Skip to main content
Podcast Episode: Antitrust/Pro-Internet

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

Petition to cancel 'Urban Homestead' trademarks

EFF has teamed up with the law firm of Winston & Strawn to represent Kelly Coyne and Erik Knutzen authors of The Urban Homestead: Your Guide to Self-sufficient Living in the Heart of the City as well as their publisher Process Media in a petition to cancel the registration of...

Online Policy Group v. Diebold

EFF protected online speakers by bringing the first successful suit against abusive copyright claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). When internal memos exposing flaws in Diebold Election Systems' electronic voting machines leaked onto the Internet, Diebold used bogus copyright threats to silence its critics. EFF fought back on...

OdioWorks v Apple

EFF filed suit against Apple Inc. to defend the First Amendment rights of an operator of a noncommercial public Internet "wiki" site known as Bluwiki.
EFF and the San Francisco law firm of Keker & Van Nest represent OdioWorks LLC which runs the BluWiki website. Like many “wiki” platforms...

Free Speech banner, an colorful graphic representation of a megaphone

Nitke v. Ashcroft

Nitke et. al. v. Ashcroft challenges the obscenity provisions in the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Barbara Nitke a New York photographer who works with erotic subject matter has joined with the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom in a suit that attacks the constitutionality of provisions in the CDA that create...

Naas v. Anonymizer et al.

Complaint filed in an Ohio lawsuit against Anonymizer.com (a provider of anonymous Internet service) and several other parties (mostly John Doe defendants) in which a defamed plaintiff attempts to hold the service provider liable for third parties' defamatory statements.

Pages

Back to top

JavaScript license information