Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Side 123

Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021
128 129
discussion on the Internet without risking limiting the freedom of expression
greatly. Article 15, paragraph 3, of the Police Act, states that the police can
interfere with a protest if there is a chance of riots.82 If the police were to interfere
with movements on the Internet some problems arise. First of all it is nearly
impossible for the police to stand guard over the Internet and second of all there
is no provision that allows the police to interfere with a person who is expressing
their opinion on Twitter or Facebook. If the police were to monitor all of the
communication that foregoes on a daily basis on the Internet, we would quickly
run the risk of creating a Big Brother community. And as mentioned above, the
challenge is more the rights of the individuals rather than public interests, so the
police would probably need to get a complaint from an individual before acting
on discussion on the internet. Accordingly, the individual may initiate
defamations proceedings in a civil case before the courts against a person who
violates his or her privacy or reputation with degrading or hateful public
statements, and request compensation
In the case Hrd. 20th of November 2014 (214/2014) a young man had
published a picture of a well-known man on the Internet where he had written
the words ‘fuck you rapist bastard’. The man that those words were directed
against went to court and requested that the statement be declared null and void
The Supreme court stated that the young man had his freedom of expression and
that the well-known man was himself in a way responsible, with his earlier
behaviour, for starting up this flack public debate surrounding him.
If we compare this case to the cases that were discussed in question three it
can be seen that in the cases regarding ‘traditional’ protesting the question was if
an arrest made by the police had been lawful. The court evaluates each time if
the actions of the police were necessary and proportional in each case. Thus, the
protester himself has to go to court to find out if his right to protest has been
violated or not.
In the case regarding expression on the Internet the police does not really
have any sources to interfere with those expressions as they are happening. So
instead of it being a case of if a government body was in the right to limit the
freedom of expression it is rather a question if the person who expressed herself
on the Internet interfered with someone else’s individual right.
An example from Iceland where it can be said that the right to protest was
exercised on the Internet is a movement that happened at the same time as the
#metoo movement. It used the hash tag #höfumhátt (#letsbeloud) and started
from a political discussion regarding a sentence paedophile who had formally
gotten a restoration of honour by a decision of the Ministry of Justice and was
therefore able to get back his license to practice as an advocate. The public
wanted the law to be changed so the concept of restored honour would be

82 If it seems likely that disorder will break out at a protest meeting, procession or other such gathering
in a public place, the police may prohibit people from changing the appearance of their faces, or
covering their faces or part of them with masks, hoods, paint or other means intended to prevent
them from being recognised.
to efficiently start large-scale collective actions in shorter time then has ever been
possible.79
The hash tag #metoo spread on Twitter in October of 2017 and was used in
12 million posts in the first 24 hours. With the hash tag, women tweeted about
their experience of sexual assault and harassment.80 There is a “growing trend of
the public’s willingness to engage with resistance and challenges to sexism,
patriarchy and other forms of oppression via feminist uptake of digital
communications.”81
Digital social movements can be powerful tools for individuals. They can
grow fast and bring social changes or different outlooks, like the Arab Spring and
#metoo movement go to show. However, there are some legal challenges that
need to be considered regarding digital social movements, because they are in
their nature different from traditional protests, where people gather at one place
to protest or send letters to their lawmakers. As seen from the judgements which
were discussed in question three before, the main point of the cases was if an
arrest of protesters by the police had been lawful or not.
The challenges that Iceland has to face regarding social movements on the
Internet are that they may be directed in greater quantities at individuals, rather
than the government. Also, it is possible for individuals to be anonymous on the
Internet and write things on social media without having to take responsibility
for it. As with the case of #metoo several individuals were named as possible
perpetrators. If such statements are given in anonymity and the named
perpetrator would want to challenge the statement, there would be some
difficulties involved.
Therefore, it can be said that the challenges regarding social movements like
#metoo, is the balance between the freedom of expression and the right to
respect for private life. Like the movement showed, it can be very powerful when
it comes to challenging power structures and calling for action. The biggest
challenge is to weigh and balance the conflicting rights of different individuals
against each other. As it says in Article 73 paragraph 2 of the Constitution every
individual is free to their opinion and to express themselves, but they have to be
able to vouch for their thoughts in a court of law. It also says in paragraph 3 that
laws can limit this right for example to protect individuals’ honour.
Another challenge is how the state and the police can exercise their power
of limiting the right to protest on the Internet. It is nearly impossible to control

79 Boyu Chen and Da-chi Liao ‘Social Media, Social Movements and the Challenge of Democratic
Governability’ (Natinao Sun Yat-sen University 2014) 1 https://fsi-live.s3.us-
west1.amazonaws.com/s3fs public/chen_boyu.stanford_2014_oct_10.pdf> accessed 10th of July
2018.
80 Nicole Smartt ‘Sexual Harrassment In The Workplace In A #MeToo World’ 2017 Forbes
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2017/12/20/sexual-harassment-
in-the-workplace-in-a-metoo-world/> accesed 10th of July 2018.
81 Kaitlynn Mendes, Jessica Ringrose and Jessalynn Keller: ‘#MeToo and the promise and pitfalls of
challenging rape culture through digital feminist activism’ (2018) 25 (2) European Journal of
Women’s Studies 2018 <https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506818765318> accesed 10th of July 2018.

International Legal Research Group