Prof. Dr. MARTIN SCHEININ

Freedom of Expression in the Digital Age: Is There Any Hope? The rapid expansion of information produced, communicated and received over the Internet is remarkable, and largely attributable to the technological innovation of using a digitalized format. Equally astonishing is the growth of the importance in peoples’ lives of digitalized information. We are speaking not only about the unprecedented possibility freely “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas” (UDHR article 19) as a definition of freedom of expression but also about how our lives, interpersonal communication and our enjoyment of all human rights have become pervasively infiltrated by the omnipresence of “the Internet”. It is not only about freedom of expression – also associations and assemblies, religious services, education and scientific progress, many health services, social security, purchasing of goods and services, media and entertainment, social and even intimate relations, democratic participation and adjudication – they all have to a lesser or greater extent moved online. Our lives are highly dependent on the digital realm. This entails huge potentials for better enjoyment of human rights, democratization of communication, public discourse and transparent and accountable governance. The internet also has delivered the promise of the last words in UDHR article 19: “… regardless of frontiers”, enabling an interconnected world, a global community. The potentials are great. But so are the dangers and challenges. The Internet also is Frankenstein’s monster, or Mr Hyde who shows his ugly side in the darkness of the night. Human rights scholars and practitioners need to join theri forces in identifying the threats, stopping the escalating negative developments and blocking irreversible decisions that would destroy the foundation of democracy and human rights. We need a response that does not entail authoritarian control or prohibiting freedom but that secures transparency, accountability and equality, regardless of frontiers, regardless of whether an actor is a public or private entity and of what opinions someone is willing to share and promote under the basic precondition of respecting the pursuit of truth and rational arguments. In many ways we are on a knife’s edge. We have already moved to a post-truth era where it no longer matters whether one’s information is truthful or not, or what evidence and arguments are presented. What matters is entertainment value and “clicks”. Even established mainstream media has fallen for the fallacies of false balance, misleading but attractive headlines and rewarding their individual journalists for the number of clicks – and advertising revenue – they attract. Misinformation is pervasive and people lose their ability to distinguish between truth and lies. Disinformation campaigns, often with dodgy links to political actors whose real intention is to cause mistrust and instability, find more and more easy targets. The slogan “but it could have been true” has become a valid answer by someone who has been caught of lying and thereby of breaching the foundational rules of communication, without which there cannot be a community. The unexplainable proportion of economy and finance that is shifting to corporations that do not produce anything tangible and have no tangible assets is shocking and suggests that a huge bubble is about to burst. Is there any hope? I think there is, and I will tell you why. I will also say something about terrorism and the fight against it, and about the relevance of Hannah Arendt today.