|
Advancing understanding of the norms and institutions
that best protect the free flow of information and expression.
|
|
|
Dear Friends,
This past May, CGFoE filed an amicus curiae brief to uphold international standards on freedom of expression and protect investigative journalism in Peru in a case involving journalist and IDL Reporteros director Gustavo Gorriti for allegedly bribing prosecutors.
In the brief submitted before the First Specialized Constitutional Court of Lima, CGFoE explained that according to the highest international standards, the investigation against Gorriti violates his freedom of expression and inhibits the right of Peruvian citizens to access information of substantial public interest. CGFoE also stressed that the alleged facts that constitute the journalist's crime are nothing more than a legitimate exercise of his freedom of expression.
Catalina Botero Marino, our Associate Expert and Former Rapporteur of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Anderson Javiel Dirocie De León, our Legal and Program Consultant; Juan Manuel Ospina Sánchez, our Legal Researcher; and Hawley Johnson, our Associate Director, authored the amicus curiae brief. You can read its original Spanish version or a courtesy non-authoritative English translation.
Keeping up with the Faces Behind CGFoE this week, Communications Specialist Marija Šajkaš interviews Anastasiia Vorozhtsova, Editor and Legal Researcher.
Tell us about your expertise and professional interests. My background mixes foreign affairs journalism, human rights research, and press freedom advocacy. I started contributing to CGFoE as a legal researcher. At present, I put together the newsletter weekly and help make sure our website publications – for instance, the recent press note on the amicus curiae brief – speak to a diverse audience.
Why did you join GFoE? I come from Russia – a country that muzzles and jails those who dare to disagree with the authorities. My joining CGFoE links to that: I have first-hand knowledge of a censor-state that disregards international law, and I strongly believe the global promotion of freedom of expression is an urgent task.
Thanks to your keen eye, our newsletter looks great, and it reaches a truly diverse audience. Could you tell us more about interacting with people from all around the globe as well as about some of the website's hidden gems? Turning to sources on free speech from around the world is illuminating. Often, it is alarming. But at times, it gives hope. I do my best to convey all that to our newsletter audience.
CGFoE has many gems on offer. Our educational portal, Teaching Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers, is one. It grew out of expert meetings at Columbia University that concluded there was a need for better training on the global system of freedom of expression – the relevant laws, institutions, and actors. The portal aims to fill the gaps. We add resources weekly, and they include academic articles, toolkits, jurisprudence, reports, multimedia, and syllabi. Do you strive for a more nuanced and critical understanding of global freedom of expression? If yes, our portal is for you.
|
|
|
|
Anastasiia Vorozhtsova is an Editor and Legal Researcher at CGFoE.
Photo credit: Mădălina Boţ
|
|
Colombia
Duque v. National Protection Unit (UNP)
Decision Date: August 3, 2023
The Constitutional Court of Colombia held that the National Protection Unit (Unidad Nacional de Protección, or UNP) violated Claudia Duque’s right to habeas data by not delivering information that had been collected through a GPS installed in a bulletproof vehicle it provided for her security, and by refusing to delete her personal data from their records. Duque, a journalist, and human rights defender, benefited from protective measures ordered by both the Constitutional Court and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights due to the harassment she suffered. However, she claimed that the armored car the UNP gave her had a GPS that tracked her movements without her consent and put her in danger since the information was used to illegally spy on her. She asked for the removal of the GPS and requested all the information that had been collected on her and its subsequent destruction. The UNP claimed that the GPS was part of the protective measures, refused to delete Duque’s information from its databases, and delivered the collected data partially. Considering her rights had been violated, Duque filed a tutela action. On appeal, the Court considered that the UNP did not violate Duque’s rights by installing a GPS in the bulletproof car, although it ruled that there had been a violation of the right to habeas data, which entails the right to know which personal information is being stored in public databases, to authorize the content’s processing, deletion, or the possibility of adding additional information. The Court ordered the UNP to deliver the requested information in full and to destroy the data that was not strictly necessary to guarantee Duque’s protection, or to comply with the unit's transparency and accountability obligations.
India
Kaka Ramakrishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Decision Date: May 12, 2023
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside the Government Order by which the Government of Andhra Pradesh sought to regulate public meetings/assemblies on roads, roadsides, and margins. The Petitioners challenged the validity of this Order and contended that the Government Order violated their freedom of speech and expression under Articles 19(1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Indian Constitution. While setting aside the Government Order, the High Court held that the net effect of the Government Order was to ban all demonstrations and assemblies organized by citizens or political parties on public highways, state highways, municipal and panchayat roads, etc, violated constitutional rights under Article 19 (freedom of speech & expression) and Article 21 (Right to life). The Court emphasized that the power granted to the police was for the regulation, not a complete restriction, of assemblies and processions. The Court set aside the Government Order as it found it arbitrary, excessive, and lacking in proportionality. The Court concluded that the Government Order failed the tests of reasonability and proportionality.
Oversight Board
The Case of Video After Nigeria Church Attack
Decision Date: December 20, 2022
The Oversight Board overturned Meta's decision to remove a video from Instagram showing the aftermath of a terrorist attack on a church in Nigeria, in which at least 40 people were killed, and more were injured. Meta removed the content as it considered that it violated the Violent and Graphic Content policy, the Bullying and Harassment policy, and the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy. The Board decided that the video should be restored to the platform to respect freedom of expression and allow people to “discuss the events that some states may seek to suppress” by raising awareness and documenting human rights abuses. Nonetheless, the Board considered that the video needed a “disturbing content” warning screen to protect the privacy of the victims whose faces were visible. The Board also recommended Meta to provide users with a reasoned notification when a warning screen is applied to their content, and to review and clarify the language of the Violent and Graphic Content policy to ensure that it lines up with the moderators’ internal guidance.
Brazil
Federação Israelita do Rio de Janeiro (FIERJ) v. Bruno Aiub (Monark) and State Prosecution Office (São Paulo, MPSP) v. Bruno Aiub
Decision Date: February 15, 2022
In a preliminary decision, a Brazilian court ordered the removal of a podcast episode from digital platforms after the host made comments suggesting the possibility of creating a Nazi party in Brazil and the right to be "anti-Jewish”. The court's decision to remove the episode was based on Brazilian laws prohibiting the dissemination of Nazi-related symbols and ideologies, emphasizing the importance of upholding democratic principles and respect for fundamental rights.
|
|
|
COMMUNITY HIGHLIGHTS & RECENT NEWS
|
|
|
● Upcoming Event – Internet Shutdowns, and How to Stop Them. In collaboration with Access Now, the Washington DC and New York Chapters of the Internet Society are hosting a webinar under the slogan “Let’s shut down Internet shutdowns!” The invited digital rights experts will present their work and discuss how to prevent internet shutdowns around the world. One of the speakers is Joan Barata, Senior Legal Fellow for The Future of Free Speech, who co-authored CGFoE’s Special Collection paper on Internet shutdowns in international law. This online event is free and open to the public. Join on Tuesday, June 25, 2024, at 09:00-10:30 EDT (13:00-14:30 UTC). Register here.
● Media Defence Files Intervention at ECtHR to Protect Anonymity Online. Media Defence submitted a third-party intervention to protect online anonymity in Koumiotis v Greece before the ECtHR. The case concerns an online blog owner convicted of slanderous defamation for posts critical of a businessman. The applicant’s complaint refers to Article 10 of the Convention, as he argues the criminal conviction violated his freedom of expression, and Article 8, as he argues the authorities obtained his user data, including his IP address, arbitrarily. The intervention spells out why online anonymity must be safeguarded under Article 10 of the Convention and what such protection should require. Download the submission here.
● Philippines: Leading Press Freedom Organizations Submit Amicus Brief in Maria Ressa Case. Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and the International Center for Journalists filed an amicus curiae brief before the Supreme Court of the Philippines to protect the public’s right to access information. The case relates to Maria Ressa, journalist, Rappler founder, and Nobel Prize Laureate, and Reynaldo Santos, her former colleague; earlier, a Manila trial court convicted both of them for cyber libel; if the convictions are upheld at this last appeals stage, the journalists can be sentenced to up to seven years in prison. “The prospect of facing criminal liability for allegedly misreporting facts—or worse yet, being punished for accurate reporting—will have a profound chilling effect, discouraging journalists from wading into the sensitive topics that often are the subjects of greatest public concern,” the brief underscores. Read it in full here.
● Russia: ECtHR Rulings – Criticism of Religion Is Not ‘Extremism’ and Win for the Right to Truth about Human Rights Atrocities. ARTICLE 19 welcomes two recent ECtHR decisions in Russia cases. In Sokolovskiy v. Russia, the Court held that criminally prosecuting the applicant for his YouTube videos filmed at a church while playing Pokémon Go and making statements critical of religion constituted a freedom of expression violation; ARTICLE 19 and the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University had filed a third-party intervention in the case in 2020. In Suprun and Others v. Russia, another case in which ARTICLE 19 had submitted an intervention earlier, the Court held that by restricting and denying access to the archives on gross human rights violations committed by the Soviet state, Russia violated rights to freedom of expression and access to information.
|
|
|
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
OSCE RFoM Report – Fostering Media Freedom Literacy Across the OSCE Region, by Martina Chapman and Asja Rokša-Zubčević. How can media freedom literacy (MFL) be strengthened in the participating states of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)? Establishing the not-so-often-emphasized connection between media literacy and media freedom, this report, commissioned by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media (RFoM), offers practical tools for government bodies, scholars, media organizations, civil society, and digital platforms. Chapter 4 defines and explains MFL, while Chapter 5 reviews key legislative and regulatory frameworks at international and national levels, including the European Media Freedom Act and Digital Services Act, among others, and approaches developed in Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, UK, US, and Canada. Chapter 7, a broader review of MFL projects and interventions, is followed by recommendations for various stakeholders and case studies of projects that promote MFL.
|
|
|
● HRW Podcast: ‘Rights & Wrongs’ Tells Stories from Human Rights Hotspots Around the Globe. The new podcast series launched by Human Rights Watch (HRW) takes listeners to the frontlines of major human rights stories and behind the scenes of complex HRW investigations. Hosted by Ngofeen Mputubwele, a writer, a lawyer, and a radio producer, the podcast is an urgent listen. The first four episodes are about Russia’s destruction of Mariupol, the shipbreaking industry in Bangladesh, Saudi border guards’ killing of Ethiopian migrants, and Cancer Alley. Listen and subscribe here.
|
|
|
|
