Business can be deemed to be complicit, either beneficially or silently, in violations of freedom of speech, for example, if journalists are arrested or harassed for reporting on corruption or company activities. Companies may also be perceived to be complicit when investing in companies with extensive state involvement, in countries where freedom of expression is restricted or repressed, particularly if the company or its activities are considered to facilitate the repression. Companies can also face allegations of direct responsibility if they limit the freedom of expression of their employees beyond what is required to protect confidential commercial information. The communications sectors, including internet service providers, are at particular risk of direct complicity in violations of freedom of speech. Several prominent internet search engines, for example, have been implicated in censoring information.

The following examples were identified through background research:

• In 2006, internet search engine Google faced accusations of complicity in alleged infringements of freedom of expression when it launched a Chinese domain version of its search engine which, in-line with Chinese law, censored access to certain information and websites.
• In June 2008, Amnesty International highlighted Vietnam’s continued intimidation of political dissidents. In the previous 18 months, at least 26 peaceful activists were been arrested, the majority charged with offences under national security legislation which “is used to criminalise peaceful dissent.” Restrictions continue on internet use that is deemed “undesirable” by the authorities as activists use cyberspace to voice their dissent.
• In July 2008, a school teacher in China was sentenced to one year of re-education through labour after taking photos of buildings that had collapsed in the May 2008 earthquake and posting them on the internet.
• According to Reporters Without Borders’s 2008 Annual Report on press freedom, media exposure of corruption and embezzlement in Kazakhstan brings reprisals against journalists, particularly with respect to the oil and gas sector, whose proceeds benefit only a small part of the population.

How does a company avoid being complicit in violations of the right to freedom of expression when an individual is threatened by the security forces for exercising this right in voicing opposition to the operations or activities of the company?

The following have been identified as possible components of this dilemma:

• Arbitrary arrest and detention
• Harassment and attack of company opponents by the authorities
• Forced closure of media institutions
• NGO campaigns supporting company employees
• Investment in countries where restrictions are widespread
• Product misuse
• Alleged complicity in violations by private or public security forces