CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Following the coup, numerous developments and reports demonstrate the ways FOE can be and is restricted by authorities. 1.1 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FoE also known as freedom of speech – is a principle that supports any individual or community to express their views without fear of reprisal. It is considered a cornerstone of liberal democracy, and as such is enshrined as a fundamental human right under Article 19 of the UDHR. As with any human right, states have a duty to uphold FoE. As duty-bearers they also have a duty to place limited restrictions on FoE, when necessary to protect other rights such as the right to security, or the right to feely practice religion. States, therefore, exercise judgement in how they limit FoE, based on factors such as their history, culture, legal system or exceptional circumstances. This can often result in misuse by States that can unduly restrict FoE. It is commonly understood that the ingredients of a democratic society include tolerance and openness to a variety of opinion and thought, and that this extends not only to ideas and expressions that are considered inoffensive, but also to those that may shock, offend, or disturb. What constitutes harmful forms of expression, therefore, is a key questions states must consider. One way in which this question has been approached, is to ask whether speech or writings can be considered an incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence against an individual or a group. The process of regulating FoE to strike the correct balance is an everevolving process that moves with the ebbs and flows of technological development, and society at large. The latest challenge for national legislature and courts, and international regulatory bodies, is social media. As happened with earlier technological innovations – such as the advent of writing, or the invention of the printing press and radio communications – the internet and social media provide a new platform for expression, new challenges for regulators, and it is taking time for robust systems of governance to emerge. Furthermore, its global nature means that internet and social media platforms exist in something of a grey area, where ‘responsible’ FoE is difficult to enforce. Furthermore, there is growing evidence that social media platforms themselves are responsible for amplifying the voices of the most harmful and offensive. In the context of this research, it is important to note the ongoing interplay between states, social media platforms and wider society, and the impact this has on the balance between protection and regulation of FoE. 9