Internet censorship in liberal democracies: Learning from autocracies?

Internet blocking is no longer a tool wielded only by authoritarian regimes, but one also commonly employed by liberal democracies. In the last decade, access restrictions have become the go-to policy solution where enforcing content regulation is difficult such as child pornography, copyright infringement, or online gambling. In liberal democracies, Internet blocking takes the shape of self-, co-, or state regulation, as well as combinations of these forms. Content restrictions lie at the intersection of various constitutional rights and principles, and honoring this delicate balance seems easiest through the democratic accountability inherent in formal legislation. However, many other regulatory schemes have emerged from completely private self-regulation by Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as the UK’s Cleanfeed system, to hybrid public–private partnerships in the shape of co-regulatory arrangements used in Germany or Scandinavia. As of 2015, most liberal democracies have introduced access restrictions through one or more of these three regulatory modes. But what explains their diversity and their systematic variation across countries? This chapter builds on insights generated in a larger research project on “Net Blocking in Liberal Democracies.” Its first part provides an empirical introduction to the topic by looking at Internet blocking in 21 liberal democracies. Next, we provide an analysis of factors influencing whether democracies erect access impediments. We point out some common driving forces and obstacles, partially building on Lijphart’s typology of democracies. Lastly, we discuss the results with a special view towards topics of democratic theory such as “embedded democracy” and “crisis of democracy.”