A/HRC/32/38 and services originated by third parties” even though they do not create or produce that content.19 37. State demands to remove content are often based on such rationales as defamation, blasphemy, election-related regulations, harassment or hate speech, incitement, intellectual property, obscenity and indecency, terrorist recruitment or “glorification”, the protection of national security and public safety, child protection and the prevention of gender-based attacks. Problems long connected to freedom of expression but increasingly complicated in the digital age have also attracted State regulation, including the “right to be forgotten” and pluralism and diversity (for example, network neutrality). Intermediaries themselves establish and enforce terms of service designed to address many of these concerns, for legal, commercial and other reasons. Many of these issues raise questions about the appropriate balance between freedom of expression and other human rights (for example, privacy, non-discrimination). While content regulations are often restrictive in nature, they may also require the transmission of Government-mandated or approved messages,20 or prohibit differential pricing for content and content delivery services.21 1. State regulation 38. States regulate digital content through a variety of legal, political and technical means. Trends of concern include the following. Vague laws 39. Content regulations are commonly reflected in legislation, court orders or directives or by-laws issued by administrative bodies with delegated authority to manage telecommunications and Internet-related issues. For example, China recently amended its cybersecurity law to forbid persons and organizations from using the Internet to “upse[t] social order” or “har[m] the public interest”.22 Similarly, a draft bill under consideration in Nigeria prohibits anyone from publishing statements in “any medium” with “malicious intent to discredit or set the public against” any person, group or government institution. 23 Such language gives broad discretion to authorities to determine what kinds of digital expression would violate their terms. As a result, individuals and businesses are likely to err on the side of caution in order to avoid onerous penalties, filtering content of uncertain legal status and engaging in other modes of censorship and self-censorship. Excessive intermediary liability 40. States often require the cooperation of intermediaries to enforce regulations on private networks and platforms. Internet and telecommunication service providers, for example, are required to comply with local laws and regulations as a condition of their operating licences, a legitimate requirement which becomes problematic when the local laws or their implementation are themselves inconsistent with human rights law. Companies less constrained by licensing requirements, such as social networking platforms, 19 20 21 22 23 MacKinnon and others, Fostering Freedom Online, p. 19; K. Perset, The Economic and Social Role of Internet Intermediaries (OECD, 2010). See Vodafone Group Plc, “Response on issues relating to mobile network operations in Egypt” (2011). India, for example, prohibits service providers from offering or charging discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content (Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016). China, Cybersecurity Law (2015), art. 9. Parliament of Nigeria, A bill for an act to prohibit frivolous petitions and other matters connected therewith, sect. 3 (3). 11