Internet censorship in Switzerland

Last updated

Internet censorship in Switzerland is regulated by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland on a case by case basis. Internet services provided by the registered with BAKOM Internet service providers (ISPs) are subject to a "voluntary recommendation" by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, which requires blocking of websites just after 18 December 2007. [1] [2] As of October 2015, this might change soon and additional topics like Online gambling are on the focus now. [3] [ needs update? ]

Contents

History

There were no government restrictions on access to the Internet or credible reports that the government monitored e-mail or Internet chat rooms without appropriate legal authority. [4]

The constitution provides for freedom of speech and press, and the government generally respects these rights in practice. An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combine to ensure freedom of speech and of the press. A referendum on limits to free speech in Switzerland occurred on February 9, 2020 where the Swiss people voted 63.1% to 36.9% [5] to allow a 2018 anti-LGBT discrimination bill to be enacted. The bill criminalizes "discriminatory statements made on TV, social media, or public venues." [6] The committee "No to Censorship" argues on its website that individuals have the right to express controversial public opinions. [6] Other Swiss laws passed from 2012 penalize public incitement to racial hatred or discrimination, spreading racist ideology, and denying crimes against humanity, but there were no convictions or arrests under these laws in 2012. Under Swiss federal law, it is a crime to publish information based on leaked "secret official discussions." A number of cases involving violations of secrecy by the press were under investigation during 2012, but authorities handed down no sentences for such offenses. [4]

In November 2011 the Swiss government ruled that downloading unlicensed copies of films, music and video games for personal use will remain legal, because it is not detrimental to copyright owners. [7] [8]

In 2010 the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland found that IP addresses are personal information and that under Swiss privacy laws they may not be used to track Internet usage without the knowledge of the individuals involved. Switzerland's Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner praised the decision and said that companies using personal information to track Internet usage are assuming "tasks clearly in the State's domain" and only the state can violate personal privacy and only when pursuing criminal cases. He also made clear his view that the "decision provides no protection for anyone breaking the law. Clearly it should be possible to punish copyright infringements on the Internet". [9]

A proposal was drafted in 2002 to revise Swiss federal laws on lotteries and betting. Under the proposal providers offering access to games that are considered illegal face fines up to 1 million Swiss francs or up to a year of imprisonment. This effort was suspended in 2004, and no further action has been taken since. [10]

In December 2002 a local Swiss magistrate ordered several Swiss ISPs to block access to three Web sites hosted in the United States that were strongly critical of Swiss courts, and to modify their DNS-servers to block the domain appel-au-people.org. The Swiss Internet User Group and the Swiss Network Operators Group protested that the blocks could easily be bypassed and that the move was contrary to the Swiss constitution, which guarantees "the right to receive information freely, to gather it from generally accessible sources and to disseminate it" to every person. Nonetheless, there was strong enforcement, as the directors of noncompliant ISPs were asked to appear personally in court, failing which they faced charges of disobedience. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

An Internet filter is software that restricts or controls the content an Internet user is capable to access, especially when utilized to restrict material delivered over the Internet via the Web, Email, or other means. Such restrictions can be applied at various levels: a government can attempt to apply them nationwide, or they can, for example, be applied by an Internet service provider to its clients, by an employer to its personnel, by a school to its students, by a library to its visitors, by a parent to a child's computer, or by an individual user to their own computers. The motive is often to prevent access to content which the computer's owner(s) or other authorities may consider objectionable. When imposed without the consent of the user, content control can be characterised as a form of internet censorship. Some filter software includes time control functions that empowers parents to set the amount of time that child may spend accessing the Internet or playing games or other computer activities.

Certain subject-matter in Australia is subject to various forms of government censorship. These include matters of national security, judicial non-publication or suppression orders, defamation law, the federal Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), film and literature classification, and advertising restrictions.

Internet censorship in Australia is enforced by both the country's criminal law as well as voluntarily enacted by internet service providers. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has the power to enforce content restrictions on Internet content hosted within Australia, and maintain a blocklist of overseas websites which is then provided for use in filtering software. The restrictions focus primarily on child pornography, sexual violence, and other illegal activities, compiled as a result of a consumer complaints process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship in Pakistan</span>

Internet censorship in Pakistan is due to the governments attempts to control information sent and received using social media and the Internet in Pakistan. Presently, as of December 2024, X is banned, despite the government using the platform to issue official statements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship in India</span>

Internet censorship in India is done by both central and state governments. DNS filtering and educating service users in suggested usages is an active strategy and government policy to regulate and block access to Internet content on a large scale. Measures for removing content at the request of content creators through court orders have also become more common in recent years. Initiating a mass surveillance government project like Golden Shield Project is an alternative that has been discussed over the years by government bodies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship</span> Legal control of the internet

Internet censorship is the legal control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet. Censorship is most often applied to specific internet domains but exceptionally may extend to all Internet resources located outside the jurisdiction of the censoring state. Internet censorship may also put restrictions on what information can be made internet accessible. Organizations providing internet access – such as schools and libraries – may choose to preclude access to material that they consider undesirable, offensive, age-inappropriate or even illegal, and regard this as ethical behavior rather than censorship. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship of material they publish, for moral, religious, or business reasons, to conform to societal norms, political views, due to intimidation, or out of fear of legal or other consequences.

Internet censorship in the United States is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression against federal, state, and local government censorship.

Internet censorship in the United Kingdom is conducted under a variety of laws, judicial processes, administrative regulations and voluntary arrangements. It is achieved by blocking access to sites as well as the use of laws that criminalise publication or possession of certain types of material. These include English defamation law, the Copyright law of the United Kingdom, regulations against incitement to terrorism and child pornography.

Censorship in Denmark has been prohibited since 1849 by the Constitution:

§ 77: Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.

Information technology law, also known as information, communication and technology law or cyberlaw, concerns the juridical regulation of information technology, its possibilities and the consequences of its use, including computing, software coding, artificial intelligence, the internet and virtual worlds. The ICT field of law comprises elements of various branches of law, originating under various acts or statutes of parliaments, the common and continental law and international law. Some important areas it covers are information and data, communication, and information technology, both software and hardware and technical communications technology, including coding and protocols.

Internet censorship in Ireland is a controversial issue with the introduction of a graduated response policy in 2008 followed by an effort to block certain file sharing sites starting in February 2009. Beyond these issues there are no government restrictions on access to the Internet or credible reports that the government monitored e-mail or Internet chat rooms. Individuals and groups could engage in the expression of views via the Internet, including by e-mail. Irish law provides for freedom of speech including for members of the press, and the government generally respects these rights in practice. An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system act jointly to ensure freedom of speech and of the press.

BMG Canada Inc. v. Doe, 2004 FC 488 aff'd 2005 FCA 193, is an important Canadian copyright law, file-sharing, and privacy case, where both the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal refused to allow the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) and several major record labels to obtain the subscriber information of Internet service provider (ISP) customers alleged to have been infringing copyright.

There is medium internet censorship in France, including limited filtering of child pornography, laws against websites that promote terrorism or racial hatred, and attempts to protect copyright. The "Freedom on the Net" report by Freedom House has consistently listed France as a country with Internet freedom. Its global ranking was 6 in 2013 and 12 in 2017. A sharp decline in its score, second only to Libya was noted in 2015 and attributed to "problematic policies adopted in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, such as restrictions on content that could be seen as 'apology for terrorism,' prosecutions of users, and significantly increased surveillance."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of expression in Canada</span>

Freedom of expression in Canada is protected as a "fundamental freedom" by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; however, in practice the Charter permits the government to enforce "reasonable" limits censoring speech. Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of restricted speech in Canada.

The precise number of websites blocked in the United Kingdom is unknown. Blocking techniques vary from one Internet service provider (ISP) to another with some sites or specific URLs blocked by some ISPs and not others. Websites and services are blocked using a combination of data feeds from private content-control technology companies, government agencies, NGOs, court orders in conjunction with the service administrators who may or may not have the power to unblock, additionally block, appeal or recategorise blocked content.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship and surveillance in Europe</span>

This list of Internet censorship and surveillance in Europe provides information on the types and levels of Internet censorship and surveillance that is occurring in countries in Europe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship and surveillance in Asia</span>

This list of Internet censorship and surveillance in Asia provides information on the types and levels of Internet censorship and surveillance that is occurring in countries in Asia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship and surveillance in the Americas</span>

This list of Internet censorship and surveillance in the Americas provides information on the types and levels of Internet censorship and surveillance that is occurring in countries in the Americas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship and surveillance in Oceania</span>

This list of Internet censorship and surveillance in Oceania provides information on the types and levels of Internet censorship and surveillance that is occurring in countries in Oceania.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet censorship and surveillance in Africa</span>

This list of Internet censorship and surveillance in Africa provides information on the types and levels of Internet censorship and surveillance that is occurring in countries in Africa.

References

  1. ↑ "Exklusiv! ISPs sollen Zugang zu 11 Webseiten sperren" . Retrieved 29 October 2015.
  2. ↑ "Exklusiv! Lausanner Justiz lässt Webseite(n) als 'Tatwerkzeug' sperren" . Retrieved 29 October 2015.
  3. ↑ "Bundesrat will mit Netzsperren gegen ausländische Geldspielangebote vorgehen" . Retrieved 29 October 2015.
  4. 1 2 "Switzerland", Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 29 October 2013.
  5. ↑ Foulkes, Imogen (9 February 2020). "Switzerland votes in favour of LGBT protection bill". BBC. Retrieved 2 March 2020.
  6. 1 2 Peltier, Elian (9 February 2020). "Swiss Vote to Penalize Public Homophobia". New York Times. Retrieved 2 March 2020.
  7. ↑ "Swiss insist file-sharers don't hurt copyright holders", Caleb Cox, The Register, 5 December 2011. Retrieved 29 October 2013.
  8. ↑ "Urheberrechtsverletzungen im Internet: Der bestehende rechtliche Rahmen genügt" Archived 19 August 2014 at the Wayback Machine ("Copyright infringement on the Internet: The existing legal framework is sufficient"), Medienmitteilungen, Der Bundesrat, 30 November 2011. Retrieved 29 October 2013.
  9. ↑ "P2P investigations now illegal in Switzerland", Nate Anderson, Ars Technica, 10 September 2010. Retrieved 29 October 2013.
  10. ↑ "Social Filtering", Internet Filtering in Europe 2006-2007, OpenNet Initiative. Retrieved 29 October 2013.
  11. ↑ "Nationalistic Filtering", Internet Filtering in Europe 2006-2007, OpenNet Initiative. Retrieved 29 October 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.