|
Advancing understanding of the norms and institutions
that best protect the free flow of information and expression.
|
|
|
Dear Friends,
The Award Ceremony for the 2024 CGFoE Prizes is approaching, and we have been busy. The two nomination categories - Significant Legal Ruling and Excellence in Legal Services - received over thirty impressive nominations each. From this week onwards, we will highlight some of the nominated legal rulings. To invite more inspiration along with the decisions, we will be featuring ChatGPT interpretations of freedom of expression. Today’s take on justice and free speech is in Art Deco style.
The three cases we bring to you have been initiated as SLAPPs. Courts set precedents to prevent them. In Guerra v. Ruiz-Navarro, the Constitutional Court of Colombia ruled the journalists had not breached the rights of a movie director by publishing an article in which eight women accused him of sexual harassment and sexual abuse. In Gazeta do Povo v. Baptista et. al., the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil prohibited judges from filing multiple identical compensation lawsuits against journalists in response to a critical report. In South Africa, the High Court found that an interim injunction that ordered a media entity to return documents and restrained further publications based on these documents constituted an abuse of process.
We also have exciting news to share! Our Assoc. Director Dr. Hawley Johnson and Dr. Alberto Godioli, Professor at the University of Groningen, were awarded an Impact Explorer grant from the Dutch Research Council (NWO). How can judges reach a balance between satire and defamation or provocative jokes and hate speech? Their project - Humor and Free Speech Jurisprudence: Co-Creating Guidelines for Judicial Practice - tackles that question and many others. Starting a dialogue between humor researchers, lawyers, judges, activists, and scholars, the project will publish “a toolkit on humor and free speech adjudication, designed for judges, online content moderators, and practitioners.” Stay tuned!
|
|
|
Brazil
Gazeta do Povo v. Baptista et. al.
Decision Date: October 2, 2023
The Supreme Federal Court of Brazil acted to prevent Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs) and held that the freedom of the press encompasses the right to criticize public authorities. In response to critical reports by a Brazilian newspaper on the salaries of judges and prosecutors in Paraná, judges initiated multiple identical compensation lawsuits against the newspaper and five journalists in various lower courts. The Supreme Court ruled that these actions constituted an abuse of rights, emphasizing the need to protect journalistic freedom and prevent legal tactics that could impede public discourse. In recognizing the SLAPP aspects of the case, the Court observed, "[t]he present case exposes an illegitimate stratagem by which political agents, taking advantage of the legitimate right of access to justice through legal action, distorted the judicial process, using it as an illegitimate instrument of intimidation directed at journalists and a media outlet that disseminated information of undeniable public interest”.
South Africa
Mazetti Management Services v. amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism
Decision Date: July 3, 2023
A South African High Court set aside an interim injunction which had ordered a media entity to return documents it had in its possession and restrained them from further publication. After a series of articles critical of a group of companies were published, the group of companies obtained an ex parte order from the High Court which ordered the return of documents the companies believed had been stolen from them and prohibited further publication of articles based on those documents. In a reconsideration hearing, the Court found that the application and granting of that order was an abuse of process and constituted a SLAPP suit. The Court confirmed that South African law protects the confidentiality of sources and allows for prior restraints on publication only in exceptional circumstances.
Colombia
Guerra v. Ruiz-Navarro
Decision Date: December 12, 2022
The Constitutional Court of Colombia considered that journalists Catalina Ruiz-Navarro and Matilde de los Milagros Londoño did not breach the right to honor, good name, and presumption of innocence of movie director Ciro Guerra, by publishing an article in which eight women accused him of sexual harassment and sexual abuse, nor by providing further commentary about the article in subsequent interviews. Guerra lodged a constitutional action against the journalists seeking a retraction or the removal of the article from the internet. The Constitutional Court reviewed the case and considered that feminist journalism, "escrache" (type of protest to expose perpetrators), and expression regarding gender-based violence, benefitted from special constitutional protection. Additionally, the Court considered that Ruiz-Navarro and Londoño’s investigation was truthful and rigorous and discussed issues of public relevance and interest. Moreover, the Court also considered that in light of the power imbalance between the parties and Guerra’s disproportionate claims in several judicial and extrajudicial proceedings, there were elements of judicial harassment against the journalists.
|
|
|
COMMUNITY HIGHLIGHTS & RECENT NEWS
|
|
|
|
● Serbia: Hundreds Protest Acquittals in Journalist’s Murder. The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) reports hundreds gathered in Belgrade this week to call for the end of impunity in crimes against journalists. The protesters responded to the February 2, 2024, ruling of an appeals court that had overturned the convictions of four former intelligence officers jailed for the murder of journalist Slavko Ćuruvija. Editor of two popular independent outlets, Ćuruvija was shot in Belgrade in 1999 - “days after pro-government media outlets had accused him of being a ‘traitor’ and of having called on NATO to bomb Serbia.” Despite the evidence that Ćuruvija’s killers acted following orders from the Serbian government, the legal process has been lengthy. The four intelligence officers, including the former secret police chief and the head of Belgrade’s intelligence branch, were first found guilty in 2019. In 2020, an appeals court reversed and remanded the decision. In 2021, the officers received 30- and 20-year prison sentences, which are now overturned.
● Upcoming Event: Generative AI, Free Speech, & Public Discourse. The Knight First Amendment Institute is hosting a symposium on technological, legal, and philosophical questions raised by generative AI and its impact on public discourse, free speech, and democracy. Scholars and practitioners will address AI-provoked “seismic shift in the relationship between humans and technology” from several angles - computer science, law, communications, and policy. The symposium will also cover AI threats of disinformation, election disruptions, and other attacks on democracy. February 20, 2024. 10:30 AM - 7 PM ET (New York). The event will be both in person - at Columbia University Davis Auditorium, 530 W 120th St, New York, NY, 10027 - and online. Register here to attend.
● Upcoming Event: Voices at Risk – Journalist Safety during the Super-Election Year. Join the webinar, organized by Media Defence and International Women’s Media Foundation, on journalists’ safety as more than 40 countries head to the polls this year. Journalists face multiple threats - arbitrary arrests, smear campaigns, legal abuse, and even physical violence. How can we protect them and their work, which is vital at election times? What regional specifics and strategies can we draw from? The webinar’s speakers - journalists and civil society representatives - will discuss these questions, raising awareness of the importance of journalists’ safety. February 29, 2024. Starting at 1:30 PM GMT (London) / 8:30 AM ET (New York). Register here to tune in via Zoom.
|
|
|
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.
Freedom Of Information And Its Impact On The Freedom Of The Media And Press.
Published by Masaar, a community of lawyers and technologists advancing digital rights in Egypt, this paper explores the interdependence of freedom of information and freedom of the press and media. Noting that more than fifty constitutions around the world recognize the access to information right, the paper explains how significant freedom of information laws are and what positive impact they have on press freedom: freedom of information enables journalism - investigative journalism in particular. Other areas directly impacted by freedom of information that the paper explores are protection against censorship, public trust, accountability of those in power, media pluralism, and democracy in general. “[T]he right to information can enable media to challenge dominant narratives and offer a platform for marginalized voices,” the paper argues. “[...] media freedom is essential for a healthy and vibrant democracy, protecting human rights, promoting public discourse, and informing the public.”
|
|
|
● Georgia: Special Report on Equality Policy Amidst Hate Crimes. The civic platform “No to Phobia!” published a special report that is a collaborative work of Georgian Democracy Initiative (GDI), Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, Tolerance and Diversity Institute, and Equality Movement. The report addresses hate crimes against and persecution of specific groups - journalists and media workers, individuals with opposing political or other views, LGBTQI+ individuals, and religious minorities - in Georgia. Stressing that three out of twelve priorities in the European Commission’s Opinion on Georgia’s Application mention the protection of specific groups, the report analyzes the events of the last three years, evaluates relevant legal cases, and turns to the work of the platform’s organizations. The authors argue that “the state fails to properly ensure equality and does not make sufficient effort to fight hate crimes. On the contrary, it is even the reason behind the frequency of hate crimes due to its actions or omissions.” Download the full report here. GDI’s other recent publication - Human Rights in Georgia 2023 - is also now available in English.
● United States: Government Gag Rules Muzzle Journalists’ Sources, by Caitlin Vogus. “Government gag rules are policies that prohibit public employees from speaking to journalists about their work or require them to seek approval from higher-ups first,” writes Caitlin Vogus, Deputy Director of Advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation. Vogus highlights a case that challenges that status quo: Brittany Hailer is the first journalist in the US to challenge government gag rules in court, referring to the First Amendment in a lawsuit against the Allegheny County Jail’s policies. Hailer states several employees and contractors at the jail want to speak to her but are not allowed to do so. Hailer’s First Amendment argument is twofold: the jail’s policies violate her right to speak to sources and the rights of employees to speak on matters of public concern as private citizens. Vogus stresses gag rules are unconstitutional, “The point is simple: The people who work for the public should be allowed to speak to the public.”
|
|
|
|
