|
Advancing understanding of the norms and institutions
that best protect the free flow of information and expression.
|
|
|
Dear Friends,
Who makes CGFoE? With today’s newsletter, we are launching The Faces Behind CGFoE – a series of short interviews in which Marija Šajkaš, CGFoE’s Communications Specialist, speaks to our team members. For the next few weeks, you will hear from those who drive our mission forward: they will share their stories and provide insight into CGFoE resources.
We start with Lautaro Furfaro.
You are a legal researcher at CGFoE. Please tell us more about your background.
I am an international lawyer and a professor at the University of Buenos Aires Law School and Di Tella University, where I teach IHRL and International Law. Some of my main tasks within CGFoE are mapping judicial decisions on freedom of expression worldwide and providing legal analysis of these cases. My professional interests center on the interplay between freedom of expression, democracy, minority rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and the broader protection of human rights.
How did you become part of the team? I was drawn to CGFoE’s unparalleled commitment to advancing freedom of expression around the world, especially in contexts where it is difficult to practice journalism or express ideas freely. I believe the project fosters a deeper understanding of the complexities around freedom of expression, especially in regions like Latin America, where these issues are often complicated.
You are intimately familiar with the GFoE Database. What makes it a strong tool for academics? This is the world's most comprehensive repository of freedom of expression legal decisions, rigorously analyzed. Before its creation, scholars had to map the global state of freedom of expression themselves. The database contains over 2,500 cases, is updated daily, and provides insight into the global dialogue of international courts and bodies on freedom of expression. Through academic collaborations, the database enhances its reach and impact, supporting a worldwide network of scholars dedicated to promoting and protecting freedom of expression.
|
|
|
|
Lautaro Furfaro is a Legal Researcher at CGFoE.
|
|
Oversight Board
Oversight Board Case of Hotel in Ethiopia
Decision Date: September 13, 2023
The Oversight Board issued a summary decision overturning Meta's original decision to leave up a Facebook post that called for the burning down of a hotel in Ethiopia's Amhara region. Responding to a user’s appeal, the Board reasoned that such calls for violence cause a risk of “near-term violence” which can worsen the situation on the ground, especially in a country like Ethiopia that suffers from armed conflicts and civil unrest. When the Board notified Meta of this case, the company found that the post violated its Violence and Incitement policy and decided to remove the post. The Board recognized Meta's correction of its initial error when the case was brought to their attention, and recommended Meta look into the possibility of establishing a mechanism that properly reviews and handles content in times of conflict, as well as conducting an assessment on how Facebook and Instagram are used to spread hate speech and unverified rumors in Ethiopia.
Oversight Board Case of Armenian Prisoners of War Video
Decision Date: June 13, 2023
The Oversight Board (OSB) upheld Meta's decision to leave up a Facebook video that revealed the identity of Armenian soldiers being captured and mistreated by Azerbaijani armed forces. Although Meta considered that the post violated its Coordinating Harm and Promoting Crime policy, the company's teams escalated the post for additional review. Meta decided to apply the newsworthiness allowance to allow the content to remain on its platforms. The Board upheld Meta's decision to leave up the content in light of the newsworthiness allowance as the content was aimed at raising awareness and there was a compelling public interest in keeping such content. The Board stressed that Meta should update its policies and protocols, and provide more clarity on the criteria and process of assessing content related to war and conflict situations.
Germany
User v. Public Broadcasting Service
Decision Date: June 17, 2020
The Administrative Court of Leipzig, Germany, decided that a public broadcasting service could lawfully delete a comment on its social media page linking to an external website. A social media user had commented on a picture published by the broadcasting service, criticizing it as manipulative, and provided a link to an external source to support his argument. This comment was removed by the broadcasting service, as it prohibited links to external pages on its social media page. The Court held that this deletion did interfere with the claimant’s right to freedom of expression under Art. 5 para 1 of the German Basic Law (GG), but that the interference was covered by the broadcasting service’s “virtual domiciliary rights”.
European Court of Human Rights
Otegi Mondragon v. Spain
Decision Date: March 15, 2011
The European Court of Human Rights found that a Spanish elected representative’s prison sentence for insulting the Spanish King violated the right to freedom of expression. A political spokesperson, asked to comment on the King’s visit to the Basque Country amid a tense political conflict with a Basque newspaper, accused the King of “defending and in charge of torturers”. The court of first instance acquitted the spokesperson, but on appeal the Supreme Court overturned the decision and sentenced him to one year imprisonment – a decision confirmed by the Constitutional Court. The European Court of Human Rights stressed that special criminal laws giving the King increased protection against slander are not “in keeping with the spirit of the [European] Convention [on Human Rights]” and that the use of prison sentences in these political cases can only be used in the most exceptional circumstances, such as hate speech or incitement to violence.
|
|
|
COMMUNITY HIGHLIGHTS & RECENT NEWS
|
|
|
● Amal Clooney Publishes Expert Report Supporting ICC Arrest Warrant Applications for Crimes in Israel and Palestine. On May 20, 2024, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued applications for arrest warrants against Hamas senior leaders – Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh – and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The applications allege all five committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. For months prior to that, a panel of experts in international law, including Sir Adrian Fulford PC, Judge Theodor Meron CMG, Amal Clooney, and others, had been examining evidence in support of the applications. The Panel’s report details their findings and agrees with the presence of “reasonable grounds” for the arrest warrants to be issued. “We have reached these conclusions unanimously,” the panel members wrote in an op-ed for the Financial Times. “And we believe it is important to publish them given the extent to which discourse has been politicised, disinformation has been rife and international media has been denied access to the front lines.”
● Nigeria: UN Experts Demand Release of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu. UN Special Rapporteurs on freedom of religion or belief and on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, among other UN experts, call on the Nigerian government to drop charges against gospel singer Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, convicted of blasphemy for sharing a song in a WhatsApp group. In 2020, the Upper Sharia Court in Hausawa, Kano State of Nigeria, sentenced Sharif-Aminu to death; an appeals court later quashed his sentence due to trial irregularities; following a court ruling that the Sharia Law was constitutional, the case reached the Supreme Court. The UN experts express grave concern over the risk that Sharif-Aminu’s death sentence will be reinstated if the prosecution leans on the same legal framework.
● Zuckerman v. Meta Platforms: New Lawsuit Seeks to Wrestle Control of Newsfeed from Meta for Facebook Users. The Knight First Amendment Institute filed a complaint on behalf of Ethan Zuckerman, Professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, arguing that, apart from affording broad protection to platforms, Section 230 also protects third-party tools that help users gain more control over the content they see on social media. Zuckerman developed such a tool in the form of a browser extension but has not released it yet because he fears Meta will retaliate with a lawsuit against him. “The tool, called Unfollow Everything 2.0, would allow Users to unfollow their friends, groups, and pages,” the complaint states, “and, in doing so, to effectively turn off their newsfeed—the endless scroll of posts that users see when they log into Facebook.” Read the complaint in full here.
|
|
|
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
#KeepItOn Report – Shrinking Democracy, Growing Violence: Internet Shutdowns in 2023, by Zach Rosson, Felicia Anthonio, and Carolyn Tackett in collaboration with the Access Now team. Access Now published the annual report of the #KeepItOn coalition on internet shutdowns in 2023. The coalition unites more than 300 civil society organizations, rights and advocacy groups, think tanks, media outlets, and other groups from around the world working to end internet shutdowns. In bright visuals easy to grasp, the report shows 2023 has been the worst year in internet access disruptions since 2016, when the #KeepItOn campaign was launched. The coalition recorded at least 283 internet shutdowns in 2023 (compared with 201 in 2022), and at least 80 of them affected entire regions or countries. The year’s leading trigger for internet shutdowns (at least 74 recorded ones in 9 countries) was conflict; at least 173 internet shutdowns corresponded with violence.
From Sharing to Silence: Assessing Social Media Suppression of SRHR Content in WANA
The report, released by SMEX, a non-profit advancing digital rights across West Asia and North Africa (WANA), examines the moderation of content on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) on social media in the WANA region. In this context, the study looks at content moderation policies and their practical application by Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X/Twitter, and YouTube. The authors turned to desk research, internal consultations, a survey in which regional SRHR organizations and activists participated, in-depth interviews with some survey respondents, and policy assessments based on the Ranking Digital Rights methodology. Documenting multiple episodes of SRHR content censorship, the report builds its critique on several levels – from the absence of SRHR-tailored policies to the “vague grounds” for posts’ removal and content in Arabic being subject to stricter restrictions than comparable content in English. The report concludes with recommendations for platforms.
|
|
|
● Call for Chapter Proposals – Edited volume “Chilling Effect and Freedom of Expression – “Frozen” Speech in Transdisciplinary Perspectives”. Dr. Gergely Gosztonyi, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, and Dr. Gergely Ferenc Lendvai, PPCU Budapest, Hungary, ISLC, University of Milan, and University of Richmond, welcome abstract proposals for the Handbook of Chilling Effect. They encourage scholars of all levels to contribute. Some of the suggested topics are “Chilling effect and social/digital media,” “Journalists and the dilemma of chilling effect,” and “Chilling effect in non-democratic/authoritarian/hybrid regimes,” among many others. Are you interested? Email your abstract to gosztonyi@ajk.elte.hu by July 20, 2024. Learn more here.
● Call for Papers – DMA Enforcement: Trends and Gaps in the First Year of Application. Ahead of a November 2024 symposium in Brussels, ARTICLE 19 invites submissions of abstracts on the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which is in its initial year of enforcement. This call intends to attract research that could be useful to regulators or help advance “a better understanding of the legal, economic, and technical challenges and opportunities linked to current compliance moves.” Organizers particularly welcome interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches. Upload your abstract through the submission platform by July 30, 2024. Find more details here.
|
|
|
|
