As Donald Trump strides back into the US presidency, we are thinking of the potential stakes for freedom of expression. Responding to the 2016-2020 record, comprising a stack of lawsuits to silence critics and spread false narratives, and a belligerent campaign, the press freedom community has been sounding the alarm. In a special report for the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Katherine Jacobsen warned of more violence against media workers – not just in the US but also globally. In a report for the Coalition for Women in Journalism, Máire Rowland and Inge Snip warned of more harassment aimed at women journalists.
During his 2024 campaign rallies, Trump repeatedly threatened journalists with retribution. Such behavior has become normalized and no longer breaks news. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) analyzed Trump’s public speeches from September 1 to October 24, 2024, and found that he had verbally attacked the media at least 108 times in those eight weeks. Most recently, Trump added, “[T]o get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news. And I don’t mind that so much.”
Reiterating the risks, free speech advocates are calling for action. RSF addresses Trump directly: Immediately cease attacking the media. Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) vows not to let Trump destroy press freedom. FPF plans to expand the scope of the US Press Freedom Tracker, which documents press freedom violations, and the availability of SecureDrop, which helps whistleblowers communicate with journalists securely. FPF’s Executive Director Trevor Timm urges the Senate to pass – and President Biden to sign – “the bipartisan PRESS Act to stop Trump from spying on journalists [… and] throwing them in jail for refusing to reveal their sources.” In “Trump Wins, the Press Loses,” Columbia Journalism Review appeals to the readers: The next two months should be preparation for the “immense, intimidating, and essential” task of defending press freedom.
A surge of SLAPPs is yet another often-reiterated challenge to prepare for. Following last week’s newsletter, we continue to focus on legal harassment of journalists and civil society in the US and globally. Over the past months, as reported by CPJ, Trump has repeatedly pledged to strengthen libel laws, weaken First Amendment protections, prosecute journalists, and open investigations into NBC and MSNBC for critical coverage. He has already (unsuccessfully) sued ABC News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN for defamation. Others with power and money join Trump in bringing journalists to courts around the world: See this week’s selected news and analysis on Croatia, Romania, Belgium, the Gambia, Mexico, and women reporters covering gender issues in Türkiye, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, US, Lebanon, France, and Greece.
Lady Liberty and Free Speech imagined by ChatGPT
European Court of Human Rights
National Youth Council of Moldova v. Republic of Moldova
Decision Date: July 25, 2024
The European Court of Human Rights held that the Republic of Moldova violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, by unlawfully interfering with the National Youth Council of Moldova’s right to display an anti-discrimination advertisement. The case concerned the refusal by the Chișinău City Hall to permit a poster depicting caricatures of marginalized groups, which aimed to raise awareness about discrimination. The Court found that the refusal was not justified and that the national courts failed to adequately consider the broader public interest, rendering the restriction unnecessary in a democratic society. The Court determined that the impact of the advertisement, while potentially offensive to some, did not amount to incitement to discrimination or hostility. The restriction imposed by the authorities was specific to the public display of the caricatures and did not prevent the applicant association from disseminating its message through other means. Consequently, the Court concluded that the interference with the applicant association’s freedom of expression was not justified and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Zöldi v. Hungary
Decision Date: July 4, 2024
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously held that Hungary violated Blanka Zöldi’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because it denied her access to information of public interest. The case originated from Zöldi’s attempts to access information regarding the allocation of public funds by two publicly funded foundations established by the Hungarian National Bank. Zöldi, an investigative journalist, requested details on grant recipients, the amounts awarded, and the purposes of the grants, to report on the transparency of public spending. The Hungarian authorities denied partially her requests, citing personal data protection laws. Domestic courts upheld these decisions, prioritizing data protection. After exhausting domestic remedies, Zöldi brought her case to the ECtHR, arguing that the denial violated her right to access information of significant public interest. The ECtHR held that Hungary failed to balance the journalist’s right to freedom of expression with the need for data protection. It emphasized that the requested information pertained to the use of public funds, which has a high level of public interest. The Court concluded that the authorities’ refusal to disclose the information was not necessary or proportionate, violating Article 10 of the ECHR.
United States
Donald J. Trump v. Mary L. Trump
Decision Date: May 3, 2023
The New York Country Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against the New York Times and its reporters – David Barstow, Susanne Craig, and Russell Buettner filed by Donald Trump, former US President, while granting the Motion to Dismiss. In 2018, NYT and its reporters had published an article entitled “Trump engaged in suspect tax schemes as he reaped riches from his father”. They accused Trump of evading taxes and receiving at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire based on the documents provided by Trump’s niece, Mary Trump. Trump accused NYT and its reporters of committing tortious interference while persuading Mary Trump to disclose 20-year-old tax and financial documents in violation of a 2001 settlement agreement. The Court dismissed Trump’s claims while ruling that the anti-SLAPP statute applied to the present case. The Court observed that the anti-SLAPP statute was amended in 2020 to broaden its scope and protect all forms of lawful conduct, including news gathering, while exercising the right of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest. The Court noted that anti-SLAPP statute was passed with the intention of countering “abusive and frivolous” lawsuits filed by Trump and other large corporations to intimidate critics. Trump’s argument that anti-SLAPP statute applied only to defamation suits and not to tort claims was rejected. The Court directed Trump to pay the attorneys’ fees, legal expenses and costs to NYT and its reporters, as mandated under anti-SLAPP statute.
Hurchalla v. Lake Point Phase LLC
Decision Date: June 19, 2019
The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Fourth District (USA) affirmed the lower court’s ruling in favor of Lake Point, awarding $4.4 million in damages against Maggy Hurchalla for tortious interference. Lake Point sued Hurchalla, an environmentalist and former Marty County commissioner, alleging that her “false and misleading” statements influenced the current commissioners and delayed their Lake Point Phase I and II Project. The jury decided in favour of the Lake Point, to which Hurchalla appealed. The Court rejected Hurchalla’s appeal, stating there was sufficient evidence of her interference through false statements. The Court concluded that Hurchalla “intentionally or at the least, with reckless disregard, made purportedly factual statements to induce the BOCC not to go forward with its contract with Lake Point”. The Court determined that sufficient evidence was presented to the jury to prove that Hurchalla demonstrated “actual malice” and “express malice” toward Lake Point and, therefore, could not claim First Amendment privilege and Florida Common Law privilege.
Wynn v. Bloom
Decision Date: May 2, 2019
The US District Court granted limited discovery and depositions in the defamation case filed by Steve Wynn against Lisa Bloom and the Bloom firm, allowing key individuals’ testimonies while restricting the number of depositions of other individuals to prevent abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute. Wynn sued Bloom for defamation over a press release stating that it constituted libel per se and was published by Bloom and her firm with constitutional malice. The press release contained sexual harassment allegations made by Angelina Mullins in relation to her performance at the entertainment show “Showstoppers”. Bloom filed a Special Motion to Dismiss under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute, and to defeat this motion, Wynn filed Motion for Discovery, seeking extensive documents and depositions of over 70 individuals. The court deemed the prospect of over seventy depositions as an extraordinary number and recognised that permitting an undue number of depositions would contravene the intended purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute. While recognizing Wynn’s right to a fair and reasonable opportunity to gather evidence to defeat the motion to dismiss, the court asserted its duty to prevent the abuse of the discovery process for achieving goals contrary to the protective intent of the anti-SLAPP statute.
● SLAPPs in Europe: Spotlight on Croatia, Romania, and Belgium. The Croatian Association of Journalists and the Center for Democracy and Law “Miko Tripalo” analyzed 1,333 lawsuits filed against the press in Croatia between 2016 and 2023 and found that around 40% were SLAPPs. The study highlights the features of such lawsuits: long duration of court proceedings (4.3 years on average), inconsistent judicial practice, and the presence of “serial plaintiffs and recurring plaintiffs.” IFEX’s recent regional brief focuses on Romania as the country gears up for the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections; an increase in SLAPPs adds to the threats that Romanian journalists and activists are encountering. With typical plaintiffs being politicians and business people, a new trend is emerging: Real estate developers initiate SLAPPs against civil society organizations and journalists; a 2024 case concerns news outlet Context.ro, which is facing a staggering EUR 3.4 million sought in damages. In a recent statement, the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) coalition calls on Belgian officials to abstain from censorship practices and protect journalists against SLAPPs; MFRR refers to alarming judicial decisions – concerning the daily newspaper Le Soir, the Sudmedia group, and DPG Média, among others – that prevent the publication of information.
● The Gambia: Media Being Silenced through Defamation Lawsuits. The Gambia Press Union (GPU) raises concerns about significant financial implications and potential self-censorship for journalists and media outlets as daily newspaper The Voice and online news platform The Alkamba Times face defamation suits. President Adama Barrow is suing The Voice for the September 23 story, which claimed he had selected a successor. The Environment Minister Rohey John Manjang is suing reporter Kebba Ansu Manneh and The Alkamba Times for the June 19 story, which claimed the Minister was “involved in illegal transaction of seized logs.” The Minister is seeking D50 million (around USD 725,479) in damages. “These defamation suits, plus the ongoing criminal trial of Musa Sheriff and Momodou Justice Darboe of The Voice newspaper on false publication charges, will significantly reverse gains made by The Gambia in the last few years in terms of press freedom,” said Modou S. Joof, GPU Secretary General.
● Latin America: The Phenomenon Of Silencing Without Killing. Media Defence has been documenting legal harassment of journalists in Latin America. Honduras, Peru, Guatemala, and Mexico have the most cases of SLAPPs reported; Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, and Nicaragua follow. One exemplary case is that of journalist Sergio Aguayo Quezada, who has been mired in civil proceedings for eight years – the former governor of Coahuila, Mexico, sued Aguayo Quezada twice: in 2016 and 2022. Media Defence underscores the psychological and physical consequences that journalists suffer under the strain of SLAPPs. “I was so scared that I said: the moment the lawsuit ends, I no longer want to be a journalist, I no longer want to be a reporter.” journalist Roxana Romero García told Media Defence.
This section of the newsletter features teaching materials focused on global freedom of expression which are newly uploaded on Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers.
SLAPPs Targeting Women Journalists Covering Gender Issues: 2020 – 2024. The Coalition for Women in Journalism points to 12 SLAPPs initiated against women journalists covering such gender issues as sexual abuse and harassment, workplace misconduct, and broader topics (like child abuse) around the world. Türkiye is becoming a hotspot for such cases, with other countries being Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, the US, Lebanon, France, and Greece. Legal actions – on defamation charges most frequently – are often initiated by state officials or individuals and institutions with ties to the government. Women reporters who cover feminist events have been accused of “participating in unlawful assemblies,” “spreading misinformation,” or “violating religious sentiments.” The authorities, in Türkiye especially, often detain women journalists during feminist events and damage their equipment.
In case you missed it…
Expert Discussions on Global Challenges to Free Speech. This past October, The Future of Free Speech (FFS) and Vanderbilt University held the first annual Global Free Speech Summit on the global challenges to freedom of expression and solutions to tackle them. Star advocates for free speech delivered keynote addresses: Salman Rushdie, one of the most acclaimed contemporary novelists; Masih Alinejad, Iranian journalist and activist; Audrey Tang, Taiwan’s first digital minister; and Nathan Law, Hong Kong democracy activist. CGFoE experts joined the panels, including Jacob Mchangama, Executive Director at FFS; Joan Barata, Senior Legal Fellow at FFS; and Mishi Choudhary, Senior Vice President of Virtu. All discussions are now available online.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.