Skip to main content
EFFecting Change: The Human Cost of Online Age Verification on January 15

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

Free Speech banner, an colorful graphic representation of a megaphone

Fuller v. Doe

EFF and the California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC) asked a California appeals court to scrutinize a chemical company's attempt to strip the anonymity from a participant in an online message board.
The participant posted information that H.B. Fuller Co. claims could only have been obtained through a company "town...

Free Speech banner, an colorful graphic representation of a megaphone

Free Speech Coalition v. Holder

EFF has filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging a federal court judge to block two criminal statutes that unconstitutionally limit the free expression of millions of adults who use the Internet and other electronic forms of communication bringing the threat of criminal sanctions for private lawful speech.
At issue are...

Frankel v. Lyons (Barney)

EFF defended the free speech rights of a website publisher who had repeatedly received baseless threats from the corporate owners of Barney the Dinosaur. The Lyons Partnership wrongly claimed that Dr. Stuart Frankel's online parody of Barney violated copyright and trademark laws. EFF filed suit on Dr. Frankel's behalf, forcing...

Fix Wilson Yard v. City of Chicago

EFF has asked an Illinois Circuit Court judge to quash subpoenas aimed at outing opponents of a controversial city project.
In December local residents filed a lawsuit in state court against the city of Chicago and local developers challenging the legality of a development project in the city’s Uptown...

First Cash v. John Doe

John Doe is an anonymous poster on an internet message board who made some statements critical of Plaintiff First Cash a Texas-based chain of pawn shops and check cashing services. First Cash sued doe in Texas claiming breach of contract on the claim that Doe "may have been" an employee...

Pages

Back to top

JavaScript license information