A/HRC/21/30 that restrict access to online content to be appropriate and necessary to address genuine concerns effectively. Lastly, the High Commissioner urged States to continue their efforts to bridge the digital divide to attain universal Internet access for all. 5. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, Carl Bildt, pointed out that it was critical that the panel discussion be held at the current time because of the rapid spread of the Internet throughout the world and its link to economic and social development. He highlighted the need to protect the enjoyment of human rights in the online world and emphasized that Internet freedom had become critical for the future protection of freedoms and human rights around the world. He stated that hate speech and incitement to promote hate speech should and could be addressed by the same laws in the Internet domain as in the print media, emphasizing that there was no reason why rules should be different online than offline. 6. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, stressed that new human rights standards were not needed for the Internet, because human rights principles and doctrines applied both offline and online. He emphasized that the same basic principles of the right to freedom of expression would apply, regardless of the medium. The interactive nature of the Internet gave it special power; it should be seen as a necessary element for the exercise of many rights in the socio-economic arena and to promote cultural diversity in the world. The Special Rapporteur commented on the rising trend of criminalizing Internet users and of transferring the responsibility of blocking and filtering online content to intermediaries. He stressed the need for a multi-stakeholder dialogue to establish acceptable mechanisms for blocking and filtering content. He emphasized the fact that access to the Internet, in terms of both content and infrastructure, is a question of freedom of expression. 7. The Executive Director of the Association for Progressive Communications, Anriette Esterhuysen, observed that the failure to find a clear path for establishing human rights protection on the Internet could lead Governments to miss an enormous opportunity. This was due to the fact that new technologies provided States with the ability to expedite the protection and promotion of all human rights, especially in the area of education. While recognizing the need for due process and strong rule of law, she emphasized that States should focus on the opportunities provided by the Internet rather than the risks, and highlighted the unsustainable nature of restricting access. She concluded that Member States had raised important questions during the panel discussion, and called on all stakeholders to continue dialogue. 8. The Executive Director of the Centre of Research, Studies and Learning (Brazil), Carlos Afonso, observed that conflicting laws presented a challenge to a representative democracy like Brazil. He gave the example of attempts being made in Brazil to approve in Congress a civil rights framework for the Internet that would incorporate the rights to privacy and access, but that was in conflict with other laws. He noted that such conflicts necessitate debate and public consultation. He commended the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression for his report, and pointed out that regulation was not simple and needed to take into account the particular characteristics of each country. 9. The Head of Free Expression, External Relations, Communications and Public Affairs of Google (Belgium), William Echikson, stated that the major challenge today was how to maintain freedom on the Internet in the light of the restrictions on Internet usage in 40 countries, a figure that had risen considerably in recent years. According to Mr. Echikson, Google products were either banned or blocked in 25 of the 150 countries where the company operates. Google recognized its responsibilities, and that if it was given a legitimate court order to take down content, then it would do so. Mr. Echikson, however, underlined the need for greater transparency with regard to the type and amount of content 3