The internet has become the backbone of modern communication, enabling billions of people to share ideas, engage in commerce, and participate in public discourse. At the heart of this ecosystem are intermediaries—Internet service providers (ISPs), social media platforms, search engines, and other digital services that facilitate the flow of information. However, the legal frameworks governing these intermediaries often determine whether the internet remains an open space for free expression or becomes a heavily censored and surveilled environment.
To address this challenge, a coalition of civil society organizations, legal experts, and human rights advocates developed The Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability in 2015. These principles provide a rights-based framework to ensure that laws holding intermediaries accountable for user-generated content do not undermine freedom of speech, privacy, and innovation.
The Need for Balanced Intermediary Liability Laws
Governments around the world have adopted varying approaches to intermediary liability, with some imposing strict regulations that force platforms to police content aggressively. While combating illegal material—such as hate speech, terrorism-related content, and copyright infringement—is a legitimate concern, poorly designed laws often lead to over-censorship, where platforms preemptively remove lawful content to avoid legal risks. This creates a “chilling effect” on free expression, where users and companies self-censor to stay compliant.
Additionally, inconsistent legal standards across jurisdictions create uncertainty for global platforms. A takedown request that is valid in one country might violate free speech protections in another, forcing intermediaries to navigate conflicting obligations. The Manila Principles seek to harmonize these standards by grounding them in international human rights law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Key Provisions of the Manila Principles
1. Protection from Liability for Third-Party Content
The foundational principle is that intermediaries should not be held legally responsible for content posted by users unless they actively participate in its creation or modification. This aligns with “safe harbor” protections seen in laws like the U.S. Section 230 and the EU’s E-Commerce Directive, which shield platforms from liability as long as they act in good faith to remove illegal content when notified.
2. Content Restrictions Must Be Necessary and Proportionate
Any restrictions on content—whether through government orders or platform policies—should only occur after a fair and transparent legal process. The Manila Principles emphasize that judicial oversight should be required for censorship, ensuring that decisions are based on legitimate legal grounds rather than political or corporate pressure. Automated filtering systems, such as those mandated by the EU’s Copyright Directive (Article 17), risk overblocking lawful material and should only be used as a last resort.
3. Transparency and User Due Process
When content is removed or accounts are suspended, users must be notified and given a meaningful opportunity to appeal. Platforms and governments should also publish regular transparency reports detailing takedown requests and compliance rates, allowing for public accountability.
4. No General Monitoring Obligations
One of the most critical safeguards is the rejection of laws that require intermediaries to proactively monitor all user content. Such mandates are not only technically impractical but also infringe on privacy and free expression. The Manila Principles argue that intermediaries should only be required to act on specific, legally valid complaints rather than engaging in mass surveillance.
5. Legal Consistency and Avoidance of Extraterritorial Overreach
Laws regulating intermediaries should respect jurisdictional boundaries, avoiding scenarios where one country’s censorship demands affect users globally. The principles call for international cooperation to develop harmonized standards that prevent fragmentation of the internet while upholding human rights.
Challenges and Global Impact
Despite their widespread endorsement by digital rights groups, the Manila Principles face resistance from governments seeking greater control over online speech. Countries like Russia, Turkey, and India have enacted laws that pressure platforms to remove content under vague definitions of “illegality,” often targeting political dissent. Even in democratic regions, debates over misinformation, hate speech, and copyright enforcement have led to proposals that risk undermining intermediary protections.
The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and ongoing discussions about Section 230 reform in the U.S. reflect the tension between regulation and free expression. While some measures align with the Manila Principles (such as enhanced transparency requirements), others—like mandatory content filtering—directly contradict them.
Conclusion: A Blueprint for a Free and Open Internet
The Manila Principles serve as a crucial guideline for policymakers, tech companies, and civil society in shaping intermediary liability laws that balance accountability with fundamental rights. By advocating for due process, judicial oversight, and transparency, they provide a framework to prevent censorship abuses while allowing legitimate enforcement against illegal content.
As digital governance evolves, the principles remain a vital tool in the fight to preserve the internet as a space for innovation, free expression, and democratic engagement. Their adoption—whether through national legislation or corporate policies—will determine whether the next generation of the internet remains open or becomes a patchwork of fragmented, censored networks.
