YouTube blocking violates freedom of expression

The blocking of the dissemination of content on YouTube imposed by a state, the order to broadcast certain content of a television network on the platform, and the sanctions imposed on Google that does not execute the decisions of the national authority that go in this direction are a violation of the right to freedom of expression. This was established by the European Court of Human Rights in its ruling deposited on 8 July in the case Google v. Russia (appeal no. 37027/22), in which Strasbourg upheld the big tech company, also stating that an excessive economic sanction, which not only prevents freedom of expression but also has a certain chilling effect on future activities, is in conflict with Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights, which protects not only the content but also the choice of methods used for the dissemination of ideas and information.

On YouTube, political and from the LGBT community films and television reports had been broadcast, and the Russian communications authority had decided on a very high sanction due to the digital giant's refusal to remove the content. In addition, Google International and Google Ireland had decided to block the broadcasting of a Russian TV channel in execution of sanctions imposed by the EU and the US against the Russian oligarch owner of the TV channel. Fines had arrived, also for this, amounting, in total,to almost 400 million euro, with confiscation of some Google accounts located in Russia. Having rejected all domestic appeals, Google International and Ireland turned to the European Court of Human Rights, which not only proved the platform right but also provided important principles on freedom of expression on the web.

For Strasbourg, the excessively high sanctions and the threat of ordering new economic measures have an effect similar to censorship on the content disseminated on YouTube and constitute an interference with the free exchange of ideas and the dissemination of information, preventing the exercise of freedom of expression. Moreover, the European Court makes it clear that the dissemination of political opinions and independent information do not constitute a threat to national security, territorial integrity or public safety and, therefore, the obstacles to dissemination are not compatible with the Convention and the limitations on that freedom permissible only under the parameters set out in Article 10. The necessity of sanctioning measures in a democratic society that admits interference only in the presence of imperative social needs is also completely excluded.

The Court also makes it clear that the dissemination of content that diverges from the 'official narrative' imposed by the state, in this case also with regard to the war in Ukraine, without demonstrating the falsity of the news, which is the responsibility of the authorities that set limits on freedom of information, is inherent in the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Convention. Not only that. The Court states that the right not to be compelled to express oneself is also included in the convention rule, and thus an order by a national authority forcing Google to host specific content on its platform is an interference incompatible with the Convention.