Anna Mazgal

We will examine the European Commission’s proposal for a regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content from as a radical form of censorship. Looking at the rationale and arguments of policy-makers in Brussels, we will discuss normalisation of a “do something doctrine” and “policy-based evidence”. How can citizens and activists influence that legislative process? And what does it mean if they won’t?

Fear of terrorism as a tool for dissent management in the society is utilised almost everywhere in the world. This fear facilitates the emergence of laws that give multiple powers to law enforcement, permanently raising threat levels in cities around the world to “code yellow”. A sequel of that show is now coming to a liberal democracy near you, to the European Union. The objective of the terrorist content regulation is not to catch the bad guys and girls, but to clean the internet from images and voices that incite violence. But what else will be cleaned from in front of our eyes with this law with wide definitions and disproportionate measures? In the Brussels debate, human rights organisations navigate a difficult landscape. On one hand, acts of terrorism should be prevented and radicalisation should be counteracted; on the other, how these objectives can be achieved with such a bad law? Why are Member States ready to resign from judicial oversight over free speech and hand that power to social media platforms? Many projects documenting human rights violations are already affected by arbitrary content removal decisions taken by these private entities. Who will be next? In the digital rights movement we believe that the rigorous application of principle of proportionality is the only way to ensure that laws and subsequent practices will not harm the ways we exercise the freedom of speech online. Reaching to my experience as a lobbyist for protection of human rights in the digital environment, I want to engage participants in the conversation about the global society of the near future. Do we want laws that err on the side of free speech and enable exposure to difficult realities at the risk of keeping online the content that promotes or depicts terrorism? Or do we “go after the terrorists” at the price of stifling citizen dissent and obscuring that difficult reality? What can we do to finally have that discussion in Europe now that there is still time to act?

Manifestations of fear of terrorism are visible almost everywhere in the world. This fear facilitates the emergence of laws that give multiple powers to law enforcement, through de facto permanently raising threat levels in cities around the world to “code yellow”; to tackling the emergence of radical messaging online as a terrorist radicalisation tool. In the debate civil and human rights organisations navigate a difficult landscape: on one hand, acts of terrorism should be prevented and radicalisation should be counteracted; on the other, regulatory trends conflate fighting terrorism with simply removing controversial content from before our eyes. Many projects documenting human rights violations, incl. terrorist activity, are already affected by arbitrary content removal decisions taken by internet platforms. In the digital rights movement we believe that the rigorous application of proportionality is the only way to ensure that laws and subsequ [[Category:2019:Advocacy submissions]] ent practices will not radically change the ways we exercise the freedom of speech online. Human rights exist in the digital world, and must be respected by governments and companies alike. We want to engage participants in the conversation about the global society of the near future. Do we want laws that err on the side of free speech and enable exposure to difficult realities at the risk of keeping terrorist content online? Or do we “go after terrorists” at the price of stifling citizen dissent and obscuring that difficult reality?

Other people: Diego Naranjo

A growing number of GLAM institutions and organisations have decided to provide open access to their digitised collections online. However, the quality of access and institutional policies differ across the world. Firstly, some GLAMs choose their own websites or tools as a primary and preferred source for those seeking their content, some contribute to bigger platforms or cooperate with Wikimedia and contribute to Wikimedia Commons. Among GLAMs that already decided to share their collections openly online, we can still find those who - for example - decide to charge users for access to high resolution images. To support our policy efforts aimed at improving access to open heritage collections worldwide and design informed and evidence-based training & cooperation with GLAMs, Wikimedia’s Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU, in collaboration with Centrum Cyfrowe, conducted a study on museums’ business models across Europe. This session will discuss the results of the study as well as the process of collecting data and challenges we have faced on the [[Category:2019:GLAM submissions]] way. It will focus on: * presenting existing business models of museums across Europe identified within the study, * discussing the main challenges museums and other GLAMs face when they try to create a business model for their own, * identifying main challenges faced while collecting such data & analysing it, * identifying main barriers within institutions that prevent them from fully embracing openness.

Other people: Aleksandra Janus Douglas McCarthy Dr. Karin Glasemann