A/HRC/17/27 Similarly, while the protection of children from inappropriate content may constitute a legitimate aim, the availability of software filters that parents and school authorities can use to control access to certain content renders action by the Government such as blocking less necessary, and difficult to justify.12 Furthermore, unlike the broadcasting sector, for which registration or licensing has been necessary to allow States to distribute limited frequencies, such requirements cannot be justified in the case of the Internet, as it can accommodate an unlimited number of points of entry and an essentially unlimited number of users.13 IV. Restriction of content on the Internet 28. As outlined under Chapter III, any restriction to the right to freedom of expression must meet the strict criteria under international human rights law. A restriction on the right of individuals to express themselves through the Internet can take various forms, from technical measures to prevent access to certain content, such as blocking and filtering, to inadequate guarantees of the right to privacy and protection of personal data, which inhibit the dissemination of opinions and information. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that the arbitrary use of criminal law to sanction legitimate expression constitutes one of the gravest forms of restriction to the right, as it not only creates a “chilling effect”, but also leads to other human rights violations, such as arbitrary detention and torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. A. Arbitrary blocking or filtering of content 29. Blocking refers to measures taken to prevent certain content from reaching an enduser. This includes preventing users from accessing specific websites, Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, domain name extensions, the taking down of websites from the web server where they are hosted, or using filtering technologies to exclude pages containing keywords or other specific content from appearing. For example, several countries continue to block access to YouTube,14 a video-sharing website on which users can upload, share and view videos. China, which has in place one of the most sophisticated and extensive systems for controlling information on the Internet, has adopted extensive filtering systems that block access to websites containing key terms such as “democracy” and “human rights”.15 The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned that mechanisms used to regulate and censor information on the Internet are increasingly sophisticated, with multi-layered controls that are often hidden from the public. 30. The Special Rapporteur is also concerned by the emerging trend of timed (or “justin-time”) blocking to prevent users from accessing or disseminating information at key political moments, such as elections, times of social unrest, or anniversaries of politically or historically significant events. During such times, websites of opposition parties, independent media, and social networking platforms such as Twitter and Facebook are 12 13 14 15 Center for Democracy & Technology, “Regardless of Frontiers: The International Right to Freedom of Expression in the Digital Age,” version 0.5 - Discussion draft (April 2011), p.5. However, this does not apply to registration with a domain name authority for purely technical reasons or rules of general application which apply without distinction to any kind of commercial operation. See OpenNet Initiative, “YouTube Censored: A Recent History”. Available from: http://opennet.net/youtube-censored-a-recent-history. Reporters without Borders, “Enemies of the Internet,” March 2010. Available from: http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Internet_enemies.pdf, pp. 8-12. 9