|
Advancing understanding of the norms and institutions
that best protect the free flow of information and expression.
|
|
|
Dear Friends,
The past weeks have been tumultuous for global freedom of expression. In Bangladesh, they were deadly. Starting in early July, university students protested peacefully, demanding reforms to the quota system in government jobs; the officials’ crackdown soon followed with excessive force. By now, the violent clashes have left around 300 people killed, with journalists among them, and thousands detained. UN experts and rights groups, including Amnesty International and PEN International, have called for an immediate end to the lethal crackdown with subsequent accountability for human rights violations.
In response to the nationwide internet shutdown, the #KeepItOn coalition has appealed to Bangladesh’s government, urging it to preserve the vital connectivity. The coalition’s letter emphasizes freedoms of expression and information access as per Article 39(2) of the Constitution of Bangladesh, argues the shutdown lacks authorization under the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulation Act, 2001, and cites relevant landmark decisions of Bangladesh’s Supreme Court. On August 6, Irene Khan, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, insisted that the country’s interim government must uphold human rights, accountability, transparency, and gender equality. “A new dawn must not become a false dawn for [Bangladesh],” she wrote on X.
More protests and silencing of voices are in the news. Multiple rights groups have called on the Venezuelan authorities to respect the rights to free speech, assembly, and peaceful protest following the July 28 presidential election, widely described as undemocratic. A recent joint statement published by IFEX underscores dozens of press freedom violations have taken place during and after the election, with several journalists attacked and detained, and refers to the National Hospital Survey’s record of 13 protesters killed and 93 injured.
In another joint statement, Access Now and other civil society organizations have condemned the “technology-enabled political violence” in Venezuela. The statement recounts that the authorities have increased digital surveillance and intimidation by encouraging citizens to report on dissenters through VenApp, monitoring opinion on social media, targeting protesters, activists, and journalists with doxxing, searching people’s phones, and patrolling streets with drones, among other oppressive tools.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and its Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression have denounced the repressions in Venezuela and reaffirmed “that peaceful protest is a fundamental element of democratic societies governed by human rights.” The IACHR outlines steps for the authorities to comply with their international human rights obligations; those are 1) ceasing rights violations, 2) conducting thorough investigations, 3) releasing protesters and journalists and refraining from criminalizing their activities, and 4) restoring the rule of law.
|
|
|
Our Special Collection Paper, authored by CGFoE expert Ona Flores, surveys 178 of the leading and recent judgments and decisions concerning peaceful protests. Read it here. |
|
|
We will be off next week but back in your inboxes the following one.
|
|
Oversight Board
Oversight Board Case of Al-Shifa Hospital
Decision Date: December 19, 2023
The Oversight Board overturned Meta’s original decision to remove an Instagram video that depicted deceased and severely injured people after a strike on Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza during Israel’s military operations. A user posted a video of the aftermath of a strike on Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza claiming that the Israeli army attacked the hospital. Meta’s automatic classification system removed the content for violating the Graphic and Violent Content policy. The user appealed this decision; nonetheless, the appeal was closed automatically without human review. After the Board selected the case, Meta restored the content with a warning screen and limited the post’s visibility to people over 18. Meta also removed the post from the recommendations of adult Instagram users. The Board found that the warning screen and age restriction complied with Meta’s policies, values, and responsibilities under international human rights law. However, the Board held that the original decision to remove the content did not comply with Meta’s Violent and Graphic Content policy. The Board underscored the very high public interest in the post and advised Meta to create a policy exception for content raising awareness and condemning potential human rights abuses and war crimes, especially in times of war or armed conflict. Moreover, the Board expressed its concern over the unintentional bias in Meta’s practices against Palestinian and Arabic-speaking users. It also stressed Meta’s responsibility regarding the preservation of potential evidence about human rights abuses and humanitarian law violations.
Oversight Board Case of Image of Gender-Based Violence
Decision Date: On August 1, 2023
The Oversight Board overturned Meta’s original decision to leave up a photo on Facebook depicting an identifiable Syrian activist with visible injuries, whose caption mocked gender-based violence and implied that women who get abused bring it on themselves. A user on the platform reported the post three times; however, the reports were closed without human review. After the user appealed the decision to the Board, Meta removed the post considering it violated the Bullying and Harassment policy. The Board found that Meta’s original decision was incompatible with Meta’s Bullying and Harassment policy, as it prohibits any content mocking physical injuries or medical conditions. Additionally, the Board expressed concerns about Meta’s current policies when dealing with content that normalizes gender-based violence.
Brazil
Federal Supreme Court of Brazil v. Elon Musk and X
Decision Date: April 7, 2024
The Federal Supreme Court (STF) of Brazil ordered that Elon Musk, CEO of the social network X (formerly Twitter), be included as a suspect in criminal inquiry into online propaganda. Musk had posted on X accusing a Supreme Court Justice of censoring freedom of expression and violating Brazilian law and stating that X would not abide by judgments issued by the Supreme Court against it. The Court found that Musk had used X to conduct a disinformation campaign about the Brazilian Supreme Court and Superior Electoral Court, exacerbating the risks to the security of the judiciary, and had contributed to the criminal action being investigated by the Supreme Court in various cases. The Court also ordered that X refrain from disobeying the judicial orders it had already issued.
United States
Book People Inc. v. Martha Wong and others
Decision Date: September 19, 2023
The United States District Court, while granting the Plaintiff's motion for Preliminary Injunction, ruled that the impugned legislation - Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources Act, 2023 (READER) was likely violative of the First Amendment. The Act, scheduled to take effect on September 1, 2023, mandated booksellers to categorize the books they sell to school libraries as “sexually explicit,” “sexually relevant,” or material receiving “no rating.” Consequently, the schools had to refrain from purchasing any “sexually explicit” materials and were asked to remove existing “sexually explicit” materials from their libraries. The Court noted that READER contained an unconstitutional prior restraint, compelled speech, and unconstitutional vagueness. The Court observed that the READER required the plaintiffs to perform ratings (which they had alleged multiple times that they did not want to do), thereby compelling speech. Further, the Court opined that the definition of “sexually relevant material” was vague since it omitted the third prong of the Miller test which assesses the value of the material. The Court noted that the Act widely prohibited constitutionally protected works or literature within its definition of “sexually explicit material” and provided no opportunity for judicial review.
|
|
|
COMMUNITY HIGHLIGHTS & RECENT NEWS
|
|
|
|
● Türkiye: Access to Instagram Blocked. On August 2, 2024, Türkiye’s authorities imposed a nationwide ban on access to Instagram after the platform blocked a senior official’s post with condolences on the killing of Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of the Palestinian political and military group Hamas. Writing for Global Voices, Arzu Geybullayeva, founder of Azerbaijan Internet Watch, reviews both the most immediate and larger censorship context in Türkiye. Geybullayeva quotes Yaman Akdeniz, a law professor and CGFoE expert, who described the Instagram blocking decision as “arbitrary.” Several journalists condemned the ban – journalist Fatih Altayli called it a “new dimension in censorship and pressure on the media” – while Istanbul’s Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu stated, “Limiting access to social media platforms stifles free expression and hinders the flow of information.” Geybullayeva refers to the recently published Free Web Türkiye 2023 Internet Censorship Report, according to which “access to 219,059 URLs, including 197,907 domain names were blocked in [the country] in 2023,” with the most frequently banned news being “about corruption and irregularities.”
● US: Teachers, Parents, Advocates, and Authors Call on Florida Governor to Reverse “Dark Night of Censorship” in Public Schools and Colleges. PEN America reports that 584 individuals signed the letter addressing Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida and urging him to reverse the campaign of educational censorship that includes book bans, closure of interfaith, women, and LGBTQ+ centers, and weaponizing of diversity, equity, and inclusion narratives, among other things. The signatories include the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Families Against Banning Books, Florida Freedom to Read Project, NAACP Florida State Conference, authors Jodi Picoult and Karla Hernandez-Mats, and President of the United Teachers of Dade, the largest teachers union in the south-east of the US. PEN America has been documenting the unprecedented wave of censorship in the country, in which Florida leads, having banned more books than any other state.
● Ukraine: From Consensus to Censorship – How Wartime Measures Are Eroding Press Freedom. Media Defence interviewed media lawyer Oleksandra Stepanova from the Human Rights Platform (HRP) about the current state of press freedom in Ukraine almost two and a half years after Russia’s full-scale invasion began. Expressing her understanding of the war conditions and martial law, Stepanova admitted the imposed human rights “limits are being broken regularly,” and that concerns journalists, civil society, and the public’s access to information. The cases the HRP is working on now involve top officials suing investigative journalists for defamation. One such example is a SLAPP initiated after a media outlet reported on the transfer of state-owned land to a deputy’s daughter and later named that deputy in the context of a controversial petition; “The Deputy was not afraid to say publicly ‘It is time to close the tap’ when commenting on this situation,” Stepanova notes; the case has now reached the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
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
US: “Why Do They Hate Us So Much?” Discriminatory Censorship Laws Harm Education in Florida. This report, published by Human Rights Watch in collaboration with Florida Rising and Rule of Law Impact Lab at Stanford Law School, argues Florida’s school curriculum distortions constitute censorship and are inconsistent with “international human rights standards on education, access to information, and discrimination.” The report outlines the legal framework that contributes to harassment and discrimination based on race, sex, and gender in Florida classrooms: House Bill 7, or the Stop WOKE Act; House Bill 1557, or the “Don’t Say Gay or Trans” law; and House Bill 1069, an extension of the “Don’t Say Gay or Trans.” What adds to the laws are state education policies, one of which forwards a “patriotic” curriculum with incorrect facts about the history of slavery in the US. The report’s “International Human Rights Law Analysis” section lists Florida’s obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, namely: upholding the rights to education free of discrimination, culturally appropriate education, free expression, and health.
|
|
|
● Threading the Needle: Distinguishing True Threats from Provocative Humor, by Laura E. Little and Maxwell Klenk. The authors examine several First Amendment cases through the interplay of humor and “true threat” analysis: Bailey v. Iles, United States v. Perez, J.S. v. Manheim Township School District, and Haughwout v. Tordenti. “What is to be gleaned from these examples?” the authors ask. “[T]hreading the needle between provocative humor and threatening language in the United States may depend on geographical difference and the predilections of the fact finders. But it might also depend on unpredictable factors.”
In case you missed it…
● The Gaza Project’s Groundbreaking Investigation into Attacks on Palestinian Journalists. On July 30, 2024, IPI hosted an online discussion with the leading contributors to The Gaza Project. Launched by Forbidden Stories, the project investigates the deaths of journalists in Gaza and Israel’s targeting of Palestinian media workers. The recording is available here.
|
|
|
|
