Law
Internet Shutdowns as a Violation of Freedom of Expression
Quick fact
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has stated that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to access and use the internet, making blanket internet shutdowns a disproportionate interference that violates Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Why this is interesting
Imagine your government one day blocking all internet access across the country to quell a protest. You can't check news, communicate, or share information. Is that legal? International human rights law says it might be a violation—read on to see why.
Read the full explanation
Understanding Internet Shutdowns as a Violation of Freedom of Expression
In many countries, freedom of expression is a fundamental right, but it isn't absolute. Governments can restrict it, but only under strict conditions. Internationally, this is governed by Article 19 of the ICCPR. When a government shuts down the internet, it's not just a technical interruption—it's a restriction on expression. To be legal, the shutdown must be 'provided by law,' pursue a legitimate aim like national security, and be 'necessary' and proportionate. In practice, a blanket shutdown rarely meets these tests because it's too broad and affects everyone, not just those posing a threat. Imagine using a firehose to put out a candle—it would douse the whole room. That's how international law views internet shutdowns: an overbroad measure that fails the proportionality test.
A deeper explanation
The mechanism for assessing internet shutdowns under human rights law relies on a three-part test: legality, legitimacy, and proportionality. First, the shutdown must have a basis in national law that is clear and publicly accessible. Second, it must aim to protect a legitimate interest, such as national security or public order. Third, and most crucially, the restriction must be necessary and proportionate—meaning the government must show that a less intrusive measure would not achieve the same goal. The UN Human Rights Committee, which interprets the ICCPR, has explicitly stated that the right to freedom of expression embraces the internet. Blanket shutdowns cut off access to information, violate privacy, and silence a wide range of voices, thereby failing the proportionality requirement. Even when the state claims security, the burden is on it to justify such an extreme measure. This framework matters because it provides a legal basis to challenge shutdowns in courts and holds states accountable, reinforcing that the internet is not a luxury but a vital medium for exercising rights.