Freedom of Expression in Privacy vs. Public Interest, a Case for Open Justice in Extended Reality Hadziselimovic Adnan author Pijarski Krzysztof author University of Malta Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Filmowa, Telewizyjna i Teatralna im. Leona Schillera w Łodzi 000vknf06 Correspondence to: Adnan Hadziselimovic Correspondence to: Krzysztof Pijarski 30 12 2023 Tom 11, Numer 1 2023 41 56 Copyright © 2023 2023 <p>The article was developed within the framework of the project “Experience and immersive technologies – from creative practice to educational theory” in partnership with Jagiellonian University, Lodz Film School, University of Malta and University of Athens (project ID number: 2020-1-PL01-KA226-HE-095891)</p> <p>This paper continues the discussion on advanced jurisprudence, outlined in <em>Algorithms, Ethics and Justice </em>(Hadzi, 2022), where restorative justice was proposed for the mitigation of artificial intelligence (AI) crimes. <em>Algorithms, Ethics and Justice </em>proposed an alternative approach to the current legal system by looking into restorative justice for AI crimes, and how the ethics of care could be applied to AI technologies. The paper signifies an expanded version of Hadzi’s contribution to the Digital Research in Humanities and Art Conference (Hadzi, 2023), focusing on the notion of cyber offenses in extended reality (XR), given the rise of the metaverse (Anderson, Rainie, 2022; Chohan, 2022), and the future scenario of bio-metrical data of EEG capable headsets (Graham, 2022) being misused by rogue companies and/or criminals (Jaber, 2022; Nair et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2022). The authors Begin by questioning the cyberspace – including the emerging metaverse – as public sphere, i.e. a social space in which democracy is being enacted to explore open justice in extended realities (XR), and then by continuing the discussion around the right to be forgotten and the freedom of the press versus privacy, through a comparative analysis between the legal situation in the EU and that of the USA. The paper concludes by warning against excessive state control while attempting to project a desirable scenario of multiple digital public spheres.</p> 1 A v B Plc and Another (2002). Court of Appeal. https://vlex.co.uk/vid/v-b-plc-and-793097577 (accessed: 10.03.2024). 2 Abbasi S.G. (2017). “Internet as a Public Space for Freedom of Expression: Myth or Reality?”. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3064175. 3 Abramovsky A., Brook H.R., Cohen J.A., Freeman G., Goodale J.C., Schulz D.A., Schurr C. (1993). “Impact of the Media on Fair Trial Rights: Panel on Media Access”. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 3 (2), p. 291. 4 Abuadbba A., Moore K., Tariq S. (2023). “Deepfake in the Metaverse: Security Implications for Virtual Gaming, Meetings, and Offices”. arXiv:2303.14612 http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.14612 (accessed: 10.03.2024). 5 Anderson J., Rainie L. (2022). The Metaverse in 2040. Washington: Pew Research Center. 6 Bailenson J.N., Blascovich J., Dimov A., Hoyt C., Persky S., Swinth K. (2005). “The Independent and Interactive Effects of Embodied-Agent Appearance and Behavior on Self-Report, Cognitive, and Behavioral Markers of Copresence in Immersive Virtual Environments”. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 14 (4), pp. 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474605774785235. 7 Balkin J.M. (2005). “Digital speech and democratic culture: A theory of freedom of expression for the information society”. In: A.D. Moore (ed.). Information Ethics: Privacy, Property, and Power. Washington: University of Washington Press. 8 Bayer J. (2022). “Procedural rights as safeguard for human rights in platform regulation”. Policy &amp; Internet (n/a). https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.298. 9 Bede Chigbogu A., Ewulum C. (2022). The Metaverse and the Extended Reality; Examining the Concerns of a Legal Practitioner (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 4196187). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4196187. 10 Berryman J.B. (2014). “Injunctions contra mundum: The ultimate weapon in containment”. Intellectual Property Journal, 26 (3), p. 287. 11 Bohlander M. (2010). “Open Justice or Open Season?: Should the Media Report the Names of Suspects and Defendants?”. The Journal of Criminal Law, 74 (4), pp. 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1350/jcla.2010.74.4.646. 12 Bradbury A.E. (2021). How Does Virtual Reality Compare? The Effects of Digital Communication Medium and Avatar Appearance on Self-Disclosure. Raleigh: North Carolina State University. https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/AAI28973096. 13 Branscomb L.M. (1990). “Public Uses of Information Systems: Principles for Design &amp; Application”. International Journal on Human-Computer Interaction, 2 (2), pp. 173–182. 14 Braud T., Hui P., Lee L.H., Zhou P. (2022). “What is the Metaverse? An Immersive Cyberspace and Open Challenges”. arXiv:2206.03018. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.03018. 15 Burnham J. (2012). “Developments in Social GRRRAAACCEEESSS: Visible–invisible and voiced–unvoiced”. In: I.B. Krause (ed.). Culture and Reflexivity in Systemic Psychotherapy: Mutual Perspectives. London: Routledge. 16 Camp J., Chien Y.T. (2000). “The internet as public space: Concepts, issues, and implications in public policy”. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 30 (3), pp. 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/572241.572244. 17 Campbell (Apellant) v. MGN Limited (Respondents) (2004). House of Lords. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/campbe-1.htm (accessed: 10.03.2024). 18 Carr v News Group Newspapers Ltd &amp; Others (2004). Queen’s Bench Division. https://www.5rb.com/case/carr-v-news-group-newspapers-ltd-others/ (accessed: 10.03.2024). 19 Chohan U.W. (2022). Metaverse or Metacurse? (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 4038770). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4038770. 20 Christie I., Tugendhat M. (2002). The Law of Privacy and the Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 21 Corrales Compagnucci M., Fenwick M., Haapio H., Vermeulen E.P. (2022). “Integrating law, technology, and design: Teaching data protection and privacy law in a digital age”. International Data Privacy Law, 12 (3), pp. 239–252. 22 Council of Europe. (2022). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights. https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/convention-for-the-protection-of-human-rights-and-fundamental-freedoms (accessed: 10.03.2024). 23 Court of Justice of the European Union (2014a). Court of Justice of the European Union – PRESS RELEASE No 70/14. https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdf (accessed: 10.03.2024). 24 Court of Justice of the European Union (2014b). Factsheet on the “Right to be Forgotten” ruling (C-131/12). https://web.archive.org/web/20140708142544/http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf (accessed: 10.03.2024). 25 Crook T. (2009). Comparative Media Law and Ethics. London: Routledge. 26 Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 becomes a W3C Recommendation (2022). https://www.w3.org/2022/07/pressrelease-did-rec.html (accessed: 10.03.2024). 27 Deloire C. (2012). Independence and pluralism must remain central to media regulation. Reporters Without Borders. https://rsf.org/en/independence-and-pluralism-must-remain-central-media-regulation (accessed: 10.03.2024). 28 Dyer C., Hall S. (2002). Legal landmark as Naomi Campbell wins privacy case. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/mar/28/pressandpublishing.privacy4 (accessed: 10.03.2024). 29 European Convention on Human Rights (1998). Testimony of European Court of Human Rights. 30 https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf (accessed: 10.03.2024). 31 European Data Protection Supervisor (1995). Directive 95/46/EC. European Union. https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-work/publications/legislation/directive-9546ec_en (accessed: 10.03.2024). 32 Farivar C. (2018). Habeas Data: Privacy vs. the Rise of Surveillance Tech. New York: Melville House. 33 Feldman D. (1997). “The developing scope of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights”. European Human Rights Law Review, pp. 265–274. 34 Fraser N. (1990). “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy”. Social Text, 25/26, p. 56. https://doi.org/10.2307/466240. 35 Fuchs C. (2021). “The Digital Commons and the Digital Public Sphere How to Advance Digital Democracy Today”. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 16 (1). https://doi.org/10.16997/wpcc.917. 36 Gardham D., Whitehead T. (2010). Terror suspect exploit system to stay anonymous. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7086051/Terror-suspect-exploit-system-to-stay-anonymous.html (accessed: 10.03.2024). 37 Garrido G.M., Nair V., Song D. (2022). “Exploring the Unprecedented Privacy Risks of the Metaverse”. arXiv:2207.13176. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.13176. 38 Ginnane M. (dir.) (2008). Being Maxine Carr [documentary]. Renegade Pictures. Global Freedom of Expression (2004). Von Hannover v. Germany (No. 2). https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/von-hannover-v-germany-no-2/ (accessed: 10.03.2024). 39 Google Inc. V Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD) (2014). European Union Court of Justice. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&amp;docid=152065 (accessed: 10.03.2024). 40 Graham P. (2022). Muse Set to Launch a VR Compatible EEG Headband. https://www.gmw3.com/2022/03/muse-set-to-launch-a-vr-compatible-eeg-headband/ (accessed: 10.03.2024). 41 Habermas J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society (T. Burger, trans.). Cambridge: The MIT Press. 42 Hadzi A. (2022). “Algorithms, Ethics and Justice”. In: S. Bezzina, M. Bugeja, A. Dingli, A. Pfeiffer, A. Serada (eds.). Disruptive Technologies in Media, Arts and Design (pp. 121–138). New York: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93780-5_9. 43 Hadzi A. (2023). “Open justice transformations impacting extended reality (XR) environments”. International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, 19 (1), pp. 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794713.2023.2198535. 44 Hartshorne J. (2010). “The Value of Privacy”. The Journal of Media Law, 2 (1), pp. 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2010.11427354. 45 Henry B. (2021). Online Defamation and Your Business. https://www.robinsonandhenry.com/legal-guides/online-defamation-and-your-business/ (accessed: 10.03.2024). 46 Hua Z., Lan R., Zhang Y., Zhao R., Zhu Y. (2022). “Metaverse: Security and Privacy Concerns”. arXiv:2203.03854. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.03854 (accessed: 10.03.2024). 47 Jaber T.A. (2022). “Security Risks of the Metaverse World”. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 16 (13). 48 Judicial Studies Board (2009). Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts. https://www.judiciaryni.uk/ (accessed: 10.03.2024). 49 Logemann T. (2018). Art. 17 GDPR – Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’) – General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Intersoft Consulting. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/ (accessed: 10.03.2024). 50 MacKinnon R. (2011). ‘Internet Freedom’ in the Age of Assange. https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/02/17/internet-freedom-in-the-age-of-assange/ (accessed: 10.03.2024). 51 McQuail D. (1992). Media Performance: Mass Communication and the Public Interest. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 52 Meaker M. (2023). This Town Became the Center of a QAnon Storm. It’s Fighting Back. https://www.wired.com/story/qanon-conspiracy-bodegraven-netherlands/ (accessed: 10.03.2024). 53 Mill J.S. (1978). On Liberty (E. Rapaport, ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. 54 Mouffe Ch. (2000). The Democratic Paradox. London–New York: Verso Books. 55 Mouffe Ch. (2005). On the Political. London: Routledge. 56 Muller K., Schwarz C. (2018). “Fanning the Flames of Hate: Social Media and Hate Crime”. Journal of the European Economic Association, 19 (4), pp. 2131–2167. https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article-abstract/19/4/2131/5917396?redirectedFrom=fulltext (accessed: 10.03.2024). 57 Papacharissi Z. (2009). “The virtual sphere 2.0: The internet, the public sphere, and beyond”. In: A. Chadwick, P.N. Howard (eds.). Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics (pp. 230–245). London: Routledge. 58 Papacharissi Z. (2019). “The Virtual Sphere. The Internet as a Public Sphere”. In: M. Stempfhuber, E. Wagner (eds.). Praktiken der Uberwachten: Offentlichkeit und Privatheit im Web 2.0 (pp. 43–60). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-11719-1 (accessed: 10.03.2024). 59 Parialo A. (2022). Deepfakes: Analysis on the role of disclosure placement in consumers’ attitude towards synthetic advertisement [Master’s Degree Thesis]. Luiss Guido Carli. http://tesi.luiss.it/32847/. 60 Parliamentary Assembly (1998). Right to privacy. https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=16641&amp;lang%20=en (accessed: 10.03.2024). 61 Peruško Z. (2009). “Public Interest and Television Performance in Croatia”. Medijska Istraživanja: Znanstveno-Stručni Časopis za Novinarstvo i Medije, 15 (2), pp. 5–31. 62 Pretty v. The United Kingdom (2002). Council of Europe. 63 Procter L. (2021). “I Am/We Are: Exploring the Online Self-Avatar Relationship”. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 45 (1), pp. 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859920961041. 64 Ravenscraft E. (2022). What Is the Metaverse, Exactly? https://www.wired.com/story/what-isthe-metaverse/ (accessed: 10.03.2024). 65 Reinhardt D., Warin C. (2022). “Vision: Usable Privacy for XR in the Era of the Metaverse”. Proceedings of the 2022 European Symposium on Usable Security, pp. 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1145/3549015.3554212. 66 Re (S) (A child) (2005). Court of Appeal (Civil Division). https://www.4pb.com/pdf.php?id=2888 (accessed: 10.03.2024). 67 Ricardo Q.S. (2022). Communication, Disinformation, Internet and Development. First Annual International Conference on Religion, Culture, Peace, and Education. https://www.aacademica.org/sergio.ricardo.quiroga/214 (accessed: 10.03.2024). 68 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. V. Virginia (448 U.S. 555) (1980). US Supreme Court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/448/555/ (accessed: 10.03.2024). 69 Rodrick S. (2014). “Achieving the aims of open justice? The relationship between the courts, the media and the public”. Deakin Law Review, 19 (1), pp. 123–162. https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2014vol19no1art210. 70 Toriz Ramos C. (2021). “The Internet as Public Space: A Challenge to Democracies”. In: A. Visvizi, M.D. Lytras, N.R. Aljohani (eds.). Research and Innovation Forum 2020: Disruptive Technologies in Times of Change (pp. 555–563). New York: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62066-0. 71 UNESCO (ed.) (2011). Freedom of Connection – Freedom of Expression: The Changing Legal and Regulatory Ecology Shaping the Internet. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural. 72 Venice Commission (2014). Emerging Challenges to the Right to Privacy. Council of Europe. https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-JU(2014)014-e (accessed: 10.03.2024). 73 Wagner A.J. (2022). “Whose Public Virtue? Exploring Freedom of Information Efficacy and Support”. Administration &amp; Society, 00953997221113223. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997221113223. 74 Wieshofer M. (2022). Data Privacy Is Not Meta: Why Facebook’s Foray Into the Metaverse Could Be Flawed From the Start. https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/ciclr-online/36 (accessed: 10.03.2024). 75 Zelezny J. (2010). Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints, and the Modern Media (Sixth edition). Boston: Wadworth. https://www.alibris.com/Communications-Law-Liberties-Restraints-and-the-Modern-Media-John-D-Zelezny/book/29583591?qsort=dr (accessed: 10.03.2024).