United States
Trump v. Anderson
Decision Date: March 4, 2024
The United States Supreme Court ruled that the State of Colorado did not have the power to exclude President Donald J. Trump from the 2024 presidential primary ballot, despite the fact he had engaged in an insurrection after having sworn an oath as former President. After the 2020 presidential elections, President Trump delivered many speeches inciting crowds to disrupt the transfer of power to President Biden and breach the Capitol building. His actions led a group of voters to file a petition before the Denver District Court against the Colorado Secretary of State, Jena Griswold, requesting to remove President Trump’s name from the Republican primary ballot. They asserted that, pursuant to Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—which lays out the conditions to be disqualified from office—, President Trump did not qualify to serve as President. The District Court found that even though President Trump had, in fact, engaged in an insurrection, Section Three does not apply to a “President.” The plaintiffs appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court which reversed the ruling, arguing that Section Three did apply and that President Trump could not be listed on the primary ballot. President Trump challenged the latter decision before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) which reversed the ruling issued by the Supreme Court of Colorado. According to SCOTUS, “States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section [Three] with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”

Hungary
The Case of the Unsuccessful Electoral Candidate and the Facebook Post
Decision Date: May 18, 2022
The Hungarian Constitutional Court held that although an unsuccessful electoral candidate ceases to be a public figure after an election, the debates about the candidate in the context of his public position as a candidate still require higher tolerance than can be expected of private citizens. After insulting comments were posted on Facebook about an unsuccessful candidate, the candidate filed a complaint arguing that the comments constituted criminal offenses of breach of honor and defamation. The lower courts found that the candidate was no longer a public figure and so statements made about him did not constitute protected public speech. The Court stated that the public nature of a candidate’s conduct during a campaign does not end merely because they were not elected and so debate in the context of the campaign after the election is still governed by the principle that there is a higher duty of tolerance required from public figures who express their opinion in public affairs debates.

The Case of the Abortion Ban Protesters
Decision Date: February 19, 2021
The Hungarian Constitutional Court held that the act of mocking Catholic communion during a protest against the Catholic Church’s position on abortion was not a form of protected expression. At an event protesting the Polish Catholic’s support for a total abortion ban, some protesters mimicked the act of communion. Two Catholic plaintiffs brought an action against the protesters arguing that their conduct had infringed their dignity and ability to freely exercise their religion. The court of first instance dismissed the application which was then overturned on appeal before being reinstated by the Curia. The Constitutional Court emphasized the distinction between criticizing a religious community and mocking the religion itself, and that in order to protect the dignity of a religious community acts which mock a “religious belief, symbol, act or ritual” can be restricted. It held that the protesters’ conduct undermined the dignity of the plaintiffs’ religious community without justification.

● India: SFLC.in Launches Free Speech Tracker 2.0. Last week, the Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in) launched the Free Speech Tracker 2.0. The platform aims to serve as a repository of information – gathered by volunteers from all sorts of public sources – critical for the protection of free speech in India. Monitoring and documenting freedom of expression violations, the platform focuses on the legal free speech landscape and offers relevant court judgments and case studies of bans on books, art, and digital content. One of the featured cases is the blocking of Element and Briar software apps under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Another featured case is the ban on Hansda Sowvendra Shekhar’s book “The Adivasi Will Not Dance” under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

● Georgia: The Legal Battle Against the “Russia Law” Will Continue in the Constitutional Court. The Georgian Democracy Initiative (GDI) reports that the legal battle against the “transparency of foreign influence” law continues: 121 NGOs and media organizations have turned to the Constitutional Court. Labeled as “Russian” because of how closely it resembles the Kremlin’s “foreign agent” legislation infamous for its role in silencing dissent, the law was passed by the Georgian Parliament in May 2024 despite large-scale protests and international condemnation. The law will designate media and civil society groups as “foreign agents” if more than 20 percent of their funding comes from abroad, thus setting out to undermine their work significantly, possibly as early as ahead of nationwide elections this October. The GDI welcomes the appeals by the President of Georgia and parliamentarians “in relation to Article 78 of the Constitution, which is the main cornerstone of Georgia’s membership in the Euro-Atlantic structures” and announces that a complaint to the ECtHR is in the works. 

Queer Resistance to Digital Oppression in the MENA Region. ARTICLE 19’s newly published report is a three-part series on Queer Resistance to Digital Oppression in the  Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The report is based on the experiences of more than five thousand LGBTQI+ people from Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Sudan, and Tunisia. The research, conducted in cooperation with The De|Center and local experts, tackles two overarching questions: How do the authorities in the MENA region weaponize technology – from messaging and dating apps to social media – to target the LGBTQI+ community? And how can tech companies help protect the community and other marginalized groups? Part I of the report reviews the regional context, pointing to the laws that have enabled the oppression. Part II includes the findings from interviews, surveys, and focus groups and analyzes the “harrowing evidence of tech-enabled police and state violence against the LGBTQ community.” Part III lists recommendations for tech companies, outlining concrete ways through which the companies can fulfill their human rights obligations.

● Punching Up or Kicking Down? Satire and Body Shaming in Meloni’s Italy, by Alberto Godioli. In this blog post, published by the Forum for Humor and the Law (ForHum), ForHum’s co-founder Dr. Alberto Godioli responds to yet another defamation case in Italy: journalist Giulia Cortese was ordered to pay EUR 5,000 in damages to Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni over “body-shaming” comments on X, which the Court found to be defamatory. Citing relevant case law – including Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, Lingens v. Austria, and Telo de Abreu v. Portugal – Godioli calls for a thorough analysis of context in defamation cases, especially now that “fears of a widespread chilling effect on media freedom are particularly topical in present-day Italy.”

● Call for Proposals: Grants for Litigation Surgeries. Are you a lawyer and have taken part in any of Media Defence’s litigation surgeries since 2018? If yes, Media Defence invites you to apply for a project grant designed to facilitate the set-up of litigation surgeries and training of lawyers in free speech and digital rights. The deadline for proposals is August 31, 2024. Learn more and apply here.