HomepageCommercial LawPrivate LawPublic Law & Human RightsCriminal LawEU & International LawCareers


Have Irlen Syndrome, or need different contrast? Click the button below for options.

Background Colours


Enter you email address below to subscribe to free customisable article notifications.

Alternatively, click the button below for our various RSS Feeds (available journal wide, or per section).

Internet Regulation: How Far Should States Go in Regulating Online Content?

Article Cover Image

About The Author

Naz Khan (Section Editor)

Naz Khan is an LL.M. candidate at Jesus College, Cambridge. His main interests lie in civil issues and corporate law, and it is his intention upon completion to pursue a career as a barrister. Outside the law, he enjoys travelling and charitable work.

[Read More]

“If you make ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”

Winston Churchill

A Brief History of the Internet: The Final Frontier for Regulators

In its early days, the internet was conceived as being a place entirely free from regulation, where information could be shared globally across borders. In more modern times, however, the serious potential for harm in materials available on and uploaded to the internet has become more clearly understood, and it is now generally accepted that a degree of regulation is necessary in respect of the internet, just as it is for any other medium affecting society.

It would be impossible to create an exhaustive list of all of the potential perils which could be created by the internet, as the technology changes constantly, creating new, unanticipated problems. This article will think primarily about communications over the internet which, if unregulated, have the potential to cause harm on either an individual or a societal level. However, a number of other major topics have hit news cycles over the years to which the subject of internet regulation is also relevant, including black market commerce, child exploitation, and state-backed disinformation campaigns.

There is, therefore, a duty upon the state to regulate the content of the internet to at least some degree. The real difficulty arises when seeking to establish exactly how much regulation is required, in which areas, and how this can be enforced. This is because while some kinds of materials which are to be regulated by law can be identified with relative ease, the impact of regulation, or the way in which such regulation is pursued, could have deleterious consequences on individual liberties, and on the right to freedom of expression pursuant to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECH

How Far Should Regulation Go?

Regulation does not have to be oppressive; done well, it can be a positive articulation of who we are and what we value. Perhaps the simplest way of approaching the question is to simply acknowledge that the internet does not exist in a vacuum, and that the state has sovereignty and jurisdiction over the information contained on the internet within its own territory. Given this, it can be argued that any information on the internet should be removed if its continued presence, publication, or distribution online is deemed contrary to the law.

When determining who is responsible for publication of such material, the law could easily adopt the same approach taken regarding the publication of materials in other formats, such as the law of contempt at common law, which is capable of being committed by the publication of material which is sub-judice. This type of liability is applied to publishers on a strict liability basis, even where such material is published and the publisher claims they were not personally aware of such material being included.

Such an approach could be adopted in relation to internet service providers, website hosts, and social media providers such as Facebook, with any party hosting unlawful content being liable to be punished on a strict liability basis as “publishers” of such information. This approach could also enable internet service providers the same defence of “innocent publication” afforded to publishers in relation to contempt proceedings if they could show, after having taken reasonable care, that they did not and could not reasonably have identified the material in question.

As such, a good proposed approach could be to allow a defence for web-hosts if it can be shown that they have made “best efforts” to prevent publication of such material or to identify it and remove it from publication. Alternatively the law could operate on a “failure to prevent” basis (such as is utilised by the law in relation to several modern corporate offences such as the corporate offence of bribery, for example), with hosts being required to show that they made best efforts to identify and remove the offending material in question as soon as possible.

This approach is not without drawbacks, however. Requiring such efforts to be made could incentivise internet service providers and other web-hosts, including social media giants like Facebook, to pre-emptively identify users who might be likely to post such materials, through analysis of their previous posting history for example, or by application of predictive machine learning artificial intelligence to them, potentially resulting in users being profiled. 

This is merely one potential drawback of such an approach; another could be that identifying and removing material of this nature would constitute an unjustified interference with users’ rights to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Art. 10 ECHR in countries where the Convention applies (like the UK). This might be made worse by the fact that web-hosts are very unlikely to have the manpower or resources to individually identify all of this material, meaning that artificial intelligence (aided by machine learning algorithms) would be used in this process (even if this was just to “flag up” material for human review at a later date). Such machines, in the short-term, would be likely to mistake legitimate material for illegitimate material, especially if the context of such material was in relation to something intimately related to the human experien

The “Do Nothing” Approach?

Given these difficulties, a third option presents itself.  It might be better simply to do no more in this area, at least until technology has improved to the point at which automatic identification and removal of unlawful material is much more accurate and not likely to unfairly remove legitimate material. At present the regulatory framework in place, through legislation such as the Communications Act 2003, adequately imposes liability for communications deemed offensive. This piece of legislation and supporting law around malicious communications for example, or the publication of terrorist material, is arguably fit for purpose, at least when compared with the alternative courses of action examined in this essay, which have major technical limitations and potential implications for individual liberties.


Like any free zone, the internet should be policed to some degree. The current legal framework in this area adequately manages problems commonly encountered, and the options for reform arguably create more difficulties than they are capable of solving at this point in time. The internet, far from being an unregulated “wild west”, is in fact a well-regulated sector which requires those posting, and publishing material, to ultimately be aware of the fact that legal consequences may stem from their doing so.

For the latest articles straight to your inbox, you can subscribe for free. Alternatively, follow @KeepCalmTalkLaw on Twitter or Like us on Facebook.

Tagged: Anti-Terror, Human Rights, Technology

Comment / Show Comments (0)

You May Also Be Interested In...

Communications Data: A Critical Investigative Tool or a Charter to Snoop?

17th Jul 2018 by Andrew D Parker

Tainted Medicine: Pharmaceutical Patents in the Developing World

2nd Mar 2018 by Jen Hui Chong (Guest Author)

Dead on Arrival: The Investigatory Powers Act 2016

29th Sep 2017 by Alexios Ektor Koursopoulos

Is Mass Surveillance Safer in the Hands of Parliament?

11th Mar 2016 by Rebecca Von Blumenthal

Counter-terrorism in China: Public Protection or Minority Oppression?

15th Jan 2016 by Alexander Barbour

The Semi-Secret Terror Trial - A Leap of Faith in the Judiciary

13th Jun 2014 by Merry Van Woodenberg (Guest Author)

Section Pick March

Coronavirus and the ECHR: Should the UK Trigger Article 15?

Editors' Pick Image

View More


Keep Calm Talk Law: Moving Forward

3rd Sep 2019

Changing of the Guard: Moving Keep Calm Talk Law Forward

12th Aug 2018

An Anniversary or Two: Four Years of Keep Calm Talk Law

11th Nov 2017

Rising from the Ashes: The Return of Keep Calm Talk Law

18th Nov 2016

Two Years On, Keep Calm Talk Law’s Legacy is Expanding

11th Nov 2015


Javascript must be enabled for the Twitter plugin to function. Click below to visit us on Twitter.

Free Email Subscription

Subscribe to Keep Calm Talk Law for email updates, and/or weekly roundups. You can tailor your subscription on activation. Both fields are required.

Your occupation / Career stage is used to tailor your subscription and for readership monitoring.

Uncheck this box if you do not want to receive our monthly newsletter.

By clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of service. Please ensure you read these in full.

Free Subscription