In a joint statement, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and two UN Special Rapporteurs – on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers and on Freedom of Opinion and Expression – flag their grave concerns over Guatemalan journalist José Rubén Zamora Marroquín’s return to prison.

“The continuous judicial harassment consisting of the accumulation of legal proceedings against Mr. Zamora and the staff of El Periódico and the subsequent closure of the media outlet are a direct crackdown on freedom of expression and press freedom, contrary to international legal standards,” the press release states.

Image credit: PEN International/elPeriódico, 2019

Brazil
The Case of the Rumble Ban in Brazil
Decision Date: February 21, 2025
The Federal Supreme Court (STF) of Brazil, in a ruling by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, suspended the operations of the social network Rumble in the country for failing to comply with judicial orders. The Court had ordered the platform to remove the account of a blogger who fled to the United States while under investigation for crimes including criminal organization, slander, defamation, insult, and racism. Despite not having been served due to the lack of a legal representative in Brazil, Rumble’s CEO stated that the platform would not comply with the order. The Court emphasized that all companies, whether domestic or foreign, must follow Brazilian laws and judicial decisions – including having a local representative – stressing that freedom of expression is not absolute and may be restricted to protect democracy and public security. It ordered that, to resume operations in Brazil, Rumble must fully comply with court orders and appoint a legal representative.

European Court of Human Rights
Toth and Crișan v. Romania
Decision Date: February 25, 2025
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously held that there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, in a case concerning two police officers who sought damages after a private individual (C.T.) posted their photograph, disclosed one officer’s name, and criticized their professional conduct on Facebook, which generated offensive third-party comments. After Romanian courts dismissed the officers’ tort action, the ECtHR reviewed whether domestic authorities had adequately protected the applicants’ right to respect for private life and reputation. The Court found that the domestic courts had conducted a proper balancing exercise between competing interests. It held that C.T’s post concerned matters of public interest regarding police conduct; the applicants, while not public figures, were subject as public servants to wider criticism limits than ordinary citizens; the photograph was taken in a public setting and did not portray them unfavorably; C.T. had acted in good faith without using offensive language; and C.T. could not be held responsible for third-party comments she neither invited nor had power to control. The Court concluded that holding C.T. liable could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression online, especially for private individuals acting in good faith to raise awareness about matters of public concern.

Minasyan and Others v. Armenia
Decision Date: January 7, 2025
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously held that Armenia violated Article 8 (right to private life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to protect activists, NGO members, journalists, and researchers from homophobic hate speech. The case arose from a 2014 newspaper article that denounced the applicants as “gay-campaign-supporting zombies” and “enemies of the Nation and the State,” calling for their social and professional isolation. These attacks followed the applicants’ criticism of homophobic remarks made by Eurovision jury members. Armenian courts dismissed the applicants’ civil claims, wrongly classifying the statements as legitimate journalistic expression. The ECtHR found that Armenia lacked an effective legal framework to address homophobic hate speech and that domestic courts had failed to properly balance the author’s freedom of expression against the applicants’ right to dignity and protection from discrimination.

● Hate Speech, Positive Obligations and Free Speech: The ECtHR’s Expanding Framework in Minasyan and Others v. Armenia, by Dr. Natalie Alkiviadou. In this blog post for Strasbourg Observers, Dr. Natalie Alkiviadou, Senior Research Fellow at the Future of Free Speech at Vanderbilt University, analyzes the ECtHR’s ruling in Minasyan and Others v. Armenia, a case we are featuring this week. While acknowledging the significant development in the Court’s jurisprudence on hate speech, especially because the latter is indisputably a societal malaise, Alkiviadou argues that restrictions on freedom of expression are rarely a necessary and proportionate solution. To Alkiviadou, the Court’s ruling raises questions – particularly regarding the use of Article 17, which prohibits the destruction of and excessive limitation on the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention, as “an interpretative aid” and non-engagement with “empirical evidence on the real-world harm caused by the speech in question.” 

● Guatemala: 10 International Organizations Submit Amicus Brief in Case of Imprisoned Journalist José Rubén Zamora Marroquín. Last week, 10 rights organizations, including Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice, Reporters Without Borders, and Committee to Protect Journalists, filed an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court of Guatemala in the case of José Rubén Zamora Marroquín. On March 10, a judge ordered that the journalist and founder of elPeríodico return to prison. (Zamora had spent over 800 days in pre-trial detention before being granted house arrest in October 2024.) The brief argues that the journalist’s “return to preventive detention constitutes a violation of his fundamental rights under Guatemalan and international law.” The organizations urge the Court “to grant a pending amparo appeal and allow Zamora to return to house arrest.” Read the brief (in Spanish) here. 

● Myanmar: Joint statement – Internet Restrictions Must Be Lifted Following Devastating Earthquake. Access Now and more than 70 organizations and individuals demand that the Myanmar military immediately restore all internet access, including social media platforms and news media access. Since the 7.7 earthquake, the worst in the country’s history, caused large-scale damage and thousands of deaths on March 28, the junta, “one of the world’s worst abusers of digital repressions,” has kept internet shutdown orders in place. “The Myanmar earthquake is a stark reminder of what happens when environmental disasters strike in the context of authoritarian rule,” ARTICLE 19 underscores in a separate statement. “It exposes how freedom of expression, access to information, and unhindered connectivity are not luxuries – they are lifesaving necessities.”

Who in The World Supports Free Speech? Findings from a Global Survey, by Svend-Erik Skaaning and Suthan Krishnarajan. Based on survey data from 33 countries, this recent report, published by The Future of Free Speech, tackles the following questions: In the face of various kinds and degrees of restrictions, how much do people support free speech? What matters do people think they should be allowed to debate and critique? While majorities in the surveyed countries generally support free speech, the exact figures vary significantly – between 54% and 88%. The highest levels of support for free speech are in Scandinavian countries, but also Hungary and Venezuela. Japan, Israel, and the US have dropped considerably in support since the 2021 edition of the report. “Most nations show high levels of support for free speech in the abstract,” the report states, “but support is lower and more divided when it comes to statements that are offensive to minorities or one’s own religion, supportive of homosexual relationships, or insulting to the national flag.”

● European SLAPP Contest 2025. The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe has launched this year’s European SLAPP Contest, which spotlights the continent’s worst legal bullies. Check out the list (some names will be too familiar…) and cast your vote for the winner of the People’s Choice Award. More here.

In case you missed it…

● Webinar: The Hong Kong 47 and the Erosion of the Rule of Law. Last week, Asia Democracy Network and Lady Liberty Hong Kong held a webinar on the changing legal and political landscape in Hong Kong. Michael Caster of ARTICLE 19 discussed the 2020 National Security Law and 2024 Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. Watch the recording here.