LESSONS FOR REGULATING CAMPAIGNING ON SOCIAL MEDIA – Court of Appeal of New Zealand in The Electoral Commission v. Watson and Jones As policymakers grapple with effective regulation of these issues, many EMBs and courts must rely on the legal and regulatory frameworks designed for “traditional media” – print, radio, and television. In the electoral context, these might include campaign and media regulations as well as laws on discrimination, libel, slander, and defamation. IFES’ recently launched ElectionJudgments.org houses a collection of national election judgments from courts around the world. Intended to facilitate the exchange of sound precedents across jurisdictions, this curated database enables judges, election professionals, and researchers to filter and search cases by topic or thematic area, including “social media.” In this paper, IFES offers an initial analysis of the judgments available in the database that include allegations of campaign violations on social media. A comparative look at the types of violations that have been brought before courts and an examination of how existing legislation is applied to the use of social media yields insights for legal and regulatory reform. The next section examines allegations of campaign violations by candidates or political parties, while the following section looks at cases brought in response to content shared by a wider range of social media users, further blurring the line between protected free speech and regulated campaign activity. Taking the Campaign to Social Media: Challenges in Applying and Enforcing Offline Regulations to Online Spaces Applying campaign regulations to content disseminated via social media platforms can be challenging, particularly when regulations have been designed for traditional media and not adequately adapted to online campaigning. Two judgments regarding alleged campaigning before designated campaign periods, one from 2012 in Mexico and another from 2010 in Brazil illustrate some of these challenges and the differing ways in which courts have distinguished social media from “traditional media” to inform the types of online conduct that would be considered campaign violations. In the Mexican case, the Federal Election Tribunal held that a Presidential candidate tweeting a YouTube clip of an interview he had conducted prior to the designated campaign period was not a premature campaign act and was instead a personal opinion on current social issues. 7 On the other hand, the Superior Electoral Court of Brazil ruled that a candidate announcing their run for President via Twitter prior to the campaign period was illegal electoral propaganda. 8 It should be noted that the campaign regulations of each country differ, and the facts of these cases are not directly comparable – particularly the fact that the Brazilian candidate directly solicited votes in his Twitter 7 Institutional Revolutionary Party v. Andrés Manuel López Obrador (SUP RAP 0268 2012) (May 24, 2012) (Mexico), available at https://electionjudgments.org/en/entity/4xu3lhyt9su. 8 Antonio Pedro de Siqueira Indio da Costa v. Public Electoral Ministry (No. 1825-24.2010.6.00.0000) (June 4, 2020) (Brazil), available at https://electionjudgments.org/en/entity/93tllk9zp6. 3