Criminalising Online Expression: Human Rights Challenges and Comparative Lessons for Vietnam

Abstract

In the digital era, film commentary has emerged as a potent mode of expression with increasing legal implications, particularly across social media platforms. In Vietnam, where statutory definitions of defamation, insult, and the abuse of democratic freedoms remain ambiguous, distinguishing lawful speech from criminal conduct presents a significant legal challenge. This article provides a comparative legal analysis of Vietnam, the United Kingdom, the United States, and East Asia to examine when and how film reviews may incur criminal liability. A hybrid model is proposed, combining qualitative and quantitative criteria including falsehood, intent, reputational harm, and dissemination scope on a three-point evaluative scale (0 to 3). Anchored in international human rights standards under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Common Law doctrines such as ‘actual malice’ and ‘honest opinion’, the model helps clarify legal thresholds for online speech. It supports legal actors and creators in risk assessment while advancing reform that reconciles expression with regulatory necessity.