(C) Freedom House
This story was originally published by Freedom House and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



To Protect Online Expression During Elections, Engage Civil Society [1]

[]

Date: 2025-09

A fresh set of elections is approaching in 2025 around the world, including in Australia, the Philippines, and Ecuador. While the issues and candidates in each contest will vary, a clear trend has emerged in Freedom House’s research: governments are taking more steps to protect the vote from digital threats, often by creating or enforcing rules to address false, misleading, or incendiary content.

In Freedom on the Net 2024: The Struggle for Trust Online, Freedom House identified South Africa’s recent elections as an example of how civil society can play a vital role in strengthening free expression and access to information—including by bolstering efforts to defend rights, and challenging instances where authorities risk limiting protected speech. Election commissions and other government bodies seeking to protect the information environment in 2025 and beyond can look to South Africa’s example for how civil society engagement improves voters’ ability to make informed choices on election day.

Civil society partnerships strengthen policy

South African voters chose members of the National Assembly last May, ushering in an era of coalition government after the ruling African National Congress (ANC) lost its majority for the first time. Longstanding partnerships with civil society groups were at the core of efforts by the independent Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) to foster a reliable online environment where expression was protected and voters could find high-quality information about candidates and the issues of the day.

A key effort was Real411, an online portal that allows members of the public to report cases of “harmful false information,” harassment, hate speech, and incitement to violence online and elsewhere. The initiative was led jointly by the IEC and the civil society group Media Monitoring Africa (MMA).

Real411’s escalation process for complaints was carefully designed so responses included independent oversight, were transparent, and adequately protected voters’ speech. The IEC worked in consultation with legal and media experts from civil society to clearly and narrowly define what content would be considered false, harassing, hateful, or incendiary. Real411’s complaint-review process was then led by teams of experts in media, law, and technology.

Drawing from the expertise of its civil society partners, for example, Real411 rejected complaints about AI-generated images that were used to parody political figures, ruling that they were “clearly satirical” and thus not a violation. In cases where the complaints committee found that content met strict definitions for digital offenses—such as a post falsely claiming that ballot boxes had been set on fire—the IEC could refer content to the Electoral Court or to social media platforms for action. It also could engage media and civil society fact-checkers to raise public awareness and debunk dangerous claims. The portal displayed submitted complaints and the reasoning behind each complaint decision, engendering trust that responses were proportionate.

Regulators can learn from Real411’s example: civil society engagement leads to stronger protections for people’s rights and strengthens public trust in the information environment.

Civil society watchdogs push back against overreach

In 2024, civil society groups also successfully challenged another South African regulator, the country’s Film and Publications Board (FPB), over election rules that could have restricted voters’ expression. In the months leading up to the vote, the FPB had identified vaguely defined “misinformation, disinformation, and fake news” as prohibited content. The designation would have imposed criminal penalties, including prison terms of up to two years, on offenders, and would have required platforms to restrict access to such information.

Several media freedom and free expression organizations filed a court case claiming that the rule was unconstitutional. They argued that by effectively broadening the definition of prohibited content and imposing criminal penalties, the measure would stifle public discussion and restrict the constitutional right to freedom of expression. The groups emphasized that they were not opposed to efforts to curb harmful false information online, but argued that the FBP’s framework could be abused to silence dissenting voices and reduce the diversity of content around the election. The challenge prompted the FPB to withdraw its new rules.

South African civil society groups played many other roles during the election period: they offered voter education programs, hosted debates and town hall meetings so that voters could interact with elected leaders and party officials, and worked as watchdogs, documenting politicians’ promises and whether they followed up. These cases show how civil society can leverage democratic mechanisms to hold governments accountable.

Lessons for future elections

Election commissions and other regulators are right to be concerned about the digital threats to electoral processes, as false and misleading information on social media could influence voters and the growing use of generative AI further erodes trust in the overall reliability of online information. Freedom House has laid out how policymakers can protect free expression and reliable information during key votes, including by supporting the work of independent civil society and media organizations that conduct fact-checking, civic education, and digital literacy initiatives.

A strong democracy requires an online environment where free expression prevails. Its protection allows people to debate their views, organize civic movements in their communities, and advocate for accountable and responsive governance—in other words, the activities that are vital to a free and fair election. The range of actions taken by South African civil society showcases how these groups can serve as both partners and watchdogs, promoting reliable information while protecting free expression from disproportionate restrictions.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://freedomhouse.org/article/protect-online-expression-during-elections-engage-civil-society

Published and (C) by Freedom House
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/freedomhouse/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.