The "censorship" on Twitter

Censorship (from Lat. Censorship): review and approval in advance does censor certain gubernatorial be written before the printing press.

Imagine the face you should put in charge of Yahoo! in 2000 when Yahoo! in France was sued by the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism Since the auction site in the web of Yahoo! , French citizens had access to products related to Nazism, a fact seen as a crime in the French Penal Code.

This was the first major case where openly raised the issue of extraterritoriality of laws on the Internet, because what is legal in one country may not be in another, while the Internet allows all access the same content. In this controversy, the conclusion to that arrived was that a state has sufficient capacity, based on their national sovereignty to prevent and limit the access of its citizens from its territory to certain content accessible through the network.

This matter was carefully examined by the European Parliament , which led the European legislature to choose the principle of control at source in respect to the content being disseminated over the Internet. This is reflected in Recital 22 of the Electronic Commerce Directive , which states: "The control of the services of the information society should be at the origin of the activity to ensure an effective protection of general interests and that, for this it is necessary to ensure that the competent authority provides such protection not only for the citizens of your country, but of all citizens of the Community. [...]; Moreover, in order to effectively ensure the free movement of services and legal certainty for service providers and recipients, in principle, these services should be subject to the law of the Member State which is established service provider ".

However, this principle does not mean that a state must allow its citizens to access any lawful content only because they are in the country from which to broadcast. Indeed, the Directive allows Member States to take measures restricting the free flow of Internet content for a service of the information society, as long as they meet certain conditions that guarantee the rights of those affected . This point was reflected in Article 8 of the Law of Services of the Information Society (LSSI) Spanish, whereby, if a particular service in the information society undermines or could undermine the principles expressed in this article, the relevant bodies for their protection, in exercise of their legally assigned functions, "may take the measures necessary to interrupt their service or to remove the infringing data."

Based on this article, Spain has closed numerous websites dedicated to the sale of counterfeit drugs, child pornography, incitement to anorexia and bulimia, among others, and has blocked access to websites through which Spanish citizens could obtain products considered illegal in Spain.

Have you applied censorship Spain in the exercise of these powers granted to the Law? Obviously not. The only thing he has done is to restrict freedom of expression because there is another good that must be protected more strongly than that in one case. This would be the case under Article 8 of the LSSI, even though the inclusion, as paragraph e) - of intellectual property rights that introduced the so-called Sinde Act to enable the Government to close websites.

Twelve years later, Twitter has once again put on the table the discussion about freedom of expression on the Internet and its limits.

In relation to this right, it is clear that certain political regimes and religious feel threatened by the Internet's ability to disseminate the principles differing views that seek to impose a population increasingly informed and concerned with the freedoms of citizens. The cases of China and Thailand have been one of the most obvious examples of a government attempts to restrict freedom of information and expression of its citizens , investing great efforts in trying to control and limit the activity that takes place over the Internet .

With regard to freedom of expression, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to disseminate opinions regardless of frontiers and through any medium of expression.

Also the United States Constitution provides that the First Amendment right when he says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or press.

Furthermore, Spain is recognized as a constitutionally protected fundamental right , in particular in Article 20.1.a), which states: "We recognize and protect the rights to freely express and disseminate thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, in writing or any other means of reproduction. "

Yet despite the importance of this right in the development and maintenance of a democratic state of law, freedom of expression is not unlimited. This is indicated by either Article 20.4 of the Spanish Constitution , which provides that "these freedoms are limited by respect for the rights recognized in this Part, the provisions of the laws implementing it, and especially the right to reputation to privacy, self-image and the protection of youth and childhood. "

In relation to this end, on January 26th we awoke to the news published on the Twitter blog , which reported that the company had decided to allow the blocking of certain tweets in those countries that so request (through platform chilling effects ), informing affected users. Such limitation shall be restricted to that particular territory, maintaining free access to these tweets beyond its borders. For example, a tweet from the Thai royal family may be inaccessible from Thailand, a pro-Nazi tweet be banned in Germany, or a message against Muhammad be locked in Muslim countries.

After the announcement, Twitter was immediately accused of violating freedom of expression online. However, is that censorship? Are rigorous holders who have given the news?

The discussion is served. Any limitation or restriction of Internet content is immediately perceived by the public as an act of censorship by the operator intends to carry it out. However, it must be determined whether such a decision is well founded and duly covered within the limits of freedom of expression under applicable law.

The limitation of these freedoms is an extremely delicate course, the exercise should be conducted with maximum guarantees for all involved and affected. It is intolerable that the Internet becomes an undesirable manipulation and indoctrination instrument of political, cultural and / or religious. Just as it is unacceptable that the Internet becomes a space that would violate the law with impunity balance between the two cases is as difficult as indispensable.