Copy
Advancing understanding of the norms and institutions
that best protect the free flow of information and expression.
COMMUNITY HIGHLIGHTS &  RECENT NEWS
● In the latest podcast by Intelligence Squared titled American Hate & the Law: Discourse Disrupters, former ACLU president Nadine Strossen and New York University professor Thane Rosenbaum discuss how the American legal system should cope with a new era of hate speech.

●  PEN International has published an English translation of a piece written by journalist, activist and Global Freedom of Expression Expert Lydia Cacho. In “I Don’t Want to Lose my Head” Cacho eloquently discusses the cathartic process of writing to cope with the regular threats she faces doing her work and the trauma she experiences from being exposed to the violence prevalent in her home country of Mexico.

● The European Commission has issued two Requests for Proposals in areas pertaining to freedom of expression: "Platform(s) for cultural content innovation" and “Media Freedom and Investigative Journalism”. Deadlines are 20/9/2019 and 27/09/2019 respectively.
DECISIONS THIS WEEK
United States
Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media
Decision Date: June 24, 2019
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that commercial or financial information is considered “confidential” under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemption 4 when it is “customarily and actually” treated as private by its owner and is provided to the government under an “assurance of privacy.” The South Dakota newspaper Argus Leader filed a FOIA request to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for information relating to the national food stamp program known as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). The data requested would have effectively documented how much individual grocery stores received annually in taxpayer money from the program.  The Court rejected the established “substantial harm” test to justify non-disclosure, in favor of protecting information falling under the ordinary meaning of confidential. The minority concurred in part, but dissented in part arguing that the majority opinion undermined the basic principles of FOIA and that a “genuine harm” requirement would ensure the exemption was narrowly construed.   

Russia
Prosecutor of Khvalynsk City v. Oblastnaya Gazeta
Decision Date: June 28, 2019
On June 28, 2019, the Kirov Regional Court of Yekaterinburg City shut down administrative proceedings to add a satirical newspaper article to Russia’s unified registry of prohibited content. In 2017, the newspaper “Oblastnaya Gazeta” published a satirical article about bribery. The Russian authorities ordered the newspaper to take down the article for allegedly disseminating unlawful content. The newspaper complied. The authorities then sought to add the article to the country’s registry of prohibited content. The first instance court granted the order despite the humorous nature of the article and absence of the newspaper’s representatives at trial. On appeal, the newspaper proved that its procedural rights were violated and the case was sent to retrial. During the retrial, the court ruled that since the newspaper took down the article there was no issue to litigate over, and shut down the proceedings.
THE FRONTIER OF EXPRESSION: RUSSIA AND CENTRAL ASIA

Russia
On July 22, 2019, a court in Barnaul, Western Siberia, ordered the State to pay Ms. Maria Motuznoya RUB 100,000 (~$1,600) as compensation for unlawful criminal prosecution for several Tweets. In the spring of 2018, the Russian authorities searched Ms. Motuznoya’s apartment as part of an investigation into allegations that she posted religiously offensive photos online. During the search, the authorities found pictures of swastikas and Hitler on her laptop. Ms. Motuznoya argued that the pictures did not belong to her and that she was targeted for her online activism against the local authorities. At least three other individuals were charged and prosecuted under similar circumstances. In October 2018, Ms. Motuznoya’s lawyers argued that the prosecution violated a Supreme Court directive which imposed restrictions on when an individual could be charged with extremism for social media likes and reposts. Ms. Motuznoya left Russia. In February, the Prosecution withdrew the case and apologized to Ms. Motuznoya, which prompted her return to the Russia. She then demanded one million roubles in compensation for moral harm and unlawful prosecution. The Barnaul court severely reduced her request for compensation, but granted it nonetheless.

Turkmenistan
On July 21, 2019, a rumor spread online that Mr. Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, Turkmenistan’s autocratic ruler of over a decade, had died. It turned out to be false. The false information originated on YouTube and rapidly circulated on messaging apps and other media. Mr. Berdymukhamedov’s long absence from the public eye and information about his private plane repeatedly flying to Germany, which some interpreted to mean that he was ill, sparked the story of his death. To prove to everyone that he was alive, Mr. Berdymukhamedov cut his vacation short to scold some officials about a construction project on television. The authorities also began a campaign against misinformation about the President’s health. Turkmen celebrities posted on Facebook and Instagram, both banned in the country, that the President was in good health and those implying otherwise were traitors. Additionally, the security forces arrested at least three individuals on suspicions of spreading rumors about Mr. Berdymukhamedov’s death. The incredibly limited information space in Turkmenistan contributed to the rapid spread of the rumor. Information space in Turkmenistan is tightly controlled and independent media is inexistent. The local population has no way to verify any government affairs, making it a fertile ground for conspiracies.
POST SCRIPTUM
●  The disinformation age: a revolution in propaganda, by The Guardian’s Peter Pomerantsev,  juxtaposes the dangers of soviet style censorship with our current age of “infinite digital disinformation,” where “the more we express ourselves, the less power we have.” In response, he warns, todays democracies are justifying censorship to tackle disinformation, where enhanced digital rights could give citizens access to transparent information and thereby lift the fog.
Share Share
Tweet Tweet
Forward Forward
Copyright © 2019 Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, All rights reserved.