Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the development of an integrated and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and information around the world. It maintains an extensive database of international case law. This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments in the field.
What does democracy look like? Over the past weekend, in the US, hundreds of thousands of protesters chanted, “This is what democracy looks like!” marching down avenues, occupying roadsides, parks, squares, and city halls. More than 1,400 “Hands Off!” mass actions against the Trump administration took place across all 50 states.
The US pillars of accountability and progress are getting wobbly. Press freedom is on trial (with some victories: A federal court ruled in favor of the Associated Press this week), statements of high-ranking officials threaten the independence of the judiciary, and civil society groups face existential challenges. With the established avenues for pushback undermined, street protests come to the front of resistance. “Without large-scale mobilization of the people,” historian Thomas Zimmer told Vanity Fair, “whatever is left of American democracy stands little chance.”
And yet, everyone’s right to protest is no longer a given in the US. Last week, in American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, challenging Trump’s deportation policy targeting constitutionally protected speech, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. “No student or faculty member should have to live in fear that they could be seized at any moment simply for exercising their right to political protest,” said Ramya Krishnan, Senior Staff Attorney at Knight First Amendment Institute. Read more on global student dissent – and its suppression – in our community news below.
While the US protests were largely peaceful, other countries have faced brutal crackdowns. Writing on the Argentine authorities’ use of “excessive force” during pensioner-led demonstrations, the JURIST cites the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms: “[L]aw enforcement is obliged to apply non-violent means before using force, exercise restraint in its application, and only use force in proportion to necessity.”
A recent report on Nicaragua underscores the importance of safeguards around freedom of assembly – and what happens when state power, once challenged, runs loose. The UN Group of Human Rights Experts has documented gross human rights violations in the country since the 2018 protests, during which the police and pro-government armed groups used lethal force and committed extrajudicial executions: “[T]he high number of victims with gunshot wounds to vital body parts suggest that their intent was not to disperse protesters but to kill them and instil fear in the population.”
This week’s cases deal with protests, spanning different jurisdictions. The European Court of Human Rights held that Ukraine violated the right to life by failing to prevent and effectively respond to violent clashes amongst demonstrators in Odesa in 2014. In the case concerning the Mapuche community in Chile, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights expanded freedom of expression by condemning the criminalization of peaceful protests and cultural expressions of Indigenous people in the context of historical claims. The UN Human Rights Committee held that Kazakhstan violated the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly by sanctioning participants of a peaceful protest against the sudden devaluation of the national currency in 2014.
“Hands Off!” protest in Los Angeles, United States, on April 5, 2025. More than 1,400 mass actions against the Trump administration took place across all 50 states last Saturday. See more on how hundreds of thousands mobilized here. Photo credit: Etienne Laurent / AFP / Getty
European Court of Human Rights
Vyacheslavova v. Ukraine
Decision Date: March 13, 2025
The European Court of Human Rights held that Ukraine violated the right to life of the applicants, under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, by failing to prevent and effectively respond to violent clashes amongst demonstrators and a deadly fire that occurred in Odesa on May 2, 2014, and for conducting a flawed investigation thereafter. The case arose after the death of 48 individuals, amid political unrest between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan groups. According to the Court, despite intelligence indicating a real and immediate risk of mass disorder, Ukrainian authorities failed to take preventive measures or intervene once violence erupted. The Court held that the police remained passive during the clashes of protestors, that there were credible indications of collusion with anti-Maidan activists, and that emergency services delayed their response to the fire by approximately 40 minutes. Additionally, the Court explained that the domestic investigation into the aforementioned events was gravely deficient, lacked independence, was marked by unreasonable delays, and failed to ensure the participation of the victims’ families or public scrutiny. As a result, the Court ordered Ukraine to provide the applicants with compensation for non-pecuniary damages and legal costs.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Paillama v. Chile
Decision Date: June 18, 2024
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that Chile violated the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, the principle of equality before the law, and the right to self-determination of Indigenous peoples, to the detriment of 140 Mapuche individuals who were criminally prosecuted following their participation in collective protests and territorial claims. The case stemmed from the criminalization of peaceful demonstrations carried out in 1992, during the 500th anniversary of the colonization of the Americas – when members of the Council of All Lands symbolically occupied land to assert historical claims. In response, Chilean authorities brought charges of unlawful association and trespassing – among other offenses – and imposed prison sentences, fines, and restrictions on the dissemination of information. The petitioners – members of the Mapuche community – argued that the protests were legitimate, peaceful expressions of identity and historical demands and that the criminal proceedings were discriminatory, based on ethnic stereotypes, and aimed at punishing dissent. The State partially acknowledged its international responsibility, admitting that the use of criminal law was disproportionate and failed to consider the context of the social protests (in defense of territorial rights). The Court found that the convictions were based on discriminatory stereotypes and failed to take into account the legitimacy of the protest. It emphasized that expressions protected under international law – such as the use of Indigenous flags, political statements, and the creation of Indigenous media – were wrongfully penalized. The Court further noted that the application of criminal law had a chilling effect, limiting the future exercise of fundamental rights. Accordingly, the Court ordered the annulment of the convictions, the expungement of criminal records, monetary reparations, and structural measures to ensure non-repetition – including legal reforms and training for judicial officials.
United Nations Human Rights Committee
Arkhangelskiy v. Kazakhstan
Decision Date: April 6, 2023
The United Nations Human Rights Committee held that Kazakhstan violated the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly of five individuals who were sanctioned for participating in a peaceful protest against the sudden devaluation of the national currency in 2014. The petitioners were arrested and fined under domestic law for joining a demonstration that, although unauthorized, was peaceful and non-disruptive. Their appeals before national courts were unsuccessful. The petitioners argued that the legal framework requiring prior authorization for assemblies violated their rights under articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Kazakhstan, for its part, argued that the sanctions were lawful under domestic law and necessary to maintain public order. The Committee emphasized that even if unauthorized, peaceful assemblies are protected under Article 21 of the Covenant. It reiterated that the right to peaceful assembly is a right – not a privilege – and any restriction must meet the strict tests of legality, necessity in a democratic society, and proportionality. Regarding Article 19, the Committee held that penalizing three of the petitioners for participating in a peaceful protest interfered with their right to express ideas and share information. It held that the State did not demonstrate that the sanctions were necessary or proportionate and concluded that articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant were violated. The Committee ordered Kazakhstan to provide adequate compensation to all the petitioners, including reimbursement of the fines and legal costs incurred, and to adopt measures to prevent similar violations in the future.
● Thailand: Student Protester Arrested for Calling Myanmar Leader a Murderer, Criticizing Thai Government, by Hannah Fang. The JURIST reports that last week, a student was arrested in Bangkok for protesting against the visit of Myanmar junta leader Min Aung Hlaing to the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation summit. “Thailand does not welcome the murderous dictator Min Aung Hlaing,” the student shouted at the hotel where the gathering was being held. “PM Paetongtarn, how do you feel shaking hands soaked in innocent blood?” Several rights groups condemned the Thai government’s support of Hlaing’s visit, which took place days after a 7.7 magnitude earthquake hit the country, leaving thousands dead and buried under the rubble. “The junta’s response to the earthquake has involved the obstruction of humanitarian aid and rescue efforts, and continued airstrikes, including in areas affected by the earthquake,” said Justice for Myanmar in a statement.
● Germany: Four Foreign Activists Face Deportation after Berlin University Sit-In, by Tamsin Paternoster & Liv Stroud. According to Euronews, Berlin’s immigration authorities have ordered two nationals from Ireland, one from Poland, and one from the US to leave Germany or face deportation over their participation in a pro-Palestinian sit-in. Linking the order to the protest at Berlin’s Free University in October 2024, the Department for Interior and Sport terminated the activists’ residency permits; lawyer Alexander Gorski underscored how “highly unusual” it was for EU citizens to face deportation from a member state “without any criminal convictions.” Gorski also told The Intercept earlier that three of the four orders referred to Germany’s Staatsräson, “reason of state” and the country’s pledge to defend Israel, as justification – “an unprecedented move.” In an interview with The Intercept, Thomas Oberhäuser of the German Bar Association described Staatsräson as a principle, not a “meaningful legal category.”
● Sri Lanka: Human Rights Situation in February 2025. Published by INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre in early April, this report on the state of human rights in Sri Lanka highlights repression of freedom of assembly (among other issues, like press freedom, police brutality, and rights of vulnerable groups). Back in February, the University of Jaffna students protested against the celebrations of Independence Day, declaring it a “Black Day” and demanding “the end of occupation of lands rightfully owned by Tamils and answers for the fate of Tamils who surrendered at the end of the armed conflict.” In response to the students replacing national flags with black flags as part of their protest, former Public Security Minister Sarath Weerasekera called for their arrests.
This section of the newsletter features teaching materials focused on global freedom of expression which are newly uploaded on Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers
A Year of Protests. This report, released by Amnesty International, documents Argentina’s 2024 as a “year of serious setbacks in the exercise of the right to protest.” The implementation of the so-called Anti-Picket Protocol marked patterns of repression and criminalization targeting dissenters. Based on interviews with protesters, human rights lawyers, medical workers, and journalists, the report recorded at least 15 protest actions during which the state resorted to excessive force; the corresponding numbers are alarming: 1,155 people injured; 33 individuals hit with rubber bullets in the head or face; 50 media workers injured; 73 people receiving criminal charges for their participation in the protests. Read the report here (in Spanish only).
US: School Surveillance Systems Threaten Student Privacy, New Knight Institute Lawsuit Alleges, by Jennifer Jones. Last month, Knight First Amendment Institute filed a public records lawsuit against a school district in Texas, seeking information on its use of AI-powered surveillance to monitor students’ school-issued electronic devices. In this recent op-ed, Jennifer Jones, Staff Attorney at Knight, cites estimations that millions of children across the US are subjected to such surveillance. Jones argues that the public “deserves to know whether tools that purport to protect student safety are being exploited to stifle and censor student expression.”
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.
I was wondering at which point the Freedom of Expression blog would begin to cover the situation in the USA. At last, they’ve made a small start.