NETWORK RESTRICTION TO TWITTER PLATFORM: A BRIDGE TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF NIGERIAN CITIZENS (A CASE STUDY OF TWITTER BAN)
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the study
The interrelated freedoms of communication, expression and association are at the heart of any free, democratic society based on the rule of law.Freedom of expression, the free flow of information, and freedom and pluralism of the media have internationally been acknowledged as human rights in the post-Second World War intergovernmental instruments: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966). In both the UDHR and the ICCPR, Article 19 makes this commitment. The 2011 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression is a strong statement of the importance of freedom of expression on the Internet. The Rapporteur emphasizes the need for clear rules, in contrast with the arbitrariness he observes today, which allows for increasing surveillance and monitoring of communications(Douwe Korff (2012) cited in UN retrieved (2021).
Restrictions and regulations must be in accordance with Council of Europe standards, and in particular the ECHR and the case law of the Strasbourg Court concerning the narrow set of restrictions on freedom of expression necessary in a democratic society. Also, any interference with the right to communicate, express views or assemble must be based on rules that are clear, specific and accessible.
It is no secret that the Internet and social media have grown in importance in political activities.Blogging, video-sharing, and tweeting were critical in 2011 political events in North Africa and the Middle East.They are important to human rights defenders everywhere. But the use of these new technologies to assert old freedoms has been met with repression by some governments. Government officials increasingly contact authors or websites to apply pressure for content to be removed, with threats of legal action, withdrawal of contracts or licences and outright bans even where companies are based in overseas jurisdictions.Governments also encourage their supporters to complain to hosting companies about user-generated content.
The most extreme methods of suppressing Internet communication have included simply cutting off all Internet access (Egypt, January 2011, and Syria at the time of writing), or even creating a completely state-controlled mini-Net (apparently planned by Iran). In other cases, such as Bahrain, governments have used their control over the local Internet structures to deliberately slow down connection speeds, in particular at newspaper offices, hotels and homes. Thailand, Burma, China and Iran have tried to manipulate online discussions through organized pro-state submissions. China has pressured search engines to distort search results. In several countries, bloggers and Internet activists have been subjected to threats and physical attacks. Following riots in several British cities, the government proposed taking powers to shut down social networking sites during future recurrences.