Digital apologism and civic space: the peruvian case | IGF 2023

Knowledge Graph of Debate

Session report

Audience

The speakers expressed their gratitude multiple times to convey a deep sense of appreciation towards the recipients. Their repeated expressions of thanks reflected their sincere and profound gratitude. The speakers emphasised the importance of the recipients’ actions through the repetition of “Thank you,” showcasing the significance of their involvement. This repetition also conveyed a sense of urgency and intensity, as the speakers wanted to ensure their gratitude was properly communicated. Additionally, the repeated expressions of thanks affirmed the speakers’ gratitude and validated the positive impact the recipients had on their lives. By consistently expressing their appreciation, the speakers aimed to reinforce their gratitude and leave no doubt in the recipients’ minds about the depth of their thankfulness. In conclusion, the repeated “Thank you’s” highlighted the overwhelming appreciation of the speakers, emphasising the profound impact of the recipients. The repetitive nature of their expressions of gratitude reinforced the sincerity of their thanks, leaving no room for ambiguity.

Dilmar Villena

The Peruvian legislation on terrorism apology is facing criticism due to its failure to comply with human rights standards. One of the main concerns is that the current law does not require actual danger to be present for punishment; potential dangerous behaviour is sufficient for prosecution. This broad definition of what constitutes a threat allows for invasion of privacy and undermines the principles of proportionality and legality.

Furthermore, there is a sense of inequality in the criminalisation of the same action whether it occurs online or offline. This creates a discrepancy and can lead to unfair treatment and discrimination.

The lack of judicial reasoning in the prosecution of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) terrorism apology crimes is another significant issue. Insufficient steps are taken to verify account ownership during prosecution, and individuals can be punished even if they simply share or repost violent content without actually endorsing or supporting terrorism. Additionally, civil reparation amounts are standardised, disregarding any analysis of the harm done, further contributing to the perception of injustice.

The legislation’s broad and vague definition of terrorism apology also raises concerns about the potential suppression of freedom of speech. The public has been encouraged to report terrorism apology to a specific email address, which has the potential for misuse and may lead to the labelling of critics or government protesters as terrorists. This can stifle criticism against the government and limit free expression.

It is argued that there is a need for a careful and specific definition of terrorism, especially when it involves freedom of speech. The current situation in Peru demonstrates the potential for the suppression of speech against the government under the guise of counter-terrorism measures.

Overall, there is a concern about the possible dangers of excessive and poorly defined anti-terrorism laws. While legislation and regulation are often seen as solutions to perceived terrorist threats, they should be crafted with caution. The definition of terrorism and terrorism apology should be precise and account for the protection of freedom of speech rights. Striking a balance between counter-terrorism measures and the preservation of fundamental rights is crucial.

Camila

The analysis delves into various aspects of state protection, democracy, freedom of expression, and terrorism in Brazil. It emphasises the need to maintain a delicate balance, considering the unique circumstances of each jurisdiction. One key issue highlighted is the legal uncertainty in cybercrime cases, which arises from the wide range of potential punishments that judges can impose. This ambiguity has implications for fair and consistent application of the law in such cases.

Another significant challenge discussed is the definition and proof of terrorism, especially when examining communications. Brazil has witnessed cases resembling the Capitol invasion in the United States, with individuals being accused of attacks against the democratic state and terrorism. However, accurately determining evidence and establishing proof in such cases is a complex process. This difficulty raises questions about the effectiveness of current methods in defining and proving acts of terrorism based on communication-related evidence.

Furthermore, the analysis examines a proposed platform regulation bill that includes a duty of care provision. This bill addresses issues like content moderation, platform accountability, and transparency. It bears similarities to the Digital Services Act and aims to regulate online platform activities. However, concerns have been raised regarding the platforms’ ability to accurately identify content that constitutes terrorism. This issue raises doubts about the bill’s effectiveness in achieving its objectives and ensuring proper handling of terrorist-related content on digital platforms.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasises the importance of striking a balance between state protection, democracy, and freedom of expression while considering the unique contexts of different jurisdictions. The legal uncertainty surrounding cybercrime cases, the challenges of defining and proving terrorism based on communications, and the potential drawbacks of the proposed platform regulation bill are significant concerns. These observations shed light on the complexities involved and highlight the need for further examination and consideration to develop appropriate and comprehensive solutions.

Speakers