, A., y Schulz D. (2017). Helping Truth with Its Boots: Accreditation as an Antidote to Fake News. Yale Law Journal, 127(315). https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/helping-truth-with-its-boots
  26. Jinesta, E. (2002). Tratado de Derecho Administrativo, tomo I. Iusconsultec S. A. y Editorial Jurídica Continental.
  27. Jones, T. (2019). Russia’s internet law a ‘new level’ of censorship: RSF. DW made for minds. https://www.dw.com/en/russias-internet-law-a-new-level-ofcensorship-rsf/a-51079700
  28. Klepač, B. (2019). “Europe Will Soon Be Lost to Political Correctness”: Evaluating a Discourse of Political Correctness in the Main Treaties of the European Union. Croatian Political Science Review, 56(3-4), 106-136.
  29. Klonick, K. (2020). The Facebook Oversight Board: Creating an Independent Institution to Adjudicate Online Free Expression. The Yale Law Journal, 129(2418), 2418-2499. https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/KlonickFeature_yczqzsme.pdf
  30. Marlasca, A. (1997). Introducción a la ética. EUNED.
  31. Miranda, H. (2016). El acceso a internet como derecho fundamental. Revista Jurídica IUS Doctrina. (15), 1-23. https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/iusdoctrina/article/download/27476/27648
  32. Moreno, A. (2019). El derecho al olvido digital: una brecha entre Europa y Estados Unidos. Revista de Comunicación, 18(1), 259-276.
  33. Organización de los Estados Americanos. (1969). Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos (Pacto de San José). https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/tratados_b-32_convencion_americana_sobre_derechos_humanos.htm
  34. Organización de las Naciones Unidas. (2020). Libertad de expresión vs incitación al odio: el ACNUDH y el Acción de Rabat. https://www.ohchr.org/sp/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Articles19-20/Pages/Index.aspx
  35. Reymond, M. (2018). The future of the European Union “Right to be Forgotten”. Latin American Law Review, 2(2019), 81-98.
  36. Seijas, R. (2020). Las soluciones europeas a la desinformación y su riesgo de impacto en los derechos fundamentales. Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política, 31, 1-14.
  37. Solon, O. (15 de junio de 2020). “Facebook doesn’t care”: Activists say accounts removed despite Zuckerberg’s free-speech stance. NBC news. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-doesn-t-care-activists-sayaccounts-removed-despite-zuckerberg-n1231110
  38. Standford. (2011). Free speech vs Maintaining Social Cohesion. https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/FreeExpressionVsSocialCohesion/germany_policy.html
  39. Thompson, S. (2019). Hate Speech and Self-Restraint. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 22, 657-671.
  40. Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal, II Circuito Judicial de San José. (2017). Resolución N.º 00529–2017. https://nexuspj.poderjudicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-711187