Do not miss! This Friday, October 25, we will meet in New York City to discuss humor and the law at panel and roundtable What’s in a Joke? Humor in Free Speech Jurisprudence and Content Moderation.
Register to attend in person or on Zoom. 

Artwork by Doaa Eladl, The Cartoon Movement

India
Varghese v. State of Kerala
Decision Date: July 22, 2024
An Indian High Court dismissed a criminal complaint against a newspaper brought under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act for publishing a cartoon of the Indian flag and Mahatma Gandhi. After the newspaper had published the cartoon in recognition of India’s Independence day, a local member of the ruling political party filed the criminal complaint on the grounds that the use of a black outline on the flag dishonored the flag. The Court found that the cartoon sought to celebrate the occasion and that there was no intention to insult the national flag. It characterized the prosecution’s claims as a “far-fetched imagination” and emphasized the significance of artistic expression, affirming that “cartoonists are also part and parcel of the press and media” entitled to the freedom of expression under the Indian Constitution.

Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited
Decision Date: July 8, 2024
The Supreme Court of India held that a film did not violate the constitutionally protected rights of persons with disabilities despite its controversial portrayal of disabilities. After the trailer of the film had been released, a disability rights activist unsuccessfully approached the High Court on the grounds that the film perpetuated negative stereotypes of persons with disabilities. The Court emphasized the importance of context in media portrayals, recognizing that while freedom of speech is fundamental, it must not undermine the dignity of marginalized communities. It noted the film’s potential to reinforce negative stereotypes and issued guidelines for respectful and accurate representation of disabilities in media, emphasizing inclusive language, accurate depiction, and the inclusion of persons with disabilities in decision-making processes. However, the Court also upheld the existing regulatory framework for film certification, asserting that specific policy changes should be addressed by legislative bodies rather than judicial directives.

European Court of Human Rights
Dianova v. Russia 
Decision Date: September 10, 2024
The European Court of Human Rights held that Russia violated Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights in four applications involving freedom of expression and assembly. In the first case, Ms. Dianova was fined for conducting a hunger strike without prior notification, which the Court deemed an unjustified interference with her right to peaceful assembly. In the second case, four other applicants were fined for filming a satirical political video in a park, which the Court found to be an unforeseeable application of public assembly laws to an act of artistic expression. The Court emphasized that while regulations on public gatherings are necessary, their enforcement should not become an end in itself and that satire and political commentary deserve strong protection under the Convention. In both instances, the Court found that the Russian authorities’ actions were not prescribed by law, did not pursue legitimate aims, and were not necessary in a democratic society, thus violating the applicants’ rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

Netherlands
The Case of Schild & Vrienden (S&V) 
Decision Date: March 12, 2024
A Belgian First Instance Court convicted a Member of Parliament for various violations of the Anti-Racism and  Holocaust Denial laws after he had shared racist memes on a far-right activist youth movement’s social media pages. A television documentary on the far-right movement had exposed its inner workings and led to the Public Prosecutor opening a criminal investigation. In convicting the MP, the Court identified him as the “final boss” of the far-right movement and found that his hate speech “crosses the line of what is acceptable.” The Court sentenced him to one year of imprisonment, a €16,000 fine, and a 10-year ban from political office, and convicted other members on some charges and imposed suspended prison sentences and €8,000 fines.

● New Report – Freedom on the Net 2024: The Struggle for Trust Online, by Allie Funk, Kian Vesteinsson, and Grant Baker. Published by Freedom House, the 2024 report shows a decline in global internet freedom for the 14th year in a row. Of the 72 countries examined, 27 account for the weakening of protections of rights online; this year’s lowest scores belong to Kyrgyzstan, China, and Myanmar – states that are intensifying their digital silencing efforts. Records of draconian prison sentences for nonviolent online expression, physical assaults in retaliation for online activity, and internet shutdowns across the world contribute to the decline of global internet freedom. Given the super-election year, voting-related trends emerge: censorship in 25 out of 41 states that held (or were about to hold) elections, technical censorship targeting the opposition, restricted access to reliable information on voting, information manipulation, reduced transparency, and government interference, among others. Download the full report with charts, graphs, and maps here.

● Russia: Draft Law Aims to Ban “Propaganda” about So-Called Child-Free Lifestyles. As Russia’s Parliament passes the first vote on a draft law that seeks to ban “propaganda” of “child-free lifestyles,” this statement, featured by IFEX and originally published by Human Rights Watch (HRW), warns of the disastrous consequences the law will have for women’s rights, reproductive freedoms, and freedom of speech. The bill echoes Russia’s other “propaganda” ban – the one outlawing the spread of information about LGBTQ+ relationships. “​​People who do not have children – for whatever reason, including fertility challenges – will face stigma and censorship,” the HRW statement underscores, “as any public visual, audio and print content will be purged of anyone asserting earnestly or even jokingly that not having children is okay.”

UNESCO: Access to Information, Exemptions, and The Public Interest Override, by Joan Barata. In this policy brief published by UNESCO, Joan Barata, Senior Legal Fellow for The Future of Free Speech, focuses on the right to information and one specific aspect within the realm of exceptions to this right – the so-called “public interest override.” The policy brief cites the relevant international law provisions and national and international case law as courts have used the public interest override to balance the public’s right to know with other competing matters and interests, like national security, privacy, commercial confidentiality, or law enforcement. Among the principles and recommendations listed, the first one reminds states and other relevant actors that any restrictions imposed on the right to information “must respect the three-part test established under international and regional human rights standards (legality, legitimacy, and proportionality).”

● PhD Position: Humor and Free Speech Adjudication. The University of Groningen in the Netherlands welcomes applications for a fully-funded 48-month PhD position, which is part of the project “Democratic Literacy and Humor.” The successful candidate will focus on the intersections of humor, free speech jurisprudence, and online content moderation and work under the supervision of Dr Alberto Godioli. Apart from research, the candidate will also gain teaching experience. Are you interested? Apply by November 20, 2024. Learn more here. 

● Job Opening: Head of Information Integrity at ARTICLE 19. One of the world’s leading freedom of expression organizations, ARTICLE 19, is hiring for the Head of Information Integrity position. The person in this role will provide strategic direction under the organization’s Goal 3: “Accurate and reliable data and information are publicly accessible and must empower individuals to claim their rights.” ARTICLE 19 is looking for someone with an extensive track record of working with such human rights challenges as mis/disinformation, hate speech, incitement to violence, and information manipulation, among many others. Read more about the position here. Apply by November 10, 2024.