Feasibility of the Government's Civil Liability for Business Closures Caused by Filtering

Abstract

This article examines the major challenges governments face in relation to internet filtering, with a particular focus on the Iranian context. Internet filtering has become a key instrument of state control in the digital era, justified by authorities on grounds of national security, cultural preservation, and public order. However, the consequences of such measures extend far beyond their stated objectives, affecting multiple dimensions of governance and society. The study highlights the legal and constitutional conflicts generated by filtering, particularly the tension between state authority and citizens’ rights to freedom of expression and access to information. It identifies ambiguities in the law regarding liability and the absence of clear compensation mechanisms for businesses harmed by disruptions. Economically, filtering disrupts e-commerce, undermines innovation, deters investment, and worsens unemployment challenges, especially among youth dependent on digital platforms for livelihood opportunities. Socially, it fuels public dissatisfaction, normalizes circumvention practices, and disrupts education and communication, eroding trust in government institutions. Administratively, filtering policies expose fragmentation among state agencies, overlapping jurisdictions, and the inefficiency of blunt regulatory instruments in comparison to more proportionate models elsewhere. On the international stage, filtering attracts criticism from human rights organizations, creates conflicts with international legal commitments, and damages national reputations in global digital networks. Comparative evidence from China, Turkey, and the European Union reveals alternative approaches and underscores the global complexity of filtering as a governance tool. Overall, the study concludes that filtering policies, while intended to safeguard state interests, generate extensive legal, economic, social, and diplomatic costs that challenge the very legitimacy and effectiveness of government regulation in the digital age.