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.

“We are watching the collapse of the international order in real time,” journalist Carole Cadwalladr said in a recent TED talk. Her 2019 TED address on Big Tech’s threats to democracy had led to a lengthy SLAPP battle. “We now are in techno-authoritarianism,” Cadwalladr said four years later. “We have to learn how to digitally disobey.”

This week, we are looking eastward – at non-Western models of digital authoritarianism, those entrenched, spreading, but also challenged: in India, China, and Southeast Asia.

As China’s leader Xi Jinping visits Cambodia, Malaysia, and Vietnam, ARTICLE 19 sounds the alarm: China’s strengthening of ties with Southeast Asian states threatens further digital repression. Research shows how similar Vietnam’s Cybersecurity Law is to China’s regulation; how Cambodia’s proposed National Internet Gateway mirrors the Great Firewall; and how China-Malaysia cooperation in surveillance and AI technology raises human rights concerns.

In a recent interview with Advox Global Voices, Michael Caster, Head of Global China Programme at ARTICLE 19, noted, “As China strikes cooperation agreements with countries along the Digital Silk Road […], we are likely to see greater adoption of China-style AI enabled techno-authoritarianism.” Caster’s colleague Liu I-Chen contrasted Taiwan’s cybersecurity model with that of Beijing. What are the challenges in countering the latter? “Taiwan will […] need stronger presence at key norm-setting forums where the PRC actively promotes its cyber governance standards,” I-Chen said.

In India, as internet shutdown powers expand, rights groups flag concerns about transparency, accountability, and freedom of expression. Citing the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC.in), IFEX reports that recent orders (far from all of them available publicly) often issue blanket suspensions, disregarding “the legal requirements of necessity, proportionality, and reasoned justification.”

SFLC.in underscores that “[t]he absence of a clear, specific, and legally sound justification” violates “the right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to access information.” SFLC.in cites Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, in which India’s Supreme Court ruled that “suspension of internet services indefinitely is impermissible. The restrictions must be necessary and proportionate.”

The “Delhi Effect” exists, too, writes Prithvi Iyer for Tech Policy Press. Reviewing a report (see the Teaching Portal section below), Iyer argues collaborations like the Digital Accountability Initiative South Asia (DACSA), launched by civil society groups from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, “are crucial to ensure that tech policy in the region is associated with equity and accountability rather than repression and control.”

With both analog and digital authoritarianism growing, coalitions offer counter-responses. Behind DACSA, there is a shared mission, “We aim to present a unified voice from South Asia with a nuanced understanding of the impact of platform policies and stringent state regulations on our communities.” Behind Carole Cadwalladr’s partial victory in court, there were 30,000 people supporting her. “We are not powerless,” she said on the TED stage, “because […] we know what we stand for.”

With a “we” that leads to action, a more rights-based digital space might be possible.

More than 40 organizations deplore the harassment campaign against Badiucao,
a Chinese-Australian artist, political cartoonist, and activist.

In a video compilation prepared by a digital gallery and broadcast on billboards in Hong Kong recently, Badiucao silently mouthed “You must take part in revolution,” in a 4-second clip. As Badiucao prepared to release a statement on the state of human rights in Hong Kong, the targeting began.

Image credit: x.com/badiucao/ / Index on Censorship

India
Addictive Learning Technology Ltd v. Garg
Decision Date: February 20, 2025
An Indian High Court dismissed a defamation suit filed by an online legal education company and its managing director against users of X (formerly Twitter) over posts criticizing the managing director’s own post. After an interaction on X between the managing director and four X users, the managing director of the company claimed the posts harmed his and the company’s reputation. The Court noted the causal and fast-paced nature of X where the reaction of the readers is “impressionistic and fleeting” and found that the users on X do not perceive the platform as a “reliable verified source of information” but rather as a “casual medium of a conversational social media platform.” The Court held that the managing director had failed to establish substantial injury or reputational harm due to the posts and rejected the claim of defamation. Citing precedents, the Court held that posts cannot be assessed in isolation and that the entire conversation must be considered. However, the managing director failed to disclose his tweets and prior disagreements with the defendants, and the Court deemed this conduct to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. The Court also noted that the managing director did not first seek remedies under the Information Technology rules before approaching the Court. Consequently, the Court rejected the defamation suit and imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 (approx USD 1147).

Purkayastha v. State
Decision Date: May 15, 2024
The Indian Supreme Court ruled that the arrest and remand order issued against the founder of an online news portal was illegal and an infringement on his fundamental constitutional rights. The founder was arrested based on allegations of promoting Chinese propaganda, but the police failed to inform him of the grounds for his arrest and denied him access to legal representation. The Court found that this procedural lapse, including the lack of a written copy of the grounds for arrest, was a clear violation of his rights under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution which protects against arbitrary arrest and detention. Emphasizing the importance of due process, the Court quashed the remand order, declared his arrest unconstitutional, and ordered his release on bail.

X (formerly Twitter) v. Union of India (2)
Decision Date: June 30, 2023
The High Court of Karnataka held that under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the government has the authority to block entire user accounts, not just specific tweets or content. The case arose when X (formerly Twitter) challenged government blocking orders covering 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets, arguing that the orders exceeded statutory authority and failed procedural requirements. The Court rejected these arguments, holding that a purposive rather than literal interpretation of Section 69A was appropriate given the dynamic nature of cyber technology. It further held that while blocking decisions must be supported by written reasons, these need not always be included in the order itself. The Court also found that X had been afforded adequate procedural fairness through committee meetings. Additionally, the Court ruled that prior notice to affected users before blocking is discretionary, not mandatory. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, partly because of X’s unjustified delay in complying with the blocking orders.

APRIL 21: “The Fight for Global Press Freedom” with Columbia J-School and The New York Times. This upcoming Monday, Columbia Journalism School and The New York Times will have an afternoon of discussion on global threats to journalism. Welcome remarks by Rebecca Blumenstein, President of NBC News and Chair of the Board of the Columbia Journalism Review, will be followed by a conversation with Jelani Cobb, Columbia Journalism School Dean and Henry R. Luce Professor of Journalism, and A.G. Sulzberger, Chairman and Publisher of The New York Times. Learn more about other speakers and register here. April 21, 2025, Lecture Hall, Pulitzer Hall, 2950 Broadway, New York, NY 10027. 2:00 PM – 6:00 PM. Cannot join in person? Tune in via live stream.

● India: SFLC.in Challenges Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules 2009 in the Supreme Court. The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC.in) filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India, challenging the constitutionality of Rules 8, 9, and 16 of the Information Technology Rules, 2009, which concern the blocking of online content. The petition argues that these provisions grant broad powers to remove content without due process – without any hearing or explanation of reasons in writing. Such powers, the petition states, “are further not envisaged under the parent act, i.e., the Information Technology Act, 2000 under the relevant provision, Section 69A.” SFLC.in argues that the gaps in the Rules “allow an unreasoned, disproportionate, and arbitrary restriction on a citizen’s right to free speech.”

● China: Police Arrest Tibetans for Internet, Phone Use. Human Rights Watch (HRW) reports that China’s authorities have detained dozens of Tibetans since 2021 for politically motivated offenses related to phone and internet usage. Turning to Tibetan media in exile, other media, China’s official records, and interviews with residents in Tibet, HRW reviewed more than 60 cases, but the full scale of prosecution remains unknown. The cases show links to mass phone searches, mandatory phone apps, and “a tightened regulatory regime on data and religion.” “Tibetans have not only lost their rights to freely express themselves and to access information, but they are losing even their basic right to communicate with their loved ones,” said Maya Wang, Associate China Director at HRW.

● Thailand: Authorities Must End Malicious Smear Campaigns and Cyberattacks on Civil Society. Amnesty International demands that Thailand’s officials conduct an investigation into cyberattacks targeting human rights defenders and act to stop the malicious smear campaigns. Recently leaked internal government reports exposed a coordinated, state-backed effort – led by a “Cyber Team,” which is jointly run by Thai police and military units – to sabotage the work of rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, and iLaw, and individual rights defenders, including the former Executive Director of Amnesty International’s local office and young activist Anna Annanon.

This section of the newsletter features teaching materials focused on global freedom of expression which are newly uploaded on Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers

Digital Governance and Rights in South Asia, and the Path Forward, by Faisal Lalani and Shumaila H. Shahani. Published recently by Tech Global Institute, this white paper is a result of 12 digital rights organizations convening in Kathmandu, Nepal, last year to share lessons in combating digital authoritarianism in South Asia. The paper analyzes the digital rights challenges in the region – state control, imposition of external regulatory models, among others – and focuses on Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. The authors stress the urgency of forming a South Asian digital rights coalition: “Such a coalition would facilitate regional collaboration, enabling civil society to collectively advocate for a more equitable, locally relevant approach to digital rights.”

● ​Call for papers – Confronting Technofeudalism and Digital Authoritarianism: Challenges and Solutions for European Regulation. Ahead of its annual conference on technofeudalism, digital authoritarianism, and the EU’s regulation of the digital sphere, the Digital Authoritarianism Research Lab welcomes submissions. The many topics include “Algorithmic governance and its effects on free speech and user-generated content” and “EU regulatory frameworks and their effectiveness in combating digital authoritarianism.” The deadline for abstract proposals is June 17. Learn more here.

● Call for Papers – Human Rights and AI-Powered Content Moderation. Aiming to bring voices from various fields – law, business, computer science, etc. – Cambridge Forum on AI: Law and Governance invites submissions for the upcoming themed issue titled “Human Rights and AI-Powered Content Moderation” by October 31. Natalie Alkiviadou, Senior Research Fellow at the Future of Free Speech, and Joan Barata, Senior Legal Fellow for The Future of Free Speech, will be the issue’s guest editors. Find out more here.

This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression.  For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.