Protect democratic input.
Decide other boundaries.

“Non-negligible” means capable of making more than a trivial difference to how people understand a public issue, develop alternatives, choose representatives, scrutinise power, or revise a decision. Include effects that accumulate over time or arise when evidence is combined.

This defines the democratic core protected by this proposal. It covers possible future decisions and criticism of the decision process itself. No one has to demonstrate that a particular election would have turned out differently.

Relevance can be uncertain or emerge later. The proposed safeguard is a presumption of protection where a plausible connection exists. An authority seeking to apply a rule for activity outside the core must explain its reasoning, address cumulative effects, and allow independent challenge. People need no advance permission to raise a democratic question.

Evidence of state violence, corruption, or serious rights violations has a strong presumption of lasting relevance. Officials whose conduct is being examined cannot be the final judges of its relevance. A universal numerical threshold or an AI classification cannot settle this judgement.

Your own thoughts

Always free. Government cannot require you to stop thinking about a subject, forget it, or hold a particular belief.

Input that can affect democratic decisions

Protected. People must be able to examine an issue, discuss alternatives, preserve relevant evidence, and question the rules themselves.

Other outward activities and stored information

Democracy sets the boundaries through public, reviewable rules and within other applicable rights. For example, routine commercial data can have a retention limit without erasing evidence needed to scrutinise a public decision.

AI capabilities and operations

Democracy can limit a specific capability, access level, or dangerous operation. A person's freedom of thought does not require unrestricted access to every AI system. The rules must preserve effective ways to understand and challenge democratic choices.

Discussing whether a dangerous capability should be available is protected democratic input. Giving a system the capability or directing it to carry out a harmful operation is a separate activity. A claim of political relevance does not by itself exempt that operation from its rules.

Every boundary is itself open to democratic discussion. A rule cannot close off the evidence and discussion people need to challenge it. Where a method needs limits—for example, withholding a witness's address—preserve the event's record and an effective way to scrutinise it.

This foundation is a minimum requirement for democracy, not a complete list of human rights. Existing protections for private life, culture, religion, expression, and other interests still matter outside its democratic core. The ICCPR expression framework, for example, covers more than political speech; a majority vote alone does not displace applicable rights.

The violent suppression of pro-democracy protests in Beijing in 1989, widely known as the Tiananmen massacre, concerns how state power was used against people seeking change. In its 4 June 2024 statement, the EU called for acknowledgement and accountability and criticised restrictions on commemoration and discussion.

Under this proposed standard, its evidence must be preserved and people must be free to research, discuss, teach, and peacefully commemorate it. Knowing what happened can affect judgements about government and democratic decisions in a non-negligible way. Political embarrassment is no reason to erase that evidence.

A government that suppresses this remembrance or punishes people merely for participating fails the democratic foundation. The Chinese government cannot meet this standard while preventing people from freely examining and remembering Tiananmen. The same test applies to every government’s own abuses.

Acceptance means practical protection: preserve records, provide access subject to narrowly justified protections for people, permit independent research and public discussion, and end punishment for these activities. A statement endorsing the principles is insufficient.

People remain free to debate evidence and interpretations. The duty is to preserve the evidence and freedom to examine it; it does not require everyone to adopt a government-approved account or personally take part in remembrance.

These proposed requirements govern boundaries outside the democratic core and any rule about the means of participation, access to particular data, or AI capabilities. They cannot authorise suppression of the democratic issue, its relevant evidence, or debate about the rule. They bind government, police, prosecutors, public institutions, and contractors exercising public functions.

1. A precise rule, available in advance.

Define the prohibited conduct, relevant intent, harm, scope, and potential penalty. Secret rules and unforeseeable reinterpretations cannot create criminal liability. Protect the listed activities expressly; do not leave them dependent on an official’s goodwill.

2. A specific, legitimate protective purpose.

The authority identifies the right or safety interest at risk and supplies evidence linking the activity to that risk. Embarrassment, loss of public support, or a desire to control the historical record are not sufficient grounds.

3. Necessity and proportionality.

Show why a narrower measure would not protect the interest. Examine restrictions together, including their effects on minority views and future accountability. A broad label such as “national security” cannot substitute for this explanation.

4. Independent review and effective protection.

Provide reasons, access to a lawyer, a prompt challenge, and a court able to stop unlawful interference and preserve evidence. Secret evidence needs safeguards for a fair challenge. The institution being criticised cannot decide the final appeal.

5. Accountability and a route back.

Publish restrictions and review dates. Restore unlawfully removed material, end unlawful detention or penalties, provide appropriate redress, and investigate retaliation. Exceptional urgent measures must be narrow, documented, time-limited, and promptly reviewed.

Criminal provisions must be interpreted strictly. Where conduct was not clearly prohibited under an applicable, rights-compatible rule at the time, a later interpretation must not be used to punish it. A disagreement about the fundamentals does not itself establish an offence.

The UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 34 provides reference standards for legal precision, justified restrictions, and historical debate. The ICCPR supplies further reference points for remedies, fair proceedings, and non-retroactive criminal law. The safeguards here require detailed domestic drafting and enforcement; citing them does not make them operational.