|
Advancing understanding of the norms and institutions
that best protect the free flow of information and expression.
|
|
Dear Friends,
How does ChatGPT see freedom of expression through the prism of Ancient Greece? Today’s image is a time travel. We hope the Ionic columns, mosaics, and Themis, goddess of justice, inspire you, too.
We continue to feature nominees for the 2024 CGFoE Prizes in the Significant Legal Ruling category. This week’s decisions come from Europe. In Halet v. Luxembourg, the ECtHR’s Grand Chamber ruled that Luxembourg had violated the rights of a whistleblower involved in the Luxleaks scandal, who faced criminal convictions for exposing favorable tax agreements between the PricewaterhouseCoopers company and Luxembourg authorities. In Glukhin v. Russia, another ECtHR ruling, the Court held that Russia had violated the rights to privacy and freedom of expression by using facial recognition technology to identify, and then convict an individual for a peaceful protest. Finally, the German Federal Court of Justice ruled that Facebook’s terms of service on deleting user posts and blocking accounts had been invalid because they lacked a mechanism for informing the user and granting them an opportunity to respond.
We have news from Guatemala, Azerbaijan, and the Netherlands. They are not uplifting. The Inter American Press Association files an amicus curiae brief before a Guatemalan court in the case of eight journalists, arguing their prosecution violates freedom of expression. Azerbaijan continues to jail critical voices as President Aliyev’s authoritarian grip tightens: six Abzas Media journalists have been arrested recently. In the Netherlands, De Correspondent sues the Dutch Public Prosecution Service for secretly wiretapping three prominent journalists. The three country cases show press freedom demands protection - in both authoritarian states and democracies.
|
|
|
European Court of Human Rights
Glukhin v. Russia
Decision Date: July 4, 2023
The European Court of Human Rights held that Russia violated the rights to freedom of expression and to privacy by arresting and convicting an individual for a peaceful protest. An activist protested against his recent arrest by holding a cardboard cut-out of himself, with a phrase questioning his arrest, in a Moscow subway. Police identified him through the subway’s CCTV facial recognition technology and charged him with breaching public conduct. The national courts confirmed his conviction and he appealed to the Court. The Court found that the conviction infringed the right to freedom of expression because his demonstration was peaceful, and that the use of facial recognition technology was not necessary in the context of locating a peaceful protester and so infringed his right to privacy.
Halet v. Luxembourg
Decision Date: February 14, 2023
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Luxembourg violated the freedom of expression of Raphaël Halet, a former employee of PricewaterhouseCoopers—and a whistleblower involved in the Luxleaks scandal—who faced criminal convictions for disclosing tax-related documents to the media, exposing favorable tax agreements between the Company and Luxembourg authorities. The Court emphasized key criteria for protecting whistleblowers under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the authenticity of disclosed information, good faith, public interest, and a fair balance between public interest and potential harm. Criticizing the national courts' narrow interpretation of public interest and insufficient consideration of all detrimental effects, the Grand Chamber concluded that the criminal conviction and fine imposed on Halet were disproportionate and not "necessary in a democratic society." Thus, the Court found a violation of Article 10 and awarded compensation to Halet.
Germany
The Case on Facebook's Terms of Service
Decision Date: July 29, 2021
The German Federal Court of Justice ruled that Facebook’s terms of service on deleting user posts and blocking accounts for violations of its Community Standards were invalid. Two individuals who had had xenophobic posts deleted by Facebook and their accounts blocked for violating the Community Standards had approached the courts seeking the restitution of their posts and accounts. The lower courts held that the xenophobic elements of the posts constituted hate speech and that Facebook was therefore entitled to take action by removing them. The Federal Court of Justice weighed the conflicting rights of the users’ right to freedom of expression and of Facebook to exercise a profession. The Court concluded that Facebook may reserve the right to remove posts and block the user account in question in the event of a breach of the Community Standards – even if their standards go beyond the requirements of criminal law – but that in order to balance the conflicting basic rights in such a way that they are as effective as possible for both parties, Facebook has to inform the user and grant them an opportunity to respond, followed by a new decision. As Facebook did not provide for these requirements, the terms of service regarding the deletion of user posts and the blocking of user accounts were invalid and Facebook was not entitled to delete the posts and block the accounts.
|
|
|
COMMUNITY HIGHLIGHTS & RECENT NEWS
|
|
|
|
● Upcoming Event - Report Launch: Freedom in the World 2024. Freedom House is hosting an event to mark the release of its flagship report “Freedom in the World 2024: The Mounting Damage of Flawed Elections and Armed Conflict.” Join online to learn about the report’s key findings and their implications for democracy around the world. Some of the speakers are the Hon. Jane Harman and Wendell L. Willkie II, Co-Chairs, Freedom House Board of Trustees, Michael J. Abramowitz, Freedom House President, Anne Applebaum, Author and Historian, and Richard Atwood, Executive Vice President at International Crisis Group. February 29, 2024. 10:30 AM - 12:00 PM ET (New York). Register here to attend via Zoom.
● IAPA Amicus Curiae Brief: The IAPA Signs Legal Document in Support of Guatemalan Journalists Accused of Obstruction of Justice. The Inter American Press Association (IAPA) filed an amicus curiae brief before a Guatemalan court in the case of eight Guatemalan journalists accused of obstruction of justice. Prosecution of the journalists began last March and is based on the articles they published about Jose Rubén Zamora Marroquín’s trial. Zamora is the founder and president of elPeriódico, who has been in prison since July 2022; the legal process against him is widely considered as retaliation for his investigations of corruption. The IAPA brief stresses that the journalists’ “publications, criticisms, or complaints [...] constitute a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, recognized and guaranteed by the Political Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala.” The brief also cites international standards on freedom of expression, turning to the American Convention on Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The case is currently under appeal. Find the submitted brief here.
● Azerbaijan: OCCRP on Total Control as Azerbaijan’s Jails Fill With Journalists and Dissidents, by Ilya Lozovsky. On the eve of the presidential election in Azerbaijan, which took place on February 7, 2024, and was marred by irregularities, restrictions, and absence of competition, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) published an article about the country’s most recent crackdown on critical voices. The state’s targets are journalists, whistleblowers, civil activists, union organizers, and scholars. One of such targets, Sevinj Vaqifqizi, Editor-in-Chief of Abzas Media, was recently arrested upon her return to Azerbaijan. Abzas Media is one of the country's few remaining independent media outlets; by now, its six journalists and deputy director have been detained. As President Ilham Aliyev enters his fifth presidential term, Azerbaijan’s corruption and human rights violations continue. “If any country needs independent investigative journalism of the kind practiced by Vaqifqizi and her colleagues,” Lozovsky writes, “it’s Azerbaijan.”
● Netherlands: De Correspondent Sues Prosecutor for Illegally Wire-Tapping its Journalists. The Coalition For Women In Journalism and Women Press Freedom express their support of De Correspondent, a publication based in the Netherlands, for suing the Dutch Public Prosecution Service. Last October, De Correspondent published a statement on the covert surveillance operation conducted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office: three journalists from De Correspondent had been secretly wiretapped at a confidential meeting with suspects in a high-profile corruption scandal. “It is crucial for journalists to be able to speak confidentially with sources, even if these sources are marked as suspects by the Public Prosecutor's Office,” says Rob Wijnberg, Editor-in-Chief of the newsroom at De Correspondent and one of the journalists wiretapped. “Source protection and confidentiality are fundamental (European) rights and basic conditions for press freedom in a democratic society.”
|
|
|
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.
Cartoonists on the Line: Report on the situation of threatened cartoonists around the world
Cartooning for Peace and Cartoonists Rights - network organizations with missions to defend the rights of cartoonists globally - published a report on the challenges of censorship that cartoonists face today. Based on the monitoring and case studies from between 2020 and 2022, the report reviews increased censorship in authoritarian states, hate speech, online trolling, disinformation, and manipulation that targets press cartoonists. The report also looks at criminalization and displacement and how the two became the new normal for many cartoonists. “When you question authority, when you hold up a mirror to authority, that’s what makes you a satirist or a cartoonist,” says Rachita Taneja, a cartoonist from India. “And it is essential that in any healthy democracy that satirists should not face censorship [...]. [O]nly a very insecure and very authoritarian government would silence satirists.” Concluding with recommendations for cartoonists’ organizations, governments, and social media, the report’s authors intend to follow up with a more detailed analytical report in 2025.
|
|
|
● New IPI Report Reveals Safety Crisis Faced by Climate and Environmental Journalists. The International Press Institute (IPI) just published a new report titled “Climate and Environmental Journalism Under Fire: Threats to Free and Independent Coverage of Climate Change and Environmental Degradation.” The report is an extensive overview of attacks against journalists who cover environmental and climate issues. Its findings are alarming. The attacks undermine both press freedom and attempts to bring climate justice, as private and state actors resort to the silencing strategies of arrests, physical violence, legal harassment, online abuse, and restrictions of movement and information access. “[The report] reveals the systematic and wanton ways used to silence [journalists] and prevent the exposure of environmental crimes and other activities that are fueling the climate crisis,” Frane Maroević, IPI Executive Director, commented. “This is a call to action to all of us who care about independent journalism, press freedom and the global climate and environmental crisis.”
|
|
|
|
