Coronavirus, emergency must not become an excuse to restrict freedom of expression

Can thecoronavirus emergency that has now become planetary pose a threat to freedom of expression? That is what the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), an organization founded in 1974 with the aim of fighting censorship in all its forms, is asking in the United States. For NCAC, the threat is real: “During a global health crisis,” they write in a note today (translation is ours), “medical needs are, understandably, the priority. But our needs have many facets, and as the government works to limit the spread of Covid-19, we must be vigilant to protect our right to freedom of expression and defend our ability to share and access information.”

As schools and cultural institutions close, the commitment must be to continue civic engagement and the promotion of artistic and cultural expression. But what, according to NCAC, are the most realistic threats? First, the possibility of non-transparent institutions: in the United States, for example, meetings of the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have been held in secrecy, and this, according to NCAC, prevents experts in medicine, law and other fields concerned with the emergency from participating in the public debate. And according to the organization, citizens have the right to know, with full transparency, how extensive the coronavirus threat is and what it means for our lives.

Another threat is that of control over information: “In times of crisis,” NCAC writes, “there may be those who are inclined to brand dissent as dangerous. But our democracy requires participation, and we need to be allowed access to dissenting views and to express our opinions. Disagreement and debate are essential to arrive at thoughtful decisions.” It is therefore necessary to question government responses to the emergency in every respect. The most egregious example is that of China: several media outlets, foremost among them the New York Times, have reported on how Beijing censored those who expressed dissent via the Internet (and often those who expressed positions contrary to those of the government had the police come to their homes). In addition, the Chinese government has also expelled some American journalists from the country.

Still, NCAC fears censorship for political purposes of scientific research: this is the case, for example, with those who downplayed concerns about the coronavirus. And there could be a repetition of scripts that have been followed before, such as when the Trump administration, as NCAC itself denounces, put in place attempts to ban certain terms (such as “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus”) from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention releases. “Scientists and physicians,” NCAC writes, “must be free to be able to share their knowledge and recommendations, even if these put pressure on governments.”

Then there is the chapter on travel restrictions, which in the U.S., as it is known, are also a political issue since Trump elevated so-called travel bans against some countries considered enemies. The health emergency has led many countries to enact travel restrictions: the Covid-19 pandemic is a reasonable and serious reason to restrict travel, and it is therefore understandable that countries are gearing up to do so, however, the NCAC points out, “we need to make sure that the restrictions are exclusively a medical necessity and that they follow expert recommendations exclusively.” Indeed, the fear is that travel restrictions will be extended beyond the emergency and manipulated politically.

Another cause for concern is the surveillance to which citizens may be subjected: in some countries (such as South Korea, and to some extent Italy), surveillance and travel monitoring technologies have been adopted as part of strategies to contain the spread of the epidemic. “These methods,” says the NCAC, “can be useful and necessary,” but, citing a paper by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF, an international organization founded in 1990 that focuses on rights protection especially in the fields of information technology and telecommunications), “any extraordinary measures employed to manage a specific crisis should not become permanent and should not leave room for government intrusion into our daily lives.” EFF argues that surveillance to contain the spread of Covid-19 must adhere to some well-delineated principles: intrusions into privacy must be necessary and proportionate; data must be collected on a scientific basis, not on the basis of bias; invasive programs must be curtailed once the crisis has been contained; institutions must be transparent in communicating their policies to the public; and due process must be ensured.

Finally, the last chapter concerns social media, which must be vigilant to ensure that fake news, misinformation andhate speech do not proliferate. On the one hand, there are the positives: “platforms such as Facebook or Twitter,” the NCAC points out, “have been praised for how they have handled information that could harm public health and for providing a means of social connection in a time of physical disconnection.” But there is also the other side of the coin: “social companies have a complicated relationship with freedom of expression. As private companies, they are free to use their own guidelines and standards. But because they are also public spaces, many, including NCAC, believe that social media have a responsibility to respect the principles of freedom of expression and to protect their users’ right to express themselves.” There is also a need for social media to consider that automated moderation tools often make poor decisions that perhaps a human moderator would not have made. “The scarcity of humans making decisions,” the NCAC concludes, “inevitably complicates processes that are already difficult.”

Coronavirus, emergency must not become an excuse to restrict freedom of expression

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.