SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Definition and threats of shutdowns. To understand the scope and multiple layers of Internet shutdowns, we are guided by the definition provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR): “Internet shutdowns are measures taken by a government, or on behalf of a government, to intentionally disrupt access to, and the use of, information and communications systems online. They include actions that limit the ability of a large number of people to use online communications tools, either by restricting Internet connectivity at large or by obstructing the accessibility and usability of services that are necessary for interactive communications, such as social media and messaging services.” Shutdowns, noted the UNHCHR, are not just a complete blockage of internet connectivity or accessibility of its services. Governments increasingly resort to throttling bandwidth or limiting mobile service to 2G, which renders it extremely difficult to make meaningful use of the internet, for example to share and watch video footage and live streams. Other similar interventions are limiting the availability of services to prevent people from circumventing shutdown measures. “As technology develops, the modalities for disrupting access to, and the use of, online space will evolve, and the definition of shutdowns and responses to them must change as well”, concludes the UNHCHR.19 Experts believe that the intent of State actors to block access to the internet is crucial for understanding if a shutdown, and not a technical error, is taking place: “Internet shutdowns do not involve technical problems to the national infrastructure potentially limiting access or connectivity, but rather the voluntary action of a state blocking the digital environment.”20 However, authorities’ willing or knowing degradation of infrastructure, to the point of non-functioning of power or telecommunications service,21 may feature similar malintent and adverse impacts. They agree that internet shutdowns differ from internet censorship in several ways.22 The line between shutdowns and censorship is drawn by pointing that “online censorship usually targets content according to its purposes, morality or legality, [however] an Internet shutdown blocks access more generally, with the result that all Internet traffic […] is treated in the same way, as unlawful or immoral content.” They conclude their explanation of the shutdowns by saying that “direct involvement of state actors is essential from an international law standpoint because states are obligated to protect and ensure the fulfillment of these rights and freedoms.”23 19 Internet shutdowns: trends, causes, legal implications and impacts on a range of human rights Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 13 May 2022, A/HRC/50/55, Paras 4-6, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3977326?ln=en. 20 See: Giovanni De Gregorio and Nicole Stremlau, Internet Shutdowns and the Limits of Law / International Journal of Communication 14(2020), p 4227. 21 See, e.g., the case of Venezuela, at Freedom House, “Freedom on the Net 2022,” available at https://freedomhouse.org/country/venezuela/ freedom-net/2022 “Deliberate shutdowns and throttling may seem practically unnecessary given the state of the country’s infrastructure and recurring power outages.” 22 See: Wagner, Ben, Understanding Internet Shutdowns: A Case Study from Pakistan, International Journal of Communication 12(2018), 3917–3938, https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/8545. 23 Giovanni De Gregorio and Nicole Stremlau, Internet Shutdowns and the Limits of Law / International Journal of Communication 14(2020), p 4227-4228. 11