South Africa
Tiso Blackstar Group (PTY) LTD v. Steinhoff International Holdings N.V.
Decision Date: December 4, 2024
The South African Supreme Court of Appeal held that a private company was not entitled to refuse access to a financial report commissioned to investigate alleged auditing irregularities. Two media entities had filed access to information requests with the company after the company’s share price dropped when its auditors were unable to sign the annual financial statements. The company refused the requests, stating that the report was subject to legal privilege. The High Court had ordered that the company disclose the report, finding that it was not privileged because it had not been commissioned for the “express” purpose of anticipated litigation. The Supreme Court of Appeal agreed, adding that even if it had been privileged the company had waived that privilege and that, nevertheless, the public interest in the report’s disclosure outweighed any harm the company may suffer were it disclosed.

United Kingdom
Samherji HF v. Oddur Fridriksson
Decision Date: November 14, 2024
The High Court of Justice held that the Defendant’s creation of a fake website mimicking the Claimant’s, which included a fabricated apology for the “Fishrot scandal,” constituted passing off, copyright infringement, and malicious falsehood, resulting in reputational harm to the Claimant. The Defendant’s argument that his actions were protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as part of an artistic project, was rejected. The Court found that the Defendant’s actions went beyond the bounds of artistic freedom, and it granted injunctive relief and ordered the transfer of the domain name to the Claimant, balancing the Claimant’s intellectual property and reputational rights with the Defendant’s right to free expression.

India
Kunal Kamra v. Union of India
Decision Date: September 20, 2024
The Bombay High Court (2:1) held that Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2024, is unconstitutional. The case involved a public interest litigation by comedian Kunal Kamra, along with several organizations, editors, journalists, and publication houses, challenging the said rule, which empowered a government-established fact-checking unit to identify and flag or remove social media content related to government affairs as fake, false, or misleading under Rule 7 of the Ethics Code. The petitioners contended that the rule infringes on freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a), creates a chilling effect on speech, and lacks clear standards, leading to arbitrary censorship. The Court issued a split verdict: Justice Patel found the rule unconstitutional, stating that it contravenes Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) by placing an undue burden on digital intermediaries, which incentivizes self-censorship and limits the open marketplace of ideas essential for democracy. He highlighted that the rule’s lack of procedural safeguards allows the FCU, a government-appointed body, to act without checks, essentially making the government both prosecutor and judge. On the other hand, Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale upheld the rule’s validity, asserting that it is a proportionate restriction designed to curb misinformation, consistent with Article 19(2) and that the intermediaries retain choices such as disclaimers to meet compliance. Gokhale J. argued that the rule includes sufficient safeguards and aligns with past judgments upholding restrictions for public order. Later in a tier-breaker decision, Justice Chandurkar agreed with Patel J. that the Rule violated Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and exceeded the authority granted by the IT Act of 2000. He found that the rule’s vagueness, lack of procedural safeguards, and discriminatory application to digital media unduly burden freedom of expression and create a chilling effect, making it impermissibly broad and arbitrary.

Brazil
The Case of Leo Lins
Decision Date: September 28, 2023
The Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) overturned a lower court’s ruling that had imposed restrictions on a comedian’s routines and activities, declaring it an unacceptable case of prior censorship. In a provisional ruling issued in a criminal case, the lower court had broadly prohibited a comedian from making derogatory and humiliating comments during his shows, ordered the removal of his content from digital platforms, restricted his travel to no more than ten days outside the city without judicial approval, and required him to report monthly to the court. These measures were imposed at the request of the Public Prosecutor, who argued that the comedian’s routines could incite violence, spread hate speech, and undermine the dignity of vulnerable and minority groups. The Supreme Court ruled on a constitutional complaint, holding that the lower court’s decision violated the comedian’s freedom of expression and professional activity, constituting prior censorship and disregarding binding precedents that protect constitutional freedoms of the press and speech. The Court stated that its ruling does not exempt Lins, or any other individual, from civil or criminal liability in any ongoing or future legal proceedings.

Aragão v. Pererê Publisher Magazines and Books Ltd
Decision Date: June 16, 2005
The Superior Court of Justice of Brazil ruled that heirs are not entitled to compensation arising from the publication of a satirical magazine, which mockingly mentioned their ancestor. A satirical magazine had published an article with satirical references to the ancestor’s castle and profession, and his heirs sought damages for the moral harm caused. The Superior Court agreed with two lower courts and dismissed the application, holding that determining the nature of the humor is beyond the Court’s jurisdiction, and that the satirical article fell within the bounds of “humorous practice.”

● Cartooning for Peace Is Publishing Holding the Line. 40 cartoons for Charlie (2015-2025). Cartooning for Peace, an international network of cartoonists committed to freedom of expression, asks, “Are we still Charlie?” Marking ten years since the Charlie Hebdo shooting and the Hypercacher siege, the network publishes a collection of 40 press cartoons by artists from around the world – Burkina Faso, Cuba, France, Iran, and Egypt, among many others – with the foreword by historian Jean-Noël Jeanneney and Kak, President of Cartooning for Peace. “[T]he majority of the world’s population has been living in a country that censors press cartoons, whether partially or totally,” Kak writes. “We therefore have a duty [...] to brandish the banner of the right to satire and freedom of the press.” The book will be released on January 2, 2025, in tribute to the victims of the January 7, 2015, attacks in Paris, France. 

● Holy Moly! Blasphemy in the UK? by Jennifer Young. In her blog post for the Forum for Humor and the Law (ForHum), Jennifer Young, University of Groningen, unpacks the recent decision of the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) on the promotional poster featuring comedian Fern Brady. The ASA ruled that the image linked to Brady’s tour titled, “I gave you milk to drink,” violated Rule 4.1 (Harm and offense) of the Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing Code. The contested image showed Brady holding a baby as she sprayed milk from her breast into the open mouth of a man in religious attire; according to Brady, the ad was a parody of the painting by Alonso Cano and constituted satire and humor. The ASA warned Brady “to take care to not cause offence on the grounds of religion in future ads.” Young’s ForHum blog stresses that the offense of blasphemy no longer exists in the UK law, “yet here we have an image banned on the grounds of something which sounds suspiciously like blasphemy.”

● Egypt: Ahead of the UN Human Rights Review, Imprisoned Poet Galal El-Behairy Faces Threats of Torture and Is Denied Medical Care. In a recent statement, PEN International demands that the Egyptian authorities immediately release poet Galal El-Behairy. Over the five years of arbitrary imprisonment, El-Behairy has faced ill-treatment, inhumane detention conditions, threats of torture, and denial of necessary medical help. Even though El-Behairy fully served his initial three-year sentence imposed by a military court in 2021, the prosecutors brought more charges against him, leading to El-Behairy’s current pretrial detention, which has exceeded the limit under Egyptian law. Egypt’s fourth Universal Periodic Review before the UN Human Rights Council is scheduled for January 2025. Despite that, other writers remain unjustly detained for the exercise of their freedom of expression, including Alaa Abd El-Fattah and Ashraf Omar. PEN International urges UN Member States to pressure Egypt to release all political prisoners.

● Echoes of Freedom: Art as a Voice of Resistance in Nicaragua. The report, prepared jointly by the Centro para la Apertura y el Desarrollo de América Latina (CADAL) and the Artistic Freedom Initiative (AFI), covers Nicaragua’s crackdown on artists and cultural workers. CADAL and AFI focus on the period between 2018, when mass protests against President Daniel Ortega swept Nicaragua, and 2023; the government still resorts to silencing measures, such as prosecution, imprisonment, and denaturalization, against dissenting artists today. The report’s Chapter 2 analyzes the laws and policies used to suppress expression, including through the tactics of surveillance, harassment, and disenfranchisement; the report’s legal experts show such measures are incompatible with Nicaragua’s international human rights obligations. In between chapters, CADAL and AFI feature artwork by Nicaraguan cartoonist and illustrator Pedro X. Molina on the themes of censorship, persecution, exile, and resistance.

● Blasphemy Trials in Pakistan: Legal Process as Punishment, by Zimran Samuel. The TrialWatch initiative of the Clooney Foundation for Justice published a report on Pakistan’s blasphemy laws and trials. Authored by Zimran Samuel, who is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers in London, the report zooms in on the blasphemy laws in practice (and malpractice) based on the monitoring of trials in Lahore, the capital of the Punjab province, over the course of 6 months in 2022. The monitoring concerned 24 cases, which amounted to more than 250 hearings: in 15 cases, the accused were detained; 217 hearings resulted in adjournments, most frequently because prosecution witnesses or complainants were absent; in five cases, the defendants had mental health concerns; two cases resulted in convictions – a life sentence and a death penalty. “There are few barriers to prevent essentially anyone from registering a case,” Samuel underscores, “and accused persons are often swiftly arrested [...] becom[ing] mired in proceedings that stretch on nearly indefinitely.”

● International Society for Humor Studies (ISHS): Call for Submissions. The upcoming 35th ISHS Conference will take place in Kraków, Poland, on July 7-11, 2025. Submissions for organized panels and workshops are open until January 15, 2025; the deadline for individual presentations is February 14, 2025. ForHum founders and CGFoE experts Alberto Godioli and Laura Little will be organizing the Humor and the Law panel at the Conference. Learn more here. 

In case you missed it…

● Artistic Freedom in Africa: Developing a Regional Strategy for Censorship Board Reform. On December 5, Artists at Risk Connection (ARC) and Africa is a Country hosted an event on censorship board reform and the protection of artistic expression. Artists and activists from across the continent joined the panel: Ayodele Ganiu, a culture producer, Nigeria; Vincent Kyabayinze, a creative artist and film director, Uganda; Lisa Sidambe, Nhimbe Trust’s Consultant Researcher and Artistic Freedom Advocacy Lead, Zimbabwe; and Sam Brakarsh, Africa Regional Representative for ARC, Zimbabwe. The recording is available here.