A/HRC/22/28 as well as their material and for fundamental principles, such as the confidentiality of their sources. States should prohibit the refusal to issue visas or to give accreditation to journalists, as well as their expulsion; police forces should respect the neutrality of journalists and should receive training on respect for international norms on freedom of information and respect for the work of the media during demonstrations. In addition, the State should effectively combat impunity for exaction against journalists by systematically prosecuting those responsible for criminal acts and imposing disciplinary measures. 69. The organization ARTICLE 19 also underlined the role of the media, arguing that attacks on journalists and “citizen journalists” covering assemblies should be regarded as a violation of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly as well as the right to freedom of expression. It cited the judgement of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in a case concerning an attack on a video journalist who was attempting to film a demonstration. The Court concluded that disseminating information about such protests enables those who see it “to observe and verify whether, during the demonstration, the members of the armed forces were performing their duties correctly, with an appropriate use of force.” 30 New technologies 70. New technologies, such as the Internet, e-mail, text messaging, Twitter, Facebook, as well as mobile phones, have changed the way people peacefully protest, and have also challenged traditional notions about what is a peaceful assembly. 31 ARTICLE 19 noted that in 2010, the United States of America Secretary of State analogized online platforms as the modern town square for the purpose of assemblies and argued that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly applies to online protests. 71. The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) observed that new forms of online protests are not well covered by national legislation and human rights law. Legally permitted online protest remains to be defined. APC referred to distributed denial-ofservice (DDoS) attacks, an often-used form of online protest. DDoS attacks involve the continuous flooding of a website by many users with useless information, which can cause the website to slow down or go offline due to server overload. APC noted that a DDoS attack can be an act of protest and could be considered the online version of a sit-in. A DDoS attack will usually make a website unavailable for a short time until the attacks cease – similar to protesters outside a building stopping business activities for a limited period until the protest ceases. Such attacks alone do not generally compromise the security of a site or allow for stealing information, unless the target site is hacked and exploited while it is weakened. A German court ruled that DDoS attacks could, depending on the purpose of the attack, be considered a legitimate form of protest, and not a crime. APC stated that the law needed to draw a distinction between DDoS attacks for protest activities and attacks conducted by “botnets” controlled by hackers which harm both their targets and the unwilling owners of zombie machines used in botnet attacks. APC said that people using DDoS tools should be assessed differently from those using botnets. 30 31 16 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Vélez Restrepo and family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. judgement of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248. See A/HRC/20/27, para. 32. The Special Rapporteur also underlined that human rights in the context of peaceful protests should apply both offline and online, and agreed with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression that all States should ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest, (para. 84(k)).