The Internet is the world’s digital lifeline. For the approximately 5.6 billion people connected to the Internet (some 70% of the global population), access is essential.

The entire Internet cannot be switched off, but governments and other actors can temporarily disrupt or restrict access by shutting down major server providers, filtering traffic, manipulating routing systems, and even sabotaging infrastructure. This is censorship.

At the time of writing, there have been 107 Internet shutdowns around the world since September 2024. Top of the league is India, followed by Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Pakistan, Algeria, and Iran.

The Washington Post (16 September 2025) reported on the situation in Afghanistan, noting that, “For many Afghan women, the internet has been an escape amid increasingly draconian restrictions following the Taliban’s return to power in Kabul in 2021.”

Previously, according to the Post, “many women attended online classes, learned foreign languages with the help of e-books and traded cryptocurrencies in the hope of becoming financially independent. Some have tried to make up for the closing of movie theaters, the shuttering of gyms for women and the banning of music by turning to YouTube videos.”

All that has changed. The Taliban’s Internet shutdowns aim to silence women and curtail their aspirations. According to The Guardian (23 September 2025), “The Taliban leadership is reportedly not only considering cutting broadband services but also extending the ban to internet services offered by telecommunications companies, which would stop people getting online using mobile data.”

The USA doesn’t do shutdowns – at least, not yet. But the Trump Administration has concocted its own version of criminalising public communication and censoring free speech. It conducts surveillance against people and groups that disagree with its policies, screening social media for protest and dissent.

Trump is also prone to suing media companies he has accused of bias, including CBS, ABC, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. Trump’s Federal Communications Commission held up the $8 billion merger of the media companies Skydance and Paramount in part because of alleged news distortion at Paramount’s subsidiary CBS. The merger was approved only after Paramount settled a case with Trump related to an interview CBS broadcast with former Vice-President Kamala Harris.

Silencing and censorship have become weapons of mass subjugation. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube played a critical role in the Middle East pro-democracy uprisings known as the Arab Spring. They enabled activists to organize protests, share information and footage of government repression, and raise global awareness of the ongoing events. Since then, such protests have come to depend on the Internet which – in retaliation – governments have increasingly sought to control.

Crucially, the Internet is a digital enabler of the right to assembly and association enshrined in Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as in other rights-based instruments. Article 20 facilitates Article 19 (guaranteeing freedom of opinion, expression, and the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas regardless of frontiers) – but both were drawn up before the digital era.

Digital justice imagines a rights-based world that seeks to ensure equitable, democratic, and humane governance of technology to prevent harms and to promote equality for all. It must now include measures to outlaw Internet shutdowns as a form of censorship inimical to democracy.

Photo: SHAH MARAI/AFP/Getty Images

“Hong Kong has long been respected as a powerful global economic hub and lively political and democratic space, supported by a proud and strong independent media. Yet the imposition of the new national security law… has undermined fundamental rights and freedom of expression… and severely damages Hong Kong’s autonomy,” says a statement published by the International Federation of Journalists on 19 August 2020. It was signed by eight leading organisations supporting media freedom.

The national security law provides for penalties of up to life imprisonment for the broadly defined crimes of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign powers. The law establishes sweeping new powers to arrest journalists and activists and it has the ability to weaken oversight by Hong Kong’s judiciary.

The new law entered into force immediately after its enactment and can be applied to any journalist writing on Hong Kong, whether or not they are based in the territory. In the case of trial in Hong Kong, journalists face consequences as severe as life imprisonment.

The word “extradition” is not mentioned since China considers Hong Kong to be an integral part of its territory. However, the law reserves the possibility of trials being conducted in the People’s Republic of China, where crimes against national security are punishable by the death penalty. The law also reserves the right for certain trials to take place out of the media and public gaze.

When the World Press Freedom Index was created in 2002, Hong Kong was at 18th place. Today, it has fallen to 80th. The People’s Republic of China remains near the bottom of the index, ranking 177th out of 180 countries and territories.

For years, China had a foreign policy of non-intervention. Under Xi Jinping as President, that changed. A multibillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative kicked off a state-backed campaign for global dominance, providing a stimulus package for a slowing economy. More than 60 countries – from Cambodia to Angola to Pakistan to Hungary – signed on or expressed interest in doing so, allowing China to wield substantial influence in these countries’ policies. It is no longer shy of interfering in others’ affairs when its interests are at stake.

China has always contested Hong Kong’s sovereignty and cracked down on freedom of expression. The rest of the world must speak up. Loudly.

Photo credit: Jimmy Siu/Shutterstock

Under new regulations announced by the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority, which came into force on 10 August 2020, local media must now seek government permission to broadcast foreign content. They will be responsible for any perceived “offence” contained in that content.

John Magufuli, President of Tanzania. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Worse still, the holder of a licence is not allowed to visit, or do business with, foreign nationals regarding the broadcast of content without being accompanied by a government official or an employee of the regulatory authority.

Since taking office in 2015, the administration of President John Magufuli has expanded its definition of “offence” to include almost anything contrary to his personal views on politics, the economy, and Covid-19. The Tanzanian president has publicly disparaged social distancing and wearing facemasks as well as promoted a herbal tea from Madagascar as a cure.

The Tanzanian public sphere is shrinking. According to Reporters Without Borders, three web TVs and a leading daily newspaper were the victims of arbitrary bans in 2019. By closing 15 media outlets over the past four years and by constantly threatening to withhold state advertising from privately owned media, the government has created a climate of fear in which self-censorship is growing.

In addition, online information has also been restricted since the adoption of a draconian law under which websites and blogs have to pay exorbitant fees to register and get accreditation.

Tanzania is not alone in trying to control social media. A law passed by the Turkish Parliament on 29 July 2020 introduced sweeping new powers. It obliged social media platforms with more than one million daily users to appoint a local representative in Turkey. Activists fear this will enable the government to carry out even more surveillance and censorship.

The new legislation forces platforms to store user data in Turkey and to maintain offices in the country. When the authorities find a tweet problematic, for example, they will force the Turkish office of Twitter to remove it. If the company refuses, the government will hit it with heavy fines. The same for Google’s YouTube videos.

Freedom of opinion and expression includes the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas without hindrance through any media and regardless of frontiers. Governments ignore such rights at their peril.

Photo above: wk1003mike/Shutterstock