A/HRC/41/41 protest”, “attempting to inflame public opinion” and “filming protests and publishing on social media”.56 40. While States often invoke national security and public order concerns when pressing these charges, in reality criminal prosecution is too often used to stifle dissent and control the online space, which is not a legitimate government aim and directly infringes articles 21 and 22 of the Covenant. No person should be held criminally, civilly or administratively liable for organizing, advocating, or participating in a peaceful protest 57 or for establishing or operating an association for a lawful purpose. Dissent is a legitimate part of the exercise of peaceful assembly and association rights and should be protected, online and offline. 58 Arbitrary blocking of online content 41. Blocking of entire websites of human rights organizations and political opposition parties has become increasingly common in many parts of the world, including in countries of the Middle East and North Africa region. For example, in the United Arab Emirates and in Saudi Arabia, authorities routinely block websites containing online criticism. Websites belonging to civil society organizations and human rights groups are particularly targeted, such as the Saudi #Women2Drive campaign, blocked in 2013. Similarly, Egyptian authorities have blocked several websites of human rights organizations. 59 The firewall employed in China systematically blocks access to thousands of websites and online content based outside China containing key terms such as “democracy” and “human rights”.60 42. An individual or association’s website is an important means for the individual or association to advocate for a cause; to raise issues of public concern and contribute to public debate; to report human rights violations; to publish research; to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds; to build coalitions and networks with other organizations, including from abroad; to engage in fundraising; to recruit members and volunteers; and to interact with international and regional human rights bodies. In general, the blocking of entire websites is an extreme, disproportionate measure that severely limits the ability to carry out these activities, and therefore undermines the exercise of freedom of assembly and association. In many cases these measures appear to improperly target dissent, and as such, cannot be justified as pursuing a legitimate aim. The Special Rapporteur considers that to prohibit an individual or association from publishing material online “solely on the basis that it may be critical of the government or the political social system espoused by the government”61 is inconsistent with the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, association and expression. Government-sponsored trolling and cyberattacks 43. Some States have harnessed technology to monitor and hamper the work of human rights defenders and civil society actors. Tactics are varied. Many involve hacking phones and computers, issuing death and rape threats, disseminating doctored images, temporarily suspended targets’ accounts, hijacking hashtags, spreading conspiracy theories, accusations of treason and promoting virulently discriminatory sentiments. While the Special Rapporteur is mindful that States are not the only perpetrators of these acts, government responsibility for these acts extends into the commissioning and encouragement of such conduct by third parties. 44. These attacks are a direct violation of individuals’ rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, as they cannot be justified as pursuing a legitimate aim in a 56 57 58 59 60 61 See SAU 11/2018, and also SAU/1/2017. A/HRC/31/66, para. 27. A/HRC/20/27, para. 84. See EGY 13/2017. Freedom House, Freedom on the Net 2018, available from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedomnet/freedom-net-2018. See also Rebecca MacKinnon, Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom (Basic Books, 2012), pp. 31–47. A/66/290, para. 39. 11