Stay ahead of the curve. Learn about this year's latest trends Download the State of Trust & Safety 2024 Report

Home | Blog | Author | Gideon Freud

Gideon Freud

16 Articles

About Me

Gideon is a Senior Intelligence Writer at ActiveFence. He graduated from Oxford University in 2012, where he studied social and cultural anthropology with a special focus on the growth of political extremism in Europe. He joined ActiveFence in January 2021, and is interested in researching the development of national laws focused on regulating online activities.

Gideon's Articles
Disinformation, Election Coverage, Misinformation

Why Everyone is Right to be Worried About Misinformation

Misinformation is the top concern for the World Economic Forum in 2024, and we agree. Learn about the significance of this risk…
February 1, 2024 8 min read
Read More
Cyber Threat Intelligence, Disinformation

Countering Malicious Bots

Malicious bots are used to spread disinformation and other online harms, and stopping them requires Trust & Safety teams to utilize a…
February 16, 2023 10 min read
Read More
Hate Speech, Internet Law, Violent Extremism

Mapping Internet Regulations: Online Hate Speech

ActiveFence provides a searchable interactive guide to the legislation of over 70 countries that govern online hate speech content.
May 17, 2022 10 min read
Read More
Internet Law, Latest, Terrorism, Violent Extremism

Mapping Internet Regulations: Online Terrorist Content

ActiveFence provides a searchable interactive guide to the legislation of over 60 countries that govern online terrorist content.
April 12, 2022 9 min read
Read More
The Guide to Trust and Safety

The Guide to Trust & Safety: Measuring Success

ActiveFence tackles the complex challenge of measuring trust and safety.
February 20, 2022 8 min read
Read More
Fraud Prevention

What Platforms Need to Know About Building Marketplace Policy

ActiveFence shares the main themes of online marketplace and e-commerce platform policies.
February 7, 2022 5 min read
Read More
Trust and Safety

All Eyes On 2022: Trust & Safety Challenges for the New Year

Emerging threats, technological evolution and legislation revolution. As 2021 nears its end, ActiveFence identifies the challenges to be navigated by the Trust…
December 2, 2021 8 min read
Read More
Disinformation

False Narratives, Elections, and the Quest to Secure German Democracy

ActiveFence assesses the false narratives that have spread across German social media during the country's 2021 federal elections.
November 15, 2021 5 min read
Read More
Disinformation

Policy Series: Electoral Disinformation

In the third edition of the ActiveFence Policy Series, we examine the core components of the health and electoral disinformation policies of…
September 29, 2021 5 min read
Read More
Policy Guide, Violent Extremism

Policy Series: Illegal, Violent Activities

In this second edition of the ActiveFence Policy Series, we look at the policies of major tech companies governing illegal and violent…
August 11, 2021 5 min read
Read More
Child Safety, Trust and Safety

In Plain Sight: Combatting Child Marriage on Your Platform

For Trust & Safety teams, mitigating and proactively detecting online child marriage requires a specialized understanding of circumvention techniques and socio-religious keywords…
June 1, 2023 10 min read
Read More
Child Safety

How Predators Are Abusing Generative AI

In the dark corners of the web, predators are communicating to find ways to create CSAM and groom children using generative AI.…
April 18, 2023 6 min read
Read More
Human Exploitation

Sex Trafficking: One Year Into the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

ActiveFence's Milan Czerny reviews online threat actor activity to sexually exploit Ukrainian victims of war, guiding Trust & Safety teams in how…
February 22, 2023 7 min read
Read More
Child Safety

The Real Risks to Children in VR

ActiveFence's Rafael Javier Hernández Sánchez shares our original research into the real risks children face from predators in VR.
January 31, 2023 7 min read
Read More
Terrorism

ISIS Advances in Africa: From the Battlefield to Social Media Platforms

ISIS's move from physical jihad to digital warfare has marked a new chapter in the group's expansion efforts.
December 22, 2022 8 min read
Read More
Disinformation, Internet Law

Mapping Internet Regulations: Online Disinformation

A searchable interactive guide to the legislation of almost 70 countries that govern online disinformation.
November 28, 2022 11 min read
Read More

Other Authors

avatar-38

ActiveFence Staff

Visit page

avatar-42

Alaa Marzuk

Visit page

avatar-26

Amit Dar

Visit page

avatar-63

Ariel Koch

Research Lead

Visit page

avatar-18

Ariella Rothschild

Visit page

avatar-35

Avi Jager

Visit page

avatar-23

Emma Datny

Visit page

avatar-3

Gideon Freud

Visit page

avatar-51

Guy Paltieli

Visit page

avatar-59

Iftach Orr

CTO

Visit page

avatar-71

Ilana Berger

Visit page

avatar-33

Inbal Goldberger

Visit page

avatar-55

Kavya Sharma

Visit page

avatar-4

Liron Hakim Bobrov

Visit page

avatar-37

Maya Lahav

Visit page

avatar-25

Michal Brand Gold, General Counsel

Visit page

avatar-45

Milan Czerny

Visit page

avatar-5

Nitzan Tamari

Visit page

avatar-48

Noam Schwartz

Visit page

avatar-28

Noam Bar

Visit page

avatar-62

Oryan Aviner

Visit page

avatar-44

Rafael Javier Hernández Sánchez

Visit page

avatar-68

Ryan Turner

Visit page

avatar-36

Sari Berkovich

Visit page

avatar-32

Shoshana Kranish

Visit page

avatar-69

Tim Torres

Content Marketing Manager

Visit page

Left arrow Right arrow

Algeria

Algeria passed new legislation in 2020 to make the dissemination of online discrimination or insult based on “gender, race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin, language, geographical affiliation, disability or state of health” a criminal act.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Law 20.05 (2020)

Egypt

Egypt’s Supreme Council for Media Regulation can issue an order to block a website that hosts content that incites violence, discrimination, sectarianism, racism, or offends the state institutions.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Media Regulation Law and the Supreme Council for Media Regulation promulgated by Law No. 180 (2018)

Ethiopia

Ethiopia holds internet intermediaries to be liable for hosted user-generated content. Platforms must remove hate speech based upon ethnicity, religion, race, gender or
disability within 24 hours of notification from the authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation (2020)

Kenya

Kenya requires internet service providers to identify dangerous users and collect and provide information to assist law enforcement. Platforms are also required to remove content that constitutes hate speech and constitutes ethnic incitement on receipt of a court order within 24 hours.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act (2018)

Mali

Mali criminalized the spreading of racist, xenophobic acts, threats and insults through an internet system. Internet service providers must also put in place mechanisms to monitor their platforms for illegal activities and communications.

Failure to inform the competent authorities of illegal activities risks a fine of CFA 500,000 to 2,000,000 (between $790 and $3,200).

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Suppression of Cybercrime (2019)

Morocco

In Morocco network providers are obliged to suppress, prohibit and restrict access to online content that is considered a threat to the kingdom, its security, and symbols within 24 hours of the content’s upload. Failure to act proactively will prompt the service provider to receive formal notice to remove the illegal content within 5 days. Failure to comply with this could result in a penalty of nearly €46,000 Euros as well as a temporary suspension from operating in Morocco. This draft law was suspended until the end of the COVID-19 crisis.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003)

Niger

Niger criminalized the creation, dissemination, and making available ideas or theories, of a racist, regionalist, ethnic, religious, or xenophobic nature. This covers all communication from text to audio, image, and video that is shared on an information system. Platform operators may be required to intercept communications on request from relevant authorities with regard to illegal online activity.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); Cybercrime Law (2020)

Nigeria

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003)

South Africa

South Africa requires platform operators to identify and remove user-generated content that incites violence due to any group characteristic on receipt of a court order.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (2000); Films Publication Act (1965); FBP Online Regulation Policy (2016)

Uganda

Platforms are required to fulfill the “duties of a licensee and producer,” and ensure that hosted content does not promote ethnic prejudice and violence and is not likely to create public insecurity or violence. Failure to comply risks fines of up to 10% of a platform’s gross annual revenue, and a suspension or revocation of a license.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Uganda Communications Act (2013); The Computer Misuse Act (2011)

Argentina

Argentina gave accession to the 2003 Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime making it illegal to publish xenophobic and racist incitement. The country requires platform operators to take preventative measures against illegal acts motivated by racism, xenophobia, and other types of intolerance and hatred.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); Law No.23.592: Discriminatory Acts; Law No. 26.522: Law of Audiovisual Communication

Brazil

Brazil criminalizes hate speech based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. The country’s approach to internet regulation is similar to that of the US, with platforms exempted from liability for illegal or harmful content on their platforms of which they were unaware. However, the country gave accession to the 2003 Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime making it illegal to publish xenophobic and racist incitement.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); Marco Civil Law of the Internet (2014); Law 7.716 (1989)

Chile

Chile gave accession to the 2003 Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime making it illegal to publish xenophobic and racist incitement. The country criminalizes online harassment motivated by ​​race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, or cultural origin. Liability for illegal content rests with the user rather than the service provider.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); Statute on Freedom of Opinion and Information and the Performance of Journalism (2001)

Colombia

Colombia gave accession to the 2003 Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime making it illegal to publish xenophobic and racist incitement. The country criminalizes online harassment motivated by ​​race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or disability. Internet Service Providers are required to monitor for illegal activity.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); Colombian Criminal Code Article 134

Mexico

Mexico gave accession to the 2003 Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime making it illegal to publish xenophobic and racist incitement. The country criminalizes online harassment motivated by ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, disability, health, pregnancy, language, religion, or sexuality. Liability for illegal content rests with the user rather than the service provider.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); Federal Law to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination (2003)

Nicaragua

Nicaragua criminalizes online harassment motivated by race, nationality, sex, or sexual orientation. Liability for illegal content rests with the user rather than the service provider.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Criminal Code (2008)

Afghanistan

While the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was party to international UN treaties, its successor state the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is not bound by these agreements.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)

China

China requires companies responsible for the information published on their platforms. They must also operate content management mechanisms, have clear rules on content governance and response systems to detect ‘rumors’; and receive user complaints and reports. Failure to comply carries civil and criminal liabilities for operators. Companies must also provide law enforcement with information to identify users, as well as encryption keys. Any organization using networks shall abide by the Constitution, observe public order, and respect social morality; they must use the internet to engage in activities endangering national security, national honor, and national interests; they must not incite subversion of national sovereignty, overturn the socialist system, incite separatism, … advocate ethnic hatred and ethnic discrimination.”

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Cyber Security Law (2017); The Provisions on the Governance of Network Information Content Ecology (2015)

Spain

Spain defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Spanish authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Albania

Albania has aligned its legislation with the EU. It has criminalized the sharing of threats online based on immutable characteristics including race, gender, sexuality, and discrimination. Anti-discrimination Commissioner can order content to be removed with the power to give fines for non-compliance.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); Law Against Discrimination (2010)

Iceland

Iceland has criminalized the dissemination of incitement to violence, hatred, or discrimination against a person or group of persons due to their group characteristics.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003)

North Macedonia

North Macedonia has criminalized the dissemination of incitement to violence, hatred, or discrimination against a person or group of persons due to their group characteristics.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003)

Norway

Norway defines hate speech as speech that threatens or insults a person or incites hatred, persecution, or contempt for someone because of their skin color, national or ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003)

Switzerland

Switzerland has criminalized the dissemination of incitement to violence, hatred, or discrimination against a person or group of persons due to their group characteristics.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003)

Austria

Austria defines illegal hate speech as racism or xenophobia directed towards a group defined by race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Platforms operating within Austria must remove illegal hate crimes on social networks within 24 hours of notification (with a maximum of 7 days for complex cases).

Fines for non-compliance range between €10,000 and €58,000.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016); Communications Platform Act (2021)

Belgium

Belgium defines racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Belgian authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Bulgaria

Bulgaria defines racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Belgian authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Slovakia

Slovakia defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Slovakian authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Singapore

Singapore prohibits the publication of communication that “incites feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups of persons.” Internet intermediaries must block content on receipt of a notiice. Failure to comply risks daily fines of up to $20,000 for platforms in or outside of the country.

The law created a maximum penalty of $500,000 per infraction.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (2019)

Germany

Germany defines illegal hate speech as racism or xenophobia directed towards a group defined by race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Social media and video sharing platforms operating within Germany must remove illegal content within 24 hours of notification. They must also produce bi-annual transparency reports on their moderation process. Fines for non-compliance range up to €50 million.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016); Network Enforcement Act (2017, 2019)

Croatia

Croatia defines racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Croatian authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

 

Sweden

Sweden defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Sweden authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Cyprus

Cyprus defines racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Cypriot authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Czechia

Czechia defines racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Czech authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Indonesia

Indonesia requires social media companies to ensure that they do not host or facilitate the distribution of “restricted content”, which includes hate speech and blasphemy. Social media companies that do not comply risk a fine of between c.€580 and €2800 Euros as well as administrative sanctions and suspending their networks. Platforms must remove prohibited content within 24 hours of a government notice and must monitor for prohibited content.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Digital Platform Law (PP PSTE no. 71/2019 on the Government Regulation on the Implementation of Electronic and Transaction System (2019); Ministerial Regulation 5 (2021)

Slovenia

Slovenia defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Slovenian authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Vietnam

Vietnam prohibits the sharing of ‘anti-Vietnamese’ propaganda, which causes divisions between Vietnamese ethnic groups, religions, and people of all countries. Internet companies who are at risk of hosting such content are required to implement technical measures to prevent, detect, and remove such material on request from the relevant authority. If they do not take steps they can be held liable for its contents.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Cybersecurity Law 2018

 

Denmark

Denmark defines racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Danish authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016); Criminal Code (2005)

Australia

Australia regards it to be a criminal offense to use the internet in a menacing, harassing or offensive manner. In addition, cyber-abuse material directed at either adults or children must be removed within 48 hours of a court order.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); Australia: Section 474.17 of the Criminal Code; The Online Safety Act (2021)

Estonia

Despite being subject to EU law, Estonia has no national laws against hate speech which is not defined in the country. However, under EU law hate speech is defined as racist and xenophobic hate speech and is illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Finland

Finland does not have a legal definition of hate speech. However, it defines ethnic agitation as illegal. However, under EU law, hate speech is defined as insulting or threatening speech directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Finnish authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

France

France defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from French authorities. French internet platforms must create simple mechanisms to report hate speech content online.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016); Loi d’Avia (2020)

Greece

Greece defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Greek authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Hungary

Hungary defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Hungarian authorities. Hungary’s civil courts hold internet intermediaries liable if they enable the publication of third-party content on their sites which is illegal, this liability is applied whether or not the platform operator is aware of the content.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Romania

Romania defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Romanian authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Netherlands

The Netherlands defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Dutch authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Poland

Poland defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Polish authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

New Zealand

New Zealand prohibits online communications that share private information, threaten, intimidate, are grossly offensive, or are harassing in nature. In addition, it prohibits content that incites or denigrates based on color, race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Failure to remove harmful content carries a fine of up to NZ$20,000.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015

Ireland

Ireland defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Irish authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Italy

Italy defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Italian authorities. Video-sharing platforms are, requested to implement effective systems for detecting and reporting both offenses and online perpetrators, and should produce quarterly reports on the monitoring and identification of online hate content.

Should platforms not comply with the regulation or subsequent warnings, the Authority may apply fines of between €10,300 to €258,000.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016); Regulation on respect for human dignity and the principle of non-discrimination in relation to hate speech (2019)

Malta

Malta defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Maltese authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Pakistan

Pakistan requires platforms to remove, suspend, or disable access to violative accounts and content within 24 hours of the government’s notification. This includes accounts that spread hate speech or other content that might negatively affect the religious, cultural, ethnic, or national security sensitivities of Pakistan

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Citizen’s Protection (Against Online Harm) Rules 2020

United States

The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech and US platforms hold a liability exemption for user-generated content and shields platforms from a legal obligation to remove hate speech content.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (1996)

Canada

Canadian Digital Charter 2019 stipulates that the online space should be “free from hate and violent extremism.” Section 320.1 of the Canadian Criminal Code to order that publicly available online ‘hate propaganda’ be taken down and deleted by platform operators.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Canadian Criminal Code Section 320.1

Bangladesh

Bangladesh criminalized the use of digital media to intimidate people or cause damage to the state they face a 14-year jail sentence. If someone uses a website to intimidate anyone they face a 3-year jail sentence. The Bangladesh Telecommunications and Regulatory Commission may block any online information that harms religious value or incites racial violence. Service providers do not have liability if they act against such content.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Digital Security Act (2018)

Portugal

Portgual defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Portuguese authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Lithuana

Lithuania defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Lithuania authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

Luxembourg

Luxembourg defines public incitement to violence and racist and xenophobic hate speech as illegal. This is specifically directed towards a person or group of persons by reference to race, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online must remove ‘illegal hate speech’ within 24 hours on receipt of a removal notice from Luxembourg authorities.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (2008); EU Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (2016)

India

India requires social media companies to remove material that is “libelous, racially or ethnically objectionable… is patently false and untrue, and is written or published in any form, with the intent to mislead or harass a person, entity or agency for financial gain or to cause any injury to any person.” This content action must be taken within 36 hours of receipt of notification and platforms may need to provide identifiable information about those users uploading this material on request.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); The Republic of India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules (2021)

United Kingdom

The UK criminalizes the sending of grossly offensive, indecent, or menacing communications online. Providers of video-sharing platforms must take steps to prevent harmful content as set out in Schedule 15A and must operate an out-of-court resolution service for disputes.

Failure to operate an approved mechanism carries a fine of up to £250,000.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Communications Acts 2003

Armenia

Armenia prohibits the use of computer systems to make threats of violence against a person or group of persons. Platforms that permit this risk their services being blocked or a fine of ֏5 million ($11,100).

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); Law on Electronic Communications (2005)

Belarus

Belarus criminalized content that aims to incite based on race, national, religious, linguistic, or other social affiliation, with prison terms established for persons who share such prohibited content publicly.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Article 130 Belarussian Criminal Code (1999, 2019)

Georgia

Georgia has criminalized the dissemination of incitement to violence, hatred, or discrimination against a person or group of persons due to their group characteristics.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003)

Russia

Russia requires that internet service providers will restrict access to websites containing calls for extremist activities. Failure to comply with legal entities risks fines of between ₽3,000,000 and ₽8,000,000. The Russian regulator Roskomnadzor can request the courts to block platforms that host content that incites national, class, social, or religious intolerance.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Law on Mass Media 1991; Federal law N511-FZ (2020)

Turkey

Turkey criminalized the provocation of a group of people belonging to a different social class, religion, race, or sect. Social media companies must remove unlawful content and respond within 48 hours of a judicial order to remove prohibited material, or a user complaint.

Failure to comply risks fines of up to $1.5 million.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003); Law No. 5651 on The Regulation of Publications made in the Internet Environment and Combatting Crimes Committed through these Publications (2020)

Nepal

Nepal expanded the applicability of its National Broadcasting Rules to apply to internet platforms hosting video content. This prohibits the broadcast of material that could create “enmity or social mistrust (ill feeling) amongst the people of various caste, tribe, religion, race, region, community.”

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); National Broadcasting Rules (1995, 2022 Amendment)

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka does not have a specific law that regulates online hate speech, although it did give accession to the CoE’s Convention on Cybercrime. Sri Lanka instead relies upon the Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (TRCS) which orders internet service providers to block access to specific domains for hosting destabilizing content.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003)

Philippines

The Philipines does not have a specific law that regulates online hate speech, although it did give accession to the CoE’s Convention on Cybercrime.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003)

Austria

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content within 24 hours of notification (7 days in more complex cases), and one hour after a formal removal notice. They must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Fines for non-compliance range between €10,000 and €58,000.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021; Communications Platform Act (January 1, 2021)

Bulgaria

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after the receipt of a removal notice, they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Croatia

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after the receipt of a removal notice, they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Cyprus

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after the receipt of a removal notice, they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Czechia

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after the receipt of a removal notice, they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Denmark

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after the receipt of a removal notice, they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Estonia

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after the receipt of a removal notice, they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Finland

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after the receipt of a removal notice, they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

France

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021; Law on strengthening the provisions relating to the fight against terrorism 2014; Respect for the Principles of the Republic 2021 2021 Amendment

Germany

Failure to comply carries fines of up to EUR 50M.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021; Network Enforcement Act 2017; 2020 amendment

Greece

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after the receipt of a removal notice, they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Hungary

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after the receipt of a removal notice, they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Ireland

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after the receipt of a removal notice, they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Italy

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Article 2 of Decree Law 7/2015

Latvia

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after receiving a removal notice, and they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Lithuana

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after receiving a removal notice, and they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Luxembourg

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after receiving a removal notice, and they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Malta

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after receiving a removal notice, and they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Netherlands

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after receiving a removal notice, and they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Poland

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after receiving a removal notice, and they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Portugal

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after receiving a removal notice, and they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Romania

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after receiving a removal notice, and they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Slovakia

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after receiving a removal notice, and they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Slovenia

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after receiving a removal notice, and they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Spain

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after receiving a removal notice, and they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Sweden

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after receiving a removal notice, and they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Russia

Article 4 of the Law on Mass Media 1991; Federal Law No. 405-FZ, December 2019

Belarus

The Belarusian Ministry of Interior can block access to an internet resource without a court order, if that outlet has received two written warnings in one year, or publishes content “threatening national security.

Mass Media Law: amended April 21, 2021

Australia

Broadcasting Services Act 1992; The Online Content Scheme; Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material – Division 474.32 of the Criminal Code; The Online Safety Act 2021
signatory to the Christchurch Call To Action

Canada

Canada Anti-Terrorism Act 2015; Christchurch Call To Action May 2019

New Zealand

Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993; Broadcasting Act 1989

United Kingdom

Interim codes of practice on terrorist content and activity online

United States

The First Amendment of the US Constitution; Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act

Argentina

Argentina is a signatory to the Christchurch Call To Action. This is a multi-national accord that lays out a best practice framework for technology platforms to identify, review and censor terrorist content and activity on social media, and for governments to build the framework and legal structures for this work.

Christchurch Call To Action

Chile

Chile is a signatory to the Christchurch Call To Action. This is a multi-national accord that lays out a best practice framework for technology platforms to identify, review and censor terrorist content and activity on social media, and for governments to build the framework and legal structures for this work.

Christchurch Call To Action

Colombia

Colombia is a signatory to the Christchurch Call To Action. This is a multi-national accord that lays out a best practice framework for technology platforms to identify, review and censor terrorist content and activity on social media, and for governments to build the framework and legal structures for this work.

Christchurch Call To Action

Costa Rica

Costa Rica is a signatory to the Christchurch Call To Action. This is a multi-national accord that lays out a best practice framework for technology platforms to identify, review and censor terrorist content and activity on social media, and for governments to build the framework and legal structures for this work.

Christchurch Call To Action

Peru

Peru is a signatory to the Christchurch Call To Action. This is a multi-national accord that lays out a best practice framework for technology platforms to identify, review and censor terrorist content and activity on social media, and for governments to build the framework and legal structures for this work.

Christchurch Call To Action

Japan

Japan is a signatory to the Christchurch Call To Action. This is a multi-national accord that lays out a best practice framework for technology platforms to identify, review and censor terrorist content and activity on social media, and for governments to build the framework and legal structures for this work.

Christchurch Call To Action

Indonesia

Singapore

South Korea

South Korea is a signatory to the Christchurch Call To Action. This is a multi-national accord that lays out a best practice framework for technology platforms to identify, review and censor terrorist content and activity on social media, and for governments to build the framework and legal structures for this work.

Christchurch Call To Action

China

Vietnam

Law 24 on Cybersecurity

Bangladesh

A seven-year prison sentence and a fine of up to 500,000 BDT (roughly 5,800 USD) for creating anarchy using digital media. The law does not extend liability for UGC to platforms that exercise due diligence.

Digital Security Act 2018

India

Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021; Christchurch Call To Action

Switzerland

Switzerland is a signatory to the Christchurch Call To Action. This is a multi-national accord that lays out a best practice framework for technology platforms to identify, review and censor terrorist content and activity on social media, and for governments to build the framework and legal structures for this work.

Christchurch Call To Action May 2019

Pakistan

Social media companies must “deploy proactive mechanisms to ensure prevention of live streaming through Online Systems in Pakistan any content related to terrorism, extremism, hate speech, defamation, fake news, incitement to violence, and national security.”

Citizen’s Protection (Against Online Harm) Rules 2020

South Africa

Platforms should remove user-generated content that contains sexual conduct, that “violates or shows disrespect for the right to human dignity of any person; degrades a person; or constitutes incitement to cause harm; advocates propaganda for war; incites violence; or advocates hatred based on any identifiable group characteristic and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.” The Review Board can order its removal.

FBP Online Regulation Policy 2016; Films Publication Act 1965

Uganda

The Anti-Terrorism Act 2002; The Uganda Communications Act 2013; The Computer Misuse Act, 2011

Egypt

Social media accounts, blogs, or websites with more than 5,000 followers are classified as media outlets and placed under the supervision of the Supreme Council for the Administration of the Media. This entity has the power to block websites and file criminal complaints against platforms and users accused of offenses that are considered to constitute a threat to national security, disturb public peace, promote discrimination, violence, racism, hatred, or intolerance.

Law on the Organization of Press, Media and the Supreme Council for Media No.180

Ethiopia

Internet intermediaries are liable for policing content. Social media services must act within 24 hours to remove incendiary content upon receiving notifications about such communication or post.

 

Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation 2020 2020:

Morocco

Law relating to the fight against terrorism 2003

Nigeria

The Anti-Terrorism Act, 2013

Kenya

Service providers are required to assist in the investigation of offenses expeditiously, identify dangerous users, and collect and provide information to investigation officers. Platforms are also required to remove content on receipt of a court order.

Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act 2018

Israel

Israel’s Attorney General’s Office currently requests that inciting content be removed from social media platforms. This is not backed by regulation and therefore while some platforms comply, others do not.

Jordan

The Cybercrime Act 2019 added ‘smartphone applications’ into the scope of the preexisting Telecommunications Act. As a result, they must now comply with Article 29 of the Act. This considers any media or publishing material that “facilitates the commission and promotion of terrorist acts” to be terrorism, and requires applications to allow the monitoring of communication when a terrorist offense is suspected to be in progress.

Telecommunications Law (1995); Cybercrime Law 2019

Turkey

Mexico

Mexico is a signatory to the Christchurch Call To Action. This is a multi-national accord that lays out a best practice framework for technology platforms to identify, review and censor terrorist content and activity on social media, and for governments to build the framework and legal structures for this work.

Christchurch Call To Action

Brazil

Brazil explicitly exempts platforms from liability for user-generated content. However, this liability exemption is removed if a court order states the content was illegal. Once content is found to be illegal, platforms must remove the content or face legal liability.

Marco Civil Law of the Internet 2014

Belgium

Internet platforms must remove terrorist content one hour after the receipt of a removal notice, they must determine which measures to put in place to reduce their exposure to terrorist content while maintaining the Right to Information.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council dissemination of terrorist content online 2021

Egypt

The Supreme Council for the Administration of the Media can block social media accounts and penalize journalists for publishing fake news or posts that incite public disorder. Social media accounts and blogs with more than 5,000 followers on online platforms will be treated as media outlets, which makes them subject to prosecution for publishing false news or incitement to break the law.

The establishment of websites must be conducted following receipt of a license from the Supreme Council.

Media Regulation Law and the Supreme Council for Media Regulation promulgated by Law No. 180 (2018)

Ethiopia

Ethiopia holds internet intermediaries to be liable for hosted user-generated content. Platforms must remove disinformation within 24 hours of notification from the authorities. Social media account operators risk two to five-year prison terms for violence or public disturbance due to disinformation.

Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation (2020)

Kenya

Kenya requires internet service providers to require internet service providers to prevent disinformation in the form of political content. Social media platform administrators are required to monitor and remove related disinformation content within 24 hours.

Guidelines for Prevention of Dissemination of Undesirable Bulk Political SMS and Social Media Content via Electronic Communications Networks (2017)

Mali

Mali has criminalized the dissemination of false information shared “in bad faith and disturbs the public peace.” The state requires ISPs to install mechanisms to monitor illegal activities. Failure to inform authorities of illegal acts risk a fine of up to €3,000 (c.$3,080) and/or a prison sentence.

The state is allowed to throttle the internet during protests or elections.

The Press Regime and Press Offenses Law (2000);  Suppression of Cybercrime (2019)

Niger

Niger criminalized the creation, dissemination, and making of false or defamatory information publicly available. This covers all communication from text to audio, image, and video shared on an information system. Platform operators may be required to intercept communications on request from relevant authorities concerning illegal online activity. Failure to comply risks prison sentences of between six months and three years, with a maximum fine of 5,000,000 CFA (c.$7,900).

Cybercrime Law (2020)

Nigeria

Nigeria has criminalized the publication of content that shares false information intending to cause “annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will, or needless anxiety to another.” Failure to comply risks three years in prison, a fine, or both.

Cybercrimes Act (2015)

South Africa

South Africa made it an offense to publish a statement through any medium to spread false information about COVID-19 or government measures to address the pandemic. The penalty is a fine or imprisonment for six months or both.

South Africa’s Board can request platforms to remove content that poses “severe harm, especially to children.”

Disaster Management Act 2002; section 11(5) (2020) ; FBP Online Regulation Policy (2016)

Uganda

Platforms are required to fulfill the “duties of a licensee and producer,” and ensure that hosted content does not promote ethnic prejudice and violence and is not likely to create public insecurity or violence. Failure to comply risks fines of up to 10% of a platform’s gross annual revenue, and a suspension or revocation of a license.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Uganda Communications Act (2013); The Computer Misuse Act (2011)

Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe has criminalized the publication of false news. The Minister of Information, Publicity, and Broadcasting Services has also created a “cyber-team” for social media monitoring.

The Enacted Cyber and Data Protection Act (December 2021)

Algeria

Algeria has criminalized the spread of “false news” that harms national unity and does not distinguish between news reports, social media, and other media. Failure to comply risks prison terms of one and three years, with fines of 100,000 to 300,000 Algerian dinars ($2,160).

Law No. 20-06 Article 196 bis of Algeria’s Criminal Code

Morocco

In Morocco, the government can filter and delete content deemed to “disrupt public order by intimidation, force, violence, fear, or terror” and close any publication “prejudicial to Islam, the monarchy, territorial integrity, or public order. Legal liability rests with anyone who helps the author publish their content, which includes internet platform operators.

Law to Combat Terror (2003); Press and Publications Code (2016)

Argentina

While several local legal initiatives were enacted to prevent the spread of COVID-19 disinformation, these have all been repealed. Several future national legislations have been proposed.

Brazil

The Internet Bill of Rights 2014 ensure liability indemnity for platform providers for UGC. However, during elections, the Superior Electoral Court can order platforms to remove electoral disinformation within 2 hours; repeated failure to comply risks the Superior Electoral Court ordering that the non-compliant platform is blocked from access within Brazil for 24 hours.

Marco Civil Law of the Internet (2014); Resolution No. 23,714 (October 2022)

Chile

Several bills have been submitted to the Chilean Chamber of Deputies. However, as of November 2022, there is no legislation on online disinformation.

The Press Law on Freedom of Opinion and Information and the Exercise of Journalism (2001)

Colombia

Colombia has enshrined internet neutrality, where the only illegal online content is child sexual abuse material. However, in 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that platform operators could face legal liability if they do not maintain sufficient moderation mechanisms for comments left on websites and online forums.

Law 1450; Article 56(2) (2011)

Nicaragua

Nicaragua has criminalized the publishing of fake news on social media or in news outlets. Failure to comply risks a prison term of up to six years.

The Special Cybercrime Law (2021)

Mexico

Mexico does not currently have any legislation in place regarding online disinformation.

China

China requires companies responsible for the information published on their platforms. They must also operate content management mechanisms, have clear rules on content governance and response systems to detect ‘rumors’ and disinformation, and receive user complaints and reports. Failure to comply carries civil and criminal liabilities for operators.

Cyber Security Law (2017)

Cambodia

Cambodia’s internet regulation stipulates that websites that publish disinformation or “provoke, create chaos, damage national defense,” risk fines of $1000. The government can block information, issue criminal punishment for disinformation, and suspend operators’ services who do not comply. Data on network information is to be held for one year on request.

Ministerial Directive (2018); National Internet Gateway (2021)

Indonesia

Indonesia requires social media companies to prevent users from spreading “restricted content” online; this includes blasphemy, disinformation, and misinformation. Failure to comply risks fines of between €580 and €2,800 and suspension of access to the country. Platforms are required to disinformation content within 24 hours of notification.

Digital Platform Law PP PSTE no. 71 (2019); Indonesia Constitutional Court Ruling (October 2021)

Eswatini

Eswatini created the National Cybersecurity Advisory Council to regulate cybersecurity. The country criminalized the publishing as true, a false, forged, altered or counterfeit record, instrument, or other writing, knowing it to be false, altered or counterfeit, with the intent to injure or defraud.”

Malaysia

Malaysia has criminalized the dissemination of “fake news” related to COVID-19. It risks a prison sentence of up to three years and a fine of up to RM100,000. Platforms must provide user data for investigations or face the same fine.

Emergency Essential Powers No. 2 Ordinance (2021)

Singapore

Singapore requires platforms to limit the spread of disinformation by displaying corrections or removing false content. Platforms should take measures to detect and safeguard against coordinated inauthentic behavior, bots, and other activity. They must flag paid political ads. Failure to comply risks fines of up to $1,000,000 SGP (c. $725,000,000). 

Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill (2019)

Vietnam

Vietnam requires social media platforms to remove disinformation within 24 hours of an order. It criminalizes sharing false information to incite protests, riots, terrorism, or other content that “opposes the State.” Failure to comply risks up to 12 years in prison.

Article 117 of the Vietnam Penal Code (2015)

Pakistan

Pakistan has ruled that social media platforms must suspend or disable access to accounts or online content of citizens of Pakistan and those outside its territorial boundaries that spread fake news or defamation that violates the religious, cultural, ethnic, or national security sensitivities of Pakistan. Platforms must also add a note to content explaining that it is false. Users that post disinformation about the military or judiciary or other public official risk 5 years in prison, without the option for bail.

Citizen’s Protection (Against Online Harm) Rules (2021); Removal and Blocking of Unlawful Online Content (Procedure, Oversight and Safeguards) Rules (2021)

Bangladesh

Bangladesh requires criminal prosecution of anyone who disseminates disinformation online. Section 25 criminalizes the spread of disinformation intended to impact the country’s reputation. Failure to comply risks a prison term of up to three years, a fine of up to 300,000 Tk (c.$2,920), or both.

Digital Security Act (2018)

India

India requires that internet platforms must remove content that “knowingly and intentionally communicates any information which is patently false or misleading in nature but may reasonably be perceived as a fact” within 36 hours of notification. Regulations require platforms to reveal the identity of the user who shared the content.

The Republic of India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules (2021)

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka does not have a specific law that regulates online disinformation. Instead, the country relies upon the Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (TRCS), which orders internet service providers to block access to specific domains for hosting destabilizing content.

Australia

Australia requires signatory platforms of the Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation to develop policies to prevent the spreading of false information. Signatories must suspend or disable offending and fake accounts, including bots that automatically disseminate information across their platforms

Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation (2021)

New Zealand

New Zealand allows platforms to escape liability for false information if it is removed within 48 hours of notification, and they have in place a transparent flagging process.

Harmful Digital Communications Act (2015)

United Kingdom

The UK does not have specific legislation regarding disinformation. However, the country’s Online Safety Bill, which was published in March 2022 will create a Duty of Care for platforms to remove false and misleading content.

United States

The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech. Accordingly, in the US, platforms hold a liability exemption for user-generated content and shield platforms from a legal obligation to remove false content. However, in the State of California, it is illegal to publish audio, imagery, or video that gives a false, damaging impression of a politician’s words or actions

Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (1996); AB 730 Elections: Deceptive Audio or Visual Media (2020)

Canada

Canada prohibits the publication of false or misleading statements about an electoral candidate to affect an election result. This includes false statements regarding a candidate’s withdrawal from an election. It prohibits the online impersonations of politicians—other than for parody or satire.

Canada Elections Act (2018)

Turkey

Turkey requires platforms to remove disinformation (that “endangers the country’s security, public order…”) within four hours or receipt of take down order by a court or the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA). Failure to comply risks platform throttling and three years in prison. Platforms also risk fines if their algorithms amplify disinformation. Messaging platforms must provide user information to ICTA upon request.

Amendment to the Press Law (2022)

Switzerland

Switzerland does not have any regulation governing online disinformation in place.

Russia

Russia requires that internet service providers will restrict access to websites containing calls for extremist activities. Failure to comply with legal entities risks fines of between ₽3,000,000 and ₽8,000,000. The Russian regulator Roskomnadzor can request the courts to block platforms that host content that incites national, class, social, or religious intolerance. Users spreading disinformation that “disrespects” the state or causes a major disturbance, risk fines of up to 1.5 million rubles and up to 15 days in jail.

Law on Mass Media (1991); Federal law N511-FZ (2020); Federal law N27-FZ (2019); Federal law N31-FZ (2019)

Belarus

Belarus criminalized the livestreaming of ‘unsanctioned’ protests. The Ministry of Interior can block access to an internet resource without a court order. If an outlet has received two written warnings in one year or publishes content that threaten national security it can be blocked.

Law on Mass Gatherings (2021); Mass Media Law (2021)

Norway

Norway has a robust Freedom of Expression law, and there is no current legislation to counter online disinformation. However, according to Section 135a of the Norwegian Penal Code, any person who willfully or through gross negligence publicly utters a discriminatory or hateful expression risks fines or imprisonment of up to three years.

Section 186 of the Norwegian Penal Code (2008)

Austria

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

Austria’s national law requires platforms to remove false or defamatory content within 24 hours of notification (or 7 days in more complex cases). Failure to do so incurs a fine by the Austrian courts of between €10,000 and €58,000

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); Communications Platform Act (2022); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Spain

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Sweden

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Slovenia

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Slovakia

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Poland

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Netherlands

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Malta

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Iceland

Iceland has criminalized the dissemination of incitement to violence, hatred, or discrimination against a person or group of persons due to their group characteristics.

International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Additional Protocols to the Convention on Cybercrime (2003)

Luxembourg

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Lithuana

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Ireland

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Belgium

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Bulgaria

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Croatia

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Cyprus

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Czechia

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Denmark

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Estonia

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Finland

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Italy

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Romania

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

Under Romanian national law the creation of accounts for online impersonation is a criminal offense and so social media and other platforms must remove these accounts.

The National Authority for the Administration and Reglamentation of Communications, ANCOM, has powers to block access to any online news platform that publishes content “promoting fake news regarding the COVID-19 evolution and the protection and prevention measures”.

Law 286/2009 (2014) EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); National Authority for the Administration and Reglamentation of Communications 2020; EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Germany

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

Under German national Law defamatory content must be removed within 24 hours of notification, and platforms must produce bi-annual transparency reports for evaluation.

Failure to comply risks fines of between €500,000 (c.$514,000) and €5,000,000 (c.$5,140,000).

Network Enforcement Act (2017); EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018);EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

France

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

Under French national law, the courts can order the removal of misinformation (such as that shared by bots), or the delisting of a website that hosts misinformation within 48 hours. This power is given to the courts three months before an election

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); Law Against the Manipulation of Information (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation 2022; Digital Services Act (2022)

Portugal

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

Under Portugal’s national law the state is required to protect citizens from people who produce, reproduce, and disseminate misinformation. Citizens can file complaints to the media regulator.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); Law Against the Manipulation of Information (2018); Charter on Human Rights in the Digital Age (2021); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Hungary

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Greece

In line with EU law, Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must demonetize disinformation content; take measures against bots, fake accounts, manipulation campaigns, account takeovers; empower users to flag disinformation; and report data to the EU. Non-VLOPs must put in place risk-mitigation strategies to combat disinformation.

Under Greek national law the sharing of any disinformation that causes fear, harms the national economy, defense, or public health risks a prison sentence of up to five years. This applies to the director or owner of the outlet publishing the information.

EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018); Article 191 of Penal Code (2021); EU Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation (2022); Digital Services Act (2022)

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia criminalized the production, preparation, and transmission of content threatening ‘public order,’ which includes misinformation, on social media. This means that individuals sharing such content risk fines of up to 3 million riyals (c.$800,000) and a five-year prison sentence.

Saudi Arabian Anti-Cybercrime Law (2007)

United Arab Emirates

United Arab Emirates criminalized the publishing of online false information. Failure to comply risks one year in prison and a minimum Dh 100,000 ($27,225) fine, or two years and a minimum Dh 200,000 ($54,550) fine if the crime was committed during a pandemic, emergency, or crisis. Use of bots to share, reshare, or circulate fake news can lead to a prison term of two years, or a fine ranging between Dh 100,000 ($27,225) to Dh 1,000,000, ($272,258) or both.

Federal Decree-Law No. 34 (2021)

Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan criminalizes the dissemination of knowingly false information. Noncompliance risks a prison term of up to seven years. Kazakhstan does not uphold freedom of the press and has pursued criminal investigations against media outlets for publishing disinformation.

Article 274, Part 3 of the Criminal Code (2014)