Brittan Heller
Volume 76, Issue 6, 1687-1714
Extended reality (XR)—the integration of virtual, augmented, and mixed reality technologies—creates immersive, embodied, and behaviorally integrated forms of communication that challenge traditional understandings of freedom of expression. While XR offers new opportunities for creativity, civic engagement, and cross-cultural participation, its immersive nature introduces risks of censorship, surveillance, biometric profiling, algorithmic manipulation, and inequitable access.
This Article situates XR within the framework of European human rights law. It begins by identifying the technical and psychological features that distinguish XR from conventional platforms, particularly presence, immersion, and embodiment, which transform speech into multisensory and interactive experiences. It then evaluates how existing legal protections—chiefly Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Council of Europe recommendations—apply to XR contexts. Although these frameworks emphasize legality, necessity, and proportionality, their application remains underdeveloped where expression occurs through avatars, immersive environments, and biometric data. Key cases such as Handyside v. United Kingdom, Delfi AS v. Estonia, and Bărbulescu v. Romania illustrate both the adaptability and limits of current doctrine when extended into immersive settings.
The Article concludes by proposing reforms to adapt human rights protections to XR. These include clarifying platform liability for real-time immersive interactions, enhancing transparency in algorithmic governance, strengthening privacy safeguards for biometric and behavioral data, addressing immersive misinformation or “mis-experience,” and promoting equitable access to XR technologies. Taken together, these measures would help ensure that XR develops as an inclusive and rights-respecting medium rather than a frontier for unchecked corporate or state control. By grounding its analysis in European legal traditions, this Article demonstrates both the urgency and feasibility of adapting existing frameworks to safeguard expressive freedoms in the age of immersive computing.