|
Advancing understanding of the norms and institutions
that best protect the free flow of information and expression.
|
|
|
COMMUNITY HIGHLIGHTS & RECENT NEWS
|
|
|
● Book Launch - Freedom of Speech in International Law, edited by Amal Clooney and Lord David Neuberger. Join the Centre for International Governance and Dispute Resolution online to mark the publication of Freedom of Speech in International Law. The event will host an expert panel featuring Lord David Neuberger, Amal Clooney, Philippa Webb, Dario Milo, and Alice Gardoll; Baroness Helena Kennedy KC will moderate their conversation. Freedom of Speech in International Law covers freedom of expression protections under international human rights law, outlines states’ failure to uphold them, and includes recommendations for both states and social media companies. The book chapters focus on insulting speech, hate speech, false speech, and speech related to national security. Lord David Neuberger, Former President of the UK Supreme Court, and Amal Clooney, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers and Co-Founder of the Clooney Foundation for Justice, edited the book; Amal Clooney is also the author and co-author of the book’s chapters. Other contributors are Philippa Webb, Dario Milo, and Marko Milanovic. January 18, 2024. 1-2:00 pm EST (New York) / 6-7:00 pm GMT (London). Reserve your virtual spot here by January 16.
● Are You a Law Student Interested in International Human Rights? CLD Summer Internship Applications Now Open. The Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD), a human rights organization based in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, will welcome law students and recent graduates as summer 2024 interns. The interns’ work will have a global focus and contribute to the CLD’s legal expertise, covering “freedom of expression, media law, digital rights, and access to information” areas. The CLD requires the candidates to have strong academic performance, research skills, and knowledge of and commitment to international human rights law. International experience and ability to speak other languages are a plus. The internship will last three months, starting in May and ending in August. The position is full-time. The CLD prefers in-person work but will also consider remote candidates. Interested? Send your CV, cover letter, and school transcripts to raphael@law-democracy.org by February 4, 2024. Find out more about the opportunity here.
● MFRR Podcast: Navigating Hungary’s new Sovereignty Protection Act. The new episode of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) podcast, MFRR In Focus, discusses Hungary’s Protection of Sovereignty Act. The Act, passed on December 12, 2023, without much deliberation or public consultation, aims to protect “Hungarian sovereignty from malign external threats” and criminalize “foreign funding to political parties during election campaigns.” Does the law mention media directly? No. But the law’s wording enables the government to continue its crackdown on independent and opposition voices. Jamie Wiseman, Europe Advocacy Officer at the International Press Institute, talks to Szabolcs Panyi, VSQUARE investigative editor and Direkt36 investigative journalist. Panyi helps the listeners understand how the Act will impact the already-embattled media in Hungary. “The strategy is cristal-clear,” Panyi says. “They are trying to suffocate [media] financially, and this new law does fit into that pattern.”
● PPF Concerned by Repeated Disruptions in Access to Social Media. Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF) issued a statement that expresses concern over a chain of recent internet access disruptions in Pakistan. The disruptions affected social media platforms - X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube - and coincided with election campaign events organized by the Pakistan Tehreek i Insaf party. The PPF calls on the authorities to secure uninterrupted internet access as the country’s looming election date - February 8, 2024 - adds extreme urgency to the task. “By blocking access to the internet, particularly social media, not only are political parties unable to fundraise and communicate with citizens, but the media also faces challenges in reporting during this critical period,” the PPF states. “Uninterrupted access online is vital in the pre-election, election day, and post-election period.”
|
|
Colombia
Bejarano v. Ministry of Defense
Decision Date: September 20, 2023
The Eighth Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Colombia held that the government violated the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly by failing to provide the petitioners with timely, truthful, and complete information about the interruptions of internet service—and the use of signal jammers—during public protests which occurred in Cali, Colombia during April and May 2021. The petitioners, members of civil society, alleged that during the protests, internet service was interrupted and the cell phone signal was cut, violating their rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly. In addition, the petitioners argued that the Police and the Army had signal-jamming equipment, and recalled the testimony of journalists, who stated that they lost signal as they approached a law enforcement vehicle, and got it back when they moved away from the car. For its part, the government held that the interruption of the aforementioned services was due to technical problems and acts of vandalism and terrorism by protesters. The Court held that there was insufficient evidence to confirm that the State was responsible for the internet shutdowns. Furthermore, the Court explained that the mere existence of State contracts to acquire technology to inhibit cell phone signals did not prove that authorities were responsible for the lack of internet connection during the protests. However, the Court considered that the government must investigate and communicate promptly, with a high level of transparency, the causes, timeframes, and places where the interruption of internet services occurred. Hence, by failing to do so before, the Court concluded that the government violated the rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association because it did not provide the plaintiffs with accurate and complete information about the interruptions of internet services, and the use of signal inhibitors, in the context of the 2021 protests in Cali. Finally, the Court ordered the Ministry of Information and Communications Technologies, the National Spectrum Agency, and the Ministry of Defense to respond publicly on these pending matters.
Dávila v. National Electoral Council
Decision Date: March 28, 2023
The Ninth Review Hall of the Constitutional Court of Colombia held that there is an evident pattern of online violence against women journalists as a result of their reporting on the activities of political figures in the public interest. Hence the Court ordered a series of transformative measures to prevent, investigate, and punish this phenomenon, while partially rejecting the petition because the plaintiffs did not notify the National Electoral Council about the online harassment. The journalists Victoria Eugenia Dávila, Camila Zuluaga Suárez, Lina María Peña, Lariza Pizano Rojas, Andrea Dávila Claro, María Jimena Duzán, Claudia Guristatti, Máryuri Trujillo and Cecilia Orozco filed a tutela action—a constitutional claim to protect their fundamental rights—against the National Electoral Council of Colombia because they suffered misogynist and online sexist violence on the social network Twitter, which sought to censor them and demean their profession. Specifically, they argued that the National Electoral Council did not adopt any measures to prevent or sanction sexist violence perpetuated or tolerated by members and affiliates of political parties in their social networks. For its part, the National Electoral Council argued that it has no competence to control or sanction the behavior of political actors on Twitter. It also noted that the petitioners did not prove that they had notified the National Electoral Council, nor the political parties or social movements, of the online attacks they had suffered. The Court held that the petitioners did not prove that they had informed the National Electoral Council or the political parties and social movements of the acts of online sexist violence that they alleged. However, the Court held that in Colombia there is a pattern of online violence exercised by third parties against women journalists that the State should not ignore. Thus, the Court recognized the discrimination that women suffer through online violence and held that it leads to self-censorship. In addition, the Court noted that there is no legal framework in Colombia to prevent and punish online violence against women journalists. Finally, the Court ordered a series of measures to eradicate online violence against women. These measures include the implementation of ethical guidelines by political parties to sanction online violence and of a procedure to ensure the rights of women victims of any form of violence, and the need to enact legislation about sexist digital violence, among others.
United States
United States v. Hansen
Decision Date: March 27, 2023
The Supreme Court of the United States held that Federal Law 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) was not unconstitutionally overboard, because it forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of unlawful immigration. The case involved Helaman Hansen, who operated a fraudulent "adult adoption" program promising U.S. citizenship to noncitizens, including Mana Nailati from Fiji. Nailati faced visa expiration and, trusting Hansen's advice, remained in the U.S. unlawfully. Hanson enrolled some 450 persons in his adoption program which earned him nearly 2 million US dollars in personal profit. Hansen, charged under 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), challenged its constitutionality, claiming it overbroadly criminalizes protected speech, such as immigration advocacy. The Ninth Circuit agreed, but the Supreme Court, in a majority opinion by Justice Barrett, rejected the overbreadth claim. The Court interpreted the use of "encourages or induces" in the statute with its legal meanings, aligning it with solicitation and facilitation. It emphasized the provision's historical context, rejecting concerns about chilling protected speech. The Court held that the statute, focusing on purposeful solicitation and facilitation integral to unlawful conduct, did not violate the First Amendment. Justice Jackson dissented, arguing the majority's interpretation infringed on free speech and constitutional principles.
Argentina
Association of Argentinian TV-Radio Broadcasting v. Government of the City of Buenos Aires
Decision Date: June 7, 2005
The Supreme Court of Argentina held that freedom of expression was not violated by Law 268 of the City of Buenos Aires, which prohibited the dissemination of exit polls two days before the national election and three hours after the polls closed. The Association of Argentinian TV-Radio Broadcasting and the Association of Private Argentinian Radio Broadcasting claimed that this law violated their right to freedom of expression by preventing them from disseminating the results of their research to the population during sensitive and important periods of the electoral process. The Government of the City of Buenos Aires, for its part, argued that the law did not violate freedom of expression, but was a restriction on the dissemination of electoral polls for a short period to preserve public “tranquility” and allow citizens to reflect on their vote without external influence. The Court held that Law 265 did not violate the petitioners’ right to freedom of expression because it was a temporary restriction, valid only for a short period, and it safeguarded fair elections and civic space.
|
|
|
TEACHING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION WITHOUT FRONTIERS
|
|
|
This section of the newsletter features teaching materials focused on global freedom of expression which are newly uploaded on Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers.
A Decade of Internet Freedom in Africa: Recounting the Past, Shaping the Future
Africa’s ICT think-tank - the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) - published a report documenting the trends of the last decade in internet freedom in Africa. CIPESA has been releasing its annual State of Internet Freedom in Africa report since 2014; the 2023 publication celebrates the report’s 10th anniversary. Thematically reflecting on the past years of research and advocacy for digital rights in Africa, this special edition offers a clear look at the future. The featured essays discuss “Digital Democracy Vs. [Digital] Authoritarianism,” internet shutdowns, social media content regulation, data governance, online activism, new forms of internet censorship, gender dynamics online, state accountability for digital rights, disinformation, media literacy, and surveillance. “[W]hile the essays in this series largely paint a grim picture of where Africa stands today, not all is doom and gloom,” writes Dr. Wairagala Wakabi, CIPESA’s Executive Director. “Each essay in this report offers suggestions for how these authoritarian roadblocks can be navigated to ensure that the great majority of citizens in Africa can enjoy their online rights and for digital democracy to flourish.”
|
|
|
● 2023 Free to Think: Report of the Scholars at Risk Academic Freedom Monitoring Project. Scholars at Risk (SAR) just released its annual round-up report on the trends in attacks on scholars, university students, and higher education institutions globally. From July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023, SAR’s Academic Freedom Monitoring Project registered 409 attacks on higher education across 66 countries. The most egregious violations of academic freedom occurred in Iran, following the state response to protests; in China, as the government turned to wide-scale surveillance; in Afghanistan, where the Taliban banned women’s higher education; and in Myanmar, as the new military junta issued extreme sentences to opposition students and scholars. “[These attacks] are deadly,” the report stresses. “They chill free speech, encourage self-censorship, and deter scholars and students from researching, teaching, and expressing their ideas at all.” The report unpacks international human rights standards that protect academic freedom, describes the main types of attacks and country-specific developments, invites readers to explore SAR’s Scholars in Prison program, and calls for urgent action to defend academic freedom.
|
|
|
|
