United States
  • Internet rights: free speech and press. Weak privacy protection.
  • ISP safe harbor: DMCA safe harbors for copyright claims. Section 230 immunity for defamation and non-IP claims, but Trump Executive Order attempts to limit.
  • Net neutrality: None. FCC repealed protection for net neutrality in 2018.
China
  • The Great Firewall of China blocks people's access to many websites, e.g., Facebook, Google.
  • Government engages in extensive censorship especially related to political organizing or protests.
  • Foreign social media apps are banned.  Users must use real names on social media. 
Australia
  • Internet rights: No bill of rights. Some censorship of content. Personal data protected.
  • ISP safe harbors: limited to Internet access providers, does not apply to other services.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mexico
  • Internet rights: free speech, press, privacy in Constitution. Article 6 guarantees Internet access, though not implemented.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: law to protect net neutrality in 2014.
Canada
  • Internet rights: free speech, press in Constitution. Privacy law.  Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: for conduits, caching, hosting, search engines from copyright liability.  "Notice-and-notice" process.
  • Net neutrality: CRTC policy sets rules for Internet traffic management practices.
Brazil
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Internet bill of rights (Marco Civil da Internet) enacted.
  • ISP safe harbor: horizontal approach requires court order before takedown of infringing content.
  • Net neutrality: Marco Civil prohibits prohibits content-based discrimination of Internet traffic. 
  • Crowdsourced Internet bill of rights.
Russia
  • Russia has exercised tighter control online, including blocking websites. 
  • 2014 "Blogger law" requires bloggers with 3,000 daily users to register with government.
  • Websites collecting personal data of Russians must be stored in servers in Russia by 2016.
Chile
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law.
  • ISP safe harbor: 2014 law requires court review before takedown of content.
  • Net neutrality: law prohibits "arbitrarily distinguish[ing] content ... based on the source or ownership thereof.”
Argentina
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects Internet speech. Data privacy law. Policy for universal access. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none. ISPs have been subject to liability and injunctions. 
  • Net neutrality: Congress considering a proposal on net neutrality. 
Colombia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: free trade agreement with U.S. yet to be implemented. 
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection; bill proposed in 2011.
Peru
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: free trade agreement with U.S. yet to be implemented. 
  • Net neutrality: legal protection since 2012.
Venezuela
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data right in Constitution. Government blocking of websites.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Ecuador
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, data privacy in Constitution. Data privacy bill in 2015.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: legal protection for net neutrality.
Bolivia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Paraguay
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Uruguay
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Guyana
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Suriname
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
French Guiana
  • Internet rights: follows French law, which protects speech, privacy, data privacy.
  • ISP safe harbor: follows French law, which protects conduits, caching, hosting.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Falkland Islands
Belize
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Costa Rica
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Access a fundamental right. Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: for conduits, caching, hosting, locator tools. Notice and takedown process.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection. 
El Salvador
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Guatemala
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Honduras
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, habeas data in Constitution. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Nicaragua
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Panama
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, data privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Austria
  • Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Belgium
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Bulgaria
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Croatia
  • Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Cyprus
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Czech Republic
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Statute for personal data. Hate speech outlawed.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach protects ISP conduits, caching, hosting.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Denmark
  • Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Estonia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Finland
  • Internet right: right of guaranteed access; free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute for personal data. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
France
  • Internet rights: free speech, strong privacy protections; hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality :2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Germany
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute for personal data. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage. ISPs duties go beyond take down.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Hungary
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Ireland
  • Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Italy
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, privacy. Statutory protection for personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach. AgCom agency has new takedown process, including fast track.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Latvia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Lithuania
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Malta
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: no protection.
United Kingdom
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in ECHR and Human Rights Act. Personal data protection. ISPs filter pornography, adult materials.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal safe harbors for conduits, caching, storage.  
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Netherlands
  • Internet rights: free speech, press, privacy in Constitution. Personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: law protects net neutrality since 2011. 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Poland
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute for personal data. Hate speech outlawed.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach protects ISP conduits, caching, hosting.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Portugal
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, data privacy.  Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Romania
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Slovakia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Slovenia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Spain
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Sweden
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, and passive hosting.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Iceland
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor:
  • Net neutrality: no legal requirement.
Norway
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: Obligated to apply EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, and passive hosting.
  • Net neutrality: voluntary industry guidelines have been adopted.
Albania
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution, but media self censors. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: for access, caching, passive storage, and information locator tools.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection
Belarus
  • Internet rights: Constitution recognizes free speech, privacy but restrictions of speech in practice  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Bosnia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some impairment. Personal data law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: none.  
Macedonia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Philippines
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, privacy. Data privacy protected. Cybercrime law curtails rights.
  • ISP safe harbors: Section 30 of the Electronic Commerce Act provides safe harbor.
  • Net neutrality: not protected. 
Moldova
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Serbia
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution, but media self censors. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: for access, caching, passive storage, and information locator tools.
  • Net neutrality: No legal protection
Switzerland
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no protection, but voluntary industry code.
Turkey
  • In 2014, then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ordered blocking of Twitter and YouTube in Turkey.
  • Journalists and people critical of government frequently arrested. 
  • 2014 law gives government power to block sites without court order; requires retention of user records for 2 years. 
Ukraine
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: broad immunity without notice and takedown requirement.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Egypt
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Japan
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech.  Data privacy protected by statute. 
  • ISP safe harbor: horizontal safe harbor for ISPs from copyright, defamation, and other liability; notice-and-takedown approach.  
  • Net neutrality: recognized by industry guidelines, subject to exceptions.
Algeria
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Angola
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  Data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Botswana
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  Data privacy bill. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Burundi
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Cameroon
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  No data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Cape Verde
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, and data privacy in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Central African Republic
  • Internet rights: new Constitution passed in Dec. 2015. Free speech and privacy protected.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Chad
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  Data privacy bill. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Congo
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Greenland

<ul>
<li>Internet rights: free speech, data&nbsp;privacy protections.&nbsp;Hate speech proscribed.</li>
<li>ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.</li>
<li>Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.</li>
</ul>
 

Djibouti
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Egypt
Eritrea
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Censorship. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Ethiopia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Gabon
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Equatorial Guinea
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Government censorship and restriction of Internet. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Gambia
  • Internet rights: free speech, press, privacy in Constitution, but restrictions in practice. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Ghana
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Guinea
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Guinea Bissau
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Kenya
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  Data privacy bill. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Lesotho
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Liberia
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Libya
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in interim Constitution, but restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Madagascar
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some monitoring of websites. Personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Malawi
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy bill. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mali
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some self-censorship.  Data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mauritania
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mauritius
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Some restrictions. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Morocco
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, and data privacy, but speech sometimes restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: based on removal of the allegedly infringing material.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mozambique
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions of speech.  No data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Namibia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. No data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Niger
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  Data privacy bill. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Nigeria
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Reunion
  • Overseas territory of France following French law
Rwanda
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Speech restricted and website blocking. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
South Africa
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, free press, privacy, human dignity. Personal data protection law.
  • ISP safe harbor: for conduit, caching, hosting, locator tools. Notice-and-takedown.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Sao Tome and Principe
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Senegal
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Seychelles
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data protection not yet in effect.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Sierra Leone
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Somalia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restrictions of speech in practice.  No data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Cote d'Ivoire
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Sudan
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Swaziland
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Tanzania
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some monitoring of websites. Personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Togo
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Tunisia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Uganda
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Zambia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions and monitoring. No data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Zimbabwe
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions of speech and online monitoring.  No data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Burkina Faso
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some self-censorship.  Data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Saudi Arabia
  • Internet rights: Censorship of content, blocking of websites. Lack of privacy protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Israel
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions imposed by government.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: legal protection.
Iraq
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restrictions of speech for morality. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Iran
  • Iran blacklists thousands of disapproved websites and blocked more than 5 million sites.
  • Extensive government surveillance of Internet content.
  • Bloggers can be jailed for posting disapproved content. 
Jordan
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy recognized but restricted in practice.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Kuwait

<ul>
<li>Internet rights: free&nbsp;speech in Constitution, but restricted in practice. No right of privacy.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li>
<li>ISP safe harbor: none.</li>
<li>Net neutrality: no legal protection.</li>
</ul>
 

Lebanon
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution, but restricted in practice. No privacy right.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Lebanon
Lebanon
Lebanon
Oman
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy recognzied, but censorship, website blocking, and Internet monitoring in practice. 
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Oman
Qatar
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Syria
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions and website blocking.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Syria
United Arab Emirates
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy rights restricted by government.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Yemen
  • Internet rights: Censorship of content. Lack of privacy protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Afghanistan
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions to stifle criticism of government.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Armenia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy and data privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
  • Internet rights: privacy, free speech but some restrictions and censorship.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Bhutan
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. But government censorship and monitoring.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Indonesia
  • Internet rights: Censorship of pornography, defamation, blasphemy. Some personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: not protected. 
India
  • Government engages in selective blocking of websites and accounts on social media.
  • The government's Central Monitoring System (CMS) surveils phone calls, emails, Internet content. 
  • Net neutrality: Department of Telecommunications report favors net neutrality. 
India
Kazakhstan
  • Internet rights: Censorship of content, blocking of websites. Lack of privacy protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
North Korea
North Korea
South Korea
  • Internet rights: Free speech right subject to exception. Government censors political criticisms, defamation, pornography. Personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: OSP safe harbors are more limited than US DMCA  
  • Net neutrality: KCC Guidelines allow reasonable traffic discrimination
Kyrgyz Republic
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Lao People's Democratic Republic
  • Internet rights: speech right, no general privacy right, and limited personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection. 
Malaysia
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution, but censorship in practice. Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: no safe harbor, although scope of secondary liability for ISPs unclear.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Maldives
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mongolia
  • Internet rights: privacy, free speech but broad defamation law and ban on 774 phrases.
  • ISP safe harbors: limited; Article 25 of Copyright Act imposes substantial duties on ISPs.
  • Net neutrality: TBD.
Myanmar
  • Internet rights: privacy, free speech but broad defamation law used to stifle speech.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Nepal
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but no personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: draft guidelines in 2018.
Pakistan
  • Pakistan has increased censorship and restrictions on access to the web for religious, political, and other reasons.
  • Government engages in blocking of websites.  YouTube has been blocked since 2012. 
Sri Lanka
  • Internet rights: free speech, but no privacy.  Temporary Internet blocking in state of emergency in 2018. 
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Sri Lanka
Taiwan
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, privacy of correspondence, personal data privacy.
  • ISP safe harbors: for access, caching, passive storage, and locator tools.
  • Net neutrality: not protected. 
Taiwan
Tajikistan
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions in practice.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Thailand
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. But government censorship, monitoring, website blocking. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Timor Leste
  • Internet rights: privacy and free speech.  No personal data protection. 
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Timor Leste
Turkmenistan
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions and website blocking.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Uzbekistan
  • Internet rights: Censorship of content, blocking of websites. Lack of privacy protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Vietnam
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Data privacy. Website blocking.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Cuba
  • Cuba restricts Internet access and requires people to apply for a permit to get full "international" access to the Internet, Decree Law 209 (1996).
  • Most Cubans do not qualify for full Internet access.  Only 5% of the population had Internet access in 2012. 
  • Cuba blocks websites, especially ones critical of the government, and deploys propaganda on social media.
Dominica
Dominican Republic
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Grenada
Haiti
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago
Fiji
Fiji
French Polynesia
French Polynesia
New Caledonia
New Zealand
  • Internet rights: protection for free speech, privacy, and personal data.
  • ISP safe harbors: for access, caching, and hosting. 
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Solomon Islands
Vanuatu
Angola
Benin
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Benin
Madagascar
Papua New Guinea
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy rights, but concerns with Cybercrime Code.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: not protected. 
Democratic Republic of Congo
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Comoros
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Georgia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: None.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Greece
  • Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections, Internet access. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Singapore
  • Internet rights: free speech but not privacy right. Personal data protection. Speech and privacy restrictions.
  • ISP safe harbors: 4 safe harbors similar to U.S. DMCA safe harbors.
  • Net neutrality: law requires.
Montenegro
Hong Kong
Luxembourg
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Latvia
Montenegro
Hong Kong
Singapore
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
Cambodia
  • Internet rights: privacy, free speech but speech critical of government is restricted.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.

Compare Countries

Select any filter and click on Apply to see results

Select any filter and click on Apply to see results

Embed this map

Large Image (800px)

Medium Image (500px)

Small Image (200px)

Home

Latest News

07/08/2020
Tiktok is a social medial platform owned by a Chinese firm named Bytedance. The app was first developed in China, but is growing more and more popular especially among teens all over the world for its combination of music, dance and peculiar humor through creating and sharing short videos. Another popular feature is live-streaming, which grants real-time interation between the host and the audience. Users do not even need to speak English to become an overnight hit with millions of followers on Tiktok.  Tiktok has become phenomenal. The idea of producing short clips is not new – Snapchat and Instagram had similar functions too. And creating videos has been around since YouTube. But, with an enormous user base in China, this new contender surpassed other video-sharing sites and gained incredible popularity. Presently, Tiktok has over 500 million active users worldwide. Tiktok's worldwide success as an Internet platform is rare for a Chinese-based company. China’s strict internet restriction is well-known. By putting up firewalls, mainstream Western social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, are inaccessible in China.  India announced the controversial decision to ban TikTok in its borders. Why? As the border clash between China and India escalated, the Indian government recently banned 59 Chinese apps, including Tiktok, citing concerns over activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India, according to the New York Times.  Alternative Indian native platforms such as Glance and Roposo are eager to seek new users after Tiktok’s leave, but watchdog groups are concerned that Indian local apps may also be censored and controlled by the government or exploited for political propaganda. While banning Tiktok could also be a token of revenge against China for the border skirmish, the ban could also be viewed as India’s determination in safeguarding its citizens’ data from foreign manipulation. Taking the cue from India’s decision, the US is considering a ban on Tiktok too. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned the Americans not using the app unless “you want your private information in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party,” indicating the app is secretly sponsoring users’ data to the Chinese government.   Having a reputation of exercising a tight grip over the internet environment, the Chinese government is frequently accused of privacy breaches. Bytedance, the Chinese firm that owns Tiktok, encountered several challenges as it expanded market worldwide. In February 2020, Bytedance was fined £4.2million by the US Federal Trade Commission for illegally collecting personal information from children under 13 without requiring parent consent. On July 3, 2020, the head of the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office announced that Tiktok was undergoing a similar investigation regarding protections of children’s personal data as its open message system permit adults to directly contact children and thus subject children to risks such as online solicitations and harassments. Of course, data breaches in social media are not uncommon in the modern digital age. Facebook was accused multiple times for harvesting users’ private information without their consent. Thus, banning Tiktok in the name of privacy protection sounds extreme since other breaches of data by social media have not resulted in banning an entire platform in a country.  Some users have expressed a suspicion that the major impetus for the US ban on Tiktok was the significant role that Tiktok played during the BlackLivesMatter rally. In the pandemic era, Tiktok fostered new political expressions. For example, activists who could not march on the street in person, created videos with hashtag #blacklivesmatter to demonstrate cyber solidarity for racial injustice. As CNN reported, users on Tiktok also live-streamed the street protest, documented police assaulting peaceful demonstrators.  Tiktok lowered the barrier of communication, allowing users from all over the globe to share content and exchange ideas. Apart from showing cute dogs, teenagers’ funny dance steps, and other mundane occurrences, Tiktok also entered the political sphere even there is a lack of a number of politicians being active on the site. Despite the alleged privacy and national security concerns, it is one of the fastest and most unfiltered ways for people to spread messages. “Any kind of public policy response which is premised on grounds of national security needs to emerge from well-defined criteria, which seems to be absent here,” executive director of the Internet Freedom Foundation Mr. Gupta said to the New York Times. Banning may be a quick fix, but if authorities could ban an app in the name of protecting citizens’ data without showing clear evidence supporting the alleged claim or legal authority for such an extreme action, it sets a dangerous precedent that would greatly impair internet freedom. Of course, there remains the tension that popular Western based social media platforms are still banned in China.  -written by Candice Wang      
07/03/2020
Parler (French for "to talk") is a social media plafform started in 2018. Its mission is to be “an unbiased social media focused on real user experiences and engagement." It is touted as an alternative to Twitter that allows users to post content and comment like Twitter--without political bias. Many Republican politicians who believe Twitter is biased against conservatives, have migrated to Parler and are promoting it as a platform. Since Twitter and Snapchat recently moderated some of Donald Trump’s posts that have violated their community standards, conservative Republicans have switched to Parler. Ted Cruz joined Parler as did three Republican politicians Jim Jordan, Elise Stefanik and Nikki Haley, as CNBC reported. Parler may become Republican lawmaker’s and Trump's favorite social media site. Trump’s campaign manager Brad Parscale accused Twitter and Facebook for biased censorship and stated that the campaign team may select an alternative platform, such as Parlor, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. Parler ranked top news app in Apple’s app store and has 1.5 million users in 2020. By comparison, Twitter has over 145 million active users.  Content moderation by Internet platforms has become a hot-button issue. In the past, platforms took permissive approaches in the name of free speech, but they soon realized the need to moderate some objectionable content posted by their user. Most people would agree with the idea that despite the importance of free expression and free flow of information, allowing everyone to post anything online may lead to false, illegal, and harmful content being shared. So Internet companies must exercise some moderation of user content, but the unsolved puzzle is: what the standards should be and who should decide them. Touted by Republicans, Parler attracted many new users in the past few days. However, some users realized that the new hyped platform was not free of content moderation. Besides restraining the commonly prohibitive content outlined in Parler’s Community Guidelines such as spam, fighting words, pornography and criminal solicitation, Parler also makes clear in its User Agreement: “Parler may remove any content and stop your access to the Services at any time and for any reason or no reason, although Parler endeavors to allow all free speech that is lawful and does not infringe the legal rights of others … Although the Parler Guidelines provide guidance to you regarding content that is not proper, Parler is free to remove content and terminate your access to the Services even where the Guidelines have been followed.” Some users who are liberals were reportedly banned from Parler. Techdirt compiled some of the user who were banned. Parler's banning of liberal users does not appear to be consistent with its motto as an "unbiased social media."  Even some conservative commentators criticized Parler for not abiding by its privacy policy as it asked for a driver's license from its users. The goal of a politically unbiased Internet platform may be a worthy one. But it remains to be seen whether Parler provides such a space.  --written by Candice Wang  
06/27/2020
  Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1998 has come under fire in the U.S. Congress. Republican lawmakers contend that Section 230 is being invoked by Internet platforms, such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter, as an improper shield to censor content with a bias against conservative lawmakers and viewpoints. These lawmakers contend that Section 230 requires Internet sites to maintain "neutrality" or be a "neutral public forum." However, some legal experts, including Jeff Kosseth who wrote a book on the legislative history and subequent interpretation of Section 230, contend this interpretation is a blatant misreading of Section 230, which specifically creates immunity from civil liability for ISPs for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." Donald Trump issued an Executive Order that attempts to (re)interpret "good faith" to require political neutrality.  The Department of Justice appeared to concede, however, that "good faith" is unclear and recommended that Congress provide a statutory definition of the term.  Several Republican lawmakers in the House and the Senate have proposed new legislation that would reform or eliminate Section 230, and limit Internet platforms’ ability to censor content that the platforms feel is harmful, obscene, or misleading.  This article summarizes the proposed bills to amend Section 230.  1. Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2020 (EARN IT Act, S.3398) The EARN IT Act was introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and co-sponsored by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). The EARN IT Act’s main purpose is to carve out from the ISP immunity under Section 230(c)(2)(A) and thus to expose ISPs to potential civil liability pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2255 or state law based on activity that violates 18 U.S.C section 2252 or 2252A (which cover child sexual abuse material (CSAM) distribution or receipt). However, an ISP can "EARN" back its immunity if it follows the requirement's of the Act's newly created safe harbor: "(i) an officer of the provider has elected to certify to the Attorney General under section 4(d) of the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2020 that the provider has implemented, and is in compliance with, the child sexual exploitation prevention best practices contained in a law enacted under the expedited procedures under section 4(c) of such Act and such certification was in force at the time of any alleged acts or omissions that are the subject of a claim in a civil action or charge in a State criminal prosecution brought against such provider; or “(ii) the provider has implemented reasonable measures relating to the matters described in section 4(a)(3) of the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2020, subject to the exceptions authorized under section 4(a)(1)(B)(ii) of that Act, to prevent the use of the interactive computer service for the exploitation of minors.” To develop the "child sexual exploitation prevention best practices" required for the new safe harbor, the EARN IT Act would create a commission called the “National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention,” consisting of sixteen members. The Commission’s duty would be to devise a list of “best practices” for combatting child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and send the list to Attorney General William Barr, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission—all of whom would be appointed as members of the Commission—for review. These three members, dubbed the “Committee,” would have the power to amend, deny, or approve the list of “best practices” created by the Commission. After the Committee approves a list of “best practices,” the list is sent to Congress, which has ninety days to file a “disapproval motion” to veto the list from going into effect.  Text of EARN IT Act (S. 3398) Sponsors Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) UPDATED July 4, 2020: The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the bill (22-0).  It now will be considered by the Senate.  To read more, click on this story...  
06/26/2020
Skip to main content Navbar items Home Menu Shortcuts updater Administration menu Content Structure Appearance People Modules Configuration Reports Vertical orientation Edit Blog Post Apple Pay under Scrutiny: Calls for Contactless Payments Give Rise to Competition ConcernsHome Apple Pay under Scrutiny: Calls for Contactless Payments Give Rise to Competition ConcernsPrimary tabsViewEdit(active tab)RevisionsDevel Title * Apple Pay under Scrutiny: Calls for Contactless Payments Give Rise to Competition Concerns Summary (Hide summary) Leave blank to use trimmed value of full text as the summary. Body Calls for safer transactions during the novel coronavirus pandemic have contributed to a 150% increase in the use of contactless payments since 2019. Experts estimate that mobile payment transactions will total $161.41 billion by 2021. Given the increased need for contactless payments, the American House of Representatives and Department of Justice, as well as the European Union’s European Commission, have launched investigations into Apple’s Apple Pay service. These investigations seek to evaluate Apple’s “power and potential anticompetitive behavior.” According to a Washington Post article, two competition concerns drive the investigations into Apple Pay:
  • Apple’s exclusive control over iPhones’ “near-field communication” technology, essentially a chip in the iPhone that allows consumers to use their phones to pay at store checkout counters; and
  • Apple’s forced terms of agreement to merchants who accept Apple Pay. 
  • Apple in the Antitrust Spotlight Antitrust laws are “rules of the competitive marketplace.” These laws protect consumers from destructive business practices, according to the Federal Trade Commission. The chief goal of antitrust laws is to encourage aggressive competition among sellers to give consumers “the benefits of lower prices, higher quality products and services, more choices, and greater innovation.” Apple Pay – A Monopoly on Mobile Contactless Payments?   Apple Pay debuted in 2014, launching the mobile contactless payment market. Currently, Apple Pay controls the largest share of the mobile contactless payment market in the United States. It’s no surprise that Apple has collected a horde of rivals. Rivals’ antitrust complaints target Apple Pay and Apple Store.  Apple Pay allows consumers to use their iPhones to pay for goods at participating stores. To make this work, Apple Wallet, a digital wallet, stores a digitized version of a consumer’s credit or debit card. Then, when at the checkout counter, a “near-field communication” (NFC) chip, located within the iPhone, communicates with the store’s contactless terminal. “Viola! Look ma, no wallet!” The days of searching pockets and purses are over. Convenient, right? Well, maybe not. The problem: Apple’s NFC chip is “closed.” So, only cards stored in a consumer’s Apple Wallet can access the chip and use the contactless payment feature. As a result, card issuers must enter into an Apple Pay agreement to permit its customers to make mobile contactless payments with their credit and/or debit cards. As reported in the Guardian, according to American and European government officials, this means denying consumers access to better quality, innovation, and competitive prices. Rivals allege the “closed” chip stifles iPhone users’ ability to pick from other mobile contactless payment services such as Google Pay and Microsoft Wallet, among others. These rivals allege Apple Pay significantly interferes with their ability to compete in the mobile contactless payment market. In 2019, the Department of Justice began an unofficial antitrust investigation into Apple to determine if it has engaged in anti-competitive business practices. In a public statement, the DOJ announced it would review “whether and how market-leading online platforms have achieved market power and are engaging in practices that have reduced competition, stifled innovation, or otherwise harmed consumers.” Last year, the House of Representatives launched a broad investigation into four major tech companies, including Apple.  The House has requested extensive documentation and Tim Cook’s presence at an antitrust committee hearing. It remains uncertain whether Cook will attend. Apple is also in the EU’s competition law crosshairs. France already fined Apple this past March nearly $1.2 billion for antitrust violations. While European Commission’s investigation largely targets the Apple Store, it is also investigating Apple Pay for the restriction placed on the iPhone’s NFC chip. Companies like PayPal allege this restriction stifles iPhone users from using rival payment options. Although American and European officials have not completed their investigations into Apple Pay, it is likely more lawsuits against Apple are on the horizon. Until then, experts like Tim Derdenger, a professor at Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business, urge legislators to act sooner rather than later. -by Allison Hedrick
    06/19/2020
    Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [text] was enacted in 1996. Many commentators have hailed Section 230 as giving birth to the explosion of expression, businesses, social media, applications, and user-generated content on the Internet.  The reason is that Section 230 shielded Internet platforms from potentially business-ending liability, while facilitating the development of new applications enabling individuals to publish their own content online.  As Wired's Matt Reynolds puts it, "It is hard to overstate how foundational Section 230 has been for enabling all kinds of online innovations. It’s why Amazon can exist, even when third-party sellers flog Nazi memorabilia and dangerous medical misinformation. It’s why YouTube can exist, even when paedophiles flood the comment sections of videos. And it’s why Facebook can exist even when a terrorist uses the platform to stream the massacre of innocent people. It allows for the removal of all of these bad things, without forcing the platforms to be legally responsible for them."  More recently, however, Section 230 has become a lightning rod, criticized by the Trump administration and others who disagree with shielding Internet platforms for the potentially unlawful or harmful content posted by their users. The Trump administration and conservative Republicans contend that Twitter and Google, for example, are engaging in biased content moderation that disfavors them for more liberal positions or politicians. Others criticize Section 230 as being too permissive in letting social media companies off the hook, even though there is so much disturbing, if not dangerous, content shared on their platforms. This article explains Section 230 and then the recent criticisms that the Trump administration and others have raised....

    About

    The Free Internet Project is a nonprofit whose mission is to provide the public with information about the latest legal and technological efforts to protect Internet freedoms around the world.

    Founded in 2014, TFIP provides a user-friendly resource for the public to follow and comment on the latest bills, decisions, constitutional amendments, and technologies to protect the “free and open Internet." The Project is based on the belief that the Internet is an amazing tool for sharing knowledge, and that people around the world can learn from and share in the efforts to protect Internet freedoms in other countries.

    If you have a tip or would like to contact us, write us:  thefreeinternetproject[at]gmail.com

     

    Privacy policy