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.

This week, Law Day meets World Press Freedom Day. Their calls align – in the US, where the First Amendment protections are being challenged, and globally. Reporters Without Borders’ most recent World Press Freedom Index, to which CGFoE got early access, shows that the rule of law – weakness or absence of it – is failing journalists across continents.

Lawyers have turned May 1, National Law Day in the US, into National Law Day of Action, calling for rallies. “Lawyers usually do their speaking for clients in courtrooms and on paper,” writes Bret Parker, Executive Director of the New York City Bar Association, “but we are taking to the streets because the rule of law is under threat as never before in our lifetimes.”

Explaining this year’s theme, “The Constitution’s Promise: Out of Many, One,” the American Bar Association’s President William R. Bay stresses the urgency of E pluribus unum today – almost 250 years after the ratification of the Constitution.

World Press Freedom Day 2025, observed on May 3, centers on freedom of expression in the face of AI. Technology is altering the right to seek, impart, and receive information, as well as forcing newsrooms to navigate unprecedented tests brought by mis/disinformation, online hate speech, and censorship.

What is the state of global press freedom today? “Although physical attacks against journalists are the most visible violations of press freedom, economic pressure is also a major, more insidious problem,” says Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in their latest World Press Freedom Index. For the first time in its history, the Index classifies the global state of press freedom as a “difficult situation.”

Published today in Paris, the report emphasizes that press freedom is in a worrying decline in almost all parts of the world, with the data measured by the RSF Index’s economic indicator as “clearly showing that today’s news media are caught between preserving their editorial independence and ensuring their economic survival.”

RSF finds that news outlets are shutting down due to economic hardship in nearly a third of all countries, including the US (ranking 57th, down 2 places), Tunisia (129th, down 11 places), Argentina (87th, down 21 places), and Haiti (112th, down 18 places). The Index depicts the situation in Palestine (ranking 163rd) as “disastrous”: “The Israeli army has destroyed newsrooms, killed nearly 200 journalists and imposed a total blockade on the strip for over 18 months”, says the report.

To mark both – Law Day and World Press Freedom Day – this week, CGFoE’s Team voted to select three of the most significant press freedom cases from the last year that uphold the rights of journalists. Our picks are Kobaliya v. Russia on the “chilling effect” of the “foreign agent” legislation used to target media and journalists, among others; the Uganda Journalists Association v. Attorney General, which affirmed the constitutional right of journalists to perform their duties without fear of intimidation or violence; and the Case of Judicial Harassment Against Journalists in Brazil that recognized SLAPPs as a tool of abusive restriction to freedom of expression.

RSF’s latest World Press Freedom Index, published today in Paris, classifies the global state of press freedom as a “difficult situation” – for the first time since its first edition in 2002. Image credit: Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

European Court of Human Rights
Kobaliya v. Russia
Decision Date: October 22, 2024
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Russia violated the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and privacy by designating, through legislation, organizations and individuals as “foreign agents” and imposing professional, economic, and public participation restrictions on them. The 107 applicants – non-governmental organizations, media outlets, and individuals designated as “foreign agents” by the Russian authorities – complained that the designation, along with the associated requirements and sanctions it imposed, violated their rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. The Court found that Russia’s current “foreign agent” legislation, which has evolved since 2012 to become considerably more restricting, was stigmatizing and had a chilling effect on Russian civil society. The Court ruled that the law and its application were arbitrary and contributed to the shrinking of Russia’s democratic space.

Uganda
The Uganda Journalists Association v. Attorney General
Decision Date: November 13, 2024
The High Court of Uganda held that the actions of Uganda Peoples Defence Forces officers violated the constitutional rights of journalists Timothy Murungi and Henry Sekanjako, including their rights to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, as well as their right to freedom of the press. The Applicants, while covering a news event involving former presidential candidate Kyagulanyi Sentamu at the UN Human Rights Office on February 17, 2021, were assaulted by military police officers, causing severe physical and psychological harm. The Court found that the assault and intimidation by security personnel obstructed the Applicants’ ability to perform their professional duties, thereby infringing upon their constitutionally protected freedoms. It held the Respondents personally liable for the violations, awarding each applicant UGX 75,000,000 in general damages (approximately 20,240 USD). The Court also ruled that the Respondents were vicariously liable for the actions of their agents, and the Applicants were entitled to compensation, while rejecting additional claims for verification, apologies, and guarantees of non-repetition.

Brazil
The case of judicial harassment against journalists in Brazil
Decision Date: May 22, 2024
The Federal Supreme Court of Brazil (STF) delivered a judgment identifying and preventing Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). Two media associations had filed separate applications seeking orders from the Court to recognize the judicial harassment created by the filing of multiple compensatory lawsuits in different cities over the same news report or story and to provide constitutional interpretations of various laws governing those types of lawsuits. The Court found this practice to be an abusive use of legal action, burdening journalists with the need to defend themselves in various locations for the same incident. Recognizing the SLAPP aspects of such cases, the Court provided a constitutional interpretation of the Brazilian Civil Code and Civil Procedure Code, stipulating that cases of judicial harassment against freedom of expression and the press – characterized by the use of multiple lawsuits across different jurisdictions aimed at obstructing the defense rights of journalists or media outlets – must be consolidated for unified adjudication in the defendant’s local jurisdiction. The Court also found that civil liability for journalists or media outlets would only be established in cases involving deliberate misconduct and gross negligence.

European Court of Human Rights
Objective Television and Radio Broadcasting v. Azerbaijan 
Decision Date: February 18, 2025
The Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that Azerbaijan violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights when its National Television and Radio Council (NTRC) denied a broadcasting license to Objective Television and Radio Broadcasting Company LLC. The case concerned a 2010 tender for an FM radio frequency license in Baku, where the applicant company (founded by journalists Mehman Aliyev and Emin Huseynov) proposed ‘Objective Radio’ with diverse programming. Despite their experience in media, the NTRC awarded the license to Golden Prince LLC for ‘Free News Radio’, citing preferences that were not disclosed in the tender announcement. The Court found that the NTRC failed to provide a duly reasoned decision as required by domestic law, issued only minimal justification for selecting Golden Prince LLC’s news-focused proposal over the Applicants’ more diverse programming plan, refused to share complete meeting minutes until Court proceedings, and concealed serious conflicts of interest – notably that an NTRC member, S.V., participated in awarding the license to a company connected to her family. The Court criticized the NTRC’s composition, as the President directly appointed its members without public consultation, contrary to the Council of Europe’s recommendations on regulatory independence. These deficiencies in transparency, reasoning, and impartiality led the Court to conclude that the interference with the Applicant’s freedom of expression did not meet the Convention’s “prescribed by law” requirement, as the licensing procedure lacked adequate safeguards against arbitrary interference by public authorities.

United States
Christopher Kohls v. Bonta; X Corp. v. Bonta; The Babylon Bee v. Bonta [Updated Case]
Decision Date: October 2, 2024
An American District Court granted a preliminary injunction against a piece of legislation which prevented the sharing of “deepfake” videos without a prominent textual disclaimer during election periods. A content creator, who had published a “digitally altered” video of a presidential candidate, sought to prevent the enforcement of the law on the grounds that it infringed the right to freedom of expression. The Court found that the law was an overly broad, content-based regulation that unconstitutionally restricted protected political speech, including parody and satire. It emphasized that even deliberately false statements about government officials are constitutionally protected, and found the law’s disclaimer requirements unduly burdensome compelled speech. The Court acknowledged that the risks of artificial intelligence and deepfakes were significant, but held that the law’s broad restrictions acted as a “hammer instead of a scalpel,” unconstitutionally hindering free expression and democratic debate.

India
Singh v. Codible Ventures
Decision Date: July 26, 2024
An Indian High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Arijit Singh, a famous Indian singer, restricting multiple entities from violating his personality and publicity rights. The singer filed a suit against AI platforms replicating his voice, businesses selling merchandise with his image, and digital platforms creating GIFs, misusing his personality traits for commercial purposes without consent. The Court found prima facie evidence that these defendants exploited Singh’s personality traits to drive traffic to their website – including creating videos using his name and image to teach users how to replicate his voice with unauthorized AI platforms. The Court agreed with Singh’s submission that freedom of speech and expression “does not grant the license to exploit a celebrity’s persona for commercial gain.” The Court also observed that AI tools enabling voice replication without consent violated celebrities’ personality rights as they allow unauthorized appropriation of a celebrity’s voice, “a key component of their personal identity and public persona.” The Court directed the defendants to edit/delete all references to Singh’s personality traits in their videos and ordered them (including Google) to disclose the particulars of other defendants.

Brazil
The Case of the Telegram Ban in Brazil
Decision Date: March 17, 2022
The Federal Supreme Court (STF) of Brazil, in a ruling by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, suspended the social network Telegram 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 being notified multiple times, Telegram did not comply with the Court’s orders. The Court emphasized that all companies, whether domestic or foreign, must follow Brazilian laws and judicial decisions, stressing that freedom of expression is not absolute and may be restricted to protect democracy and public security. After reporting to the Court that it had fulfilled all obligations, Telegram was reestablished in the country.

MAY 13: Webinar – Right to Information, Freedom of Expression and National Security. The Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) will host a webinar on international freedom of speech standards and the right to information in the context of national security restrictions on those rights. Toby Mendel, Executive Director at CLD, and Raphael Vagliano, Legal Officer at CLD, will deliver presentations. The webinar especially welcomes lawyers who seek a better understanding of international law while practicing nationally. May 13, 2025. 9:00 AM ET / 3:00 PM CET. Register here.

● 100 Human Rights Harms in 100 Days: The Trump Administration’s Assault on Rights in the United States and Abroad. Human Rights Watch (HRW) marks 100 days of Donald Trump’s second presidency with a list of 100 actions, executive orders, and policies of his administration that infringe upon the human rights of those in the US and around the world. On the matter of press freedom, HRW highlights the White House access restrictions for the Associated Press, crippling cuts in funding to the media that report on authoritarian states, and the termination of the US Agency for Global Media and Voice of America, a move that affected more than 1300 journalists. “Millions of people worldwide will have less information on political and other developments in scores of countries,” HRW notes. See the full list here.

● Colombia: IPI Welcomes Landmark Settlement on Double Murder of El Espectador Journalists. International Press Institute (IPI) praises the landmark settlement agreement between the Colombian government and the families of two El Espectador journalists murdered 34 years ago. In April 1991, hitmen linked to the National Liberation Army shot journalist Julio Daniel Chaparro and photojournalist Jorge Torres after their reporting trip to the town of Segovia, where a massacre had occurred three years prior. With the support of Fundación Para la Libertad de Prensa, Chapparo’s and Torres’s families brought the case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2010, culminating in the Friendly Settlement Agreement last week.

● Albania: Constitutional Court Upholds Right to Confidentiality of Sources. Media Defence reports that last week, the Albanian Constitutional Court recognized the  importance of the right to confidentiality of sources. The case concerned journalist Elton Qyno, whose professional and personal devices had been seized by the authorities following the release of his publications on the country’s anti-corruption agency and its investigation into an organized crime group. Claiming that Qyno had accessed confidential information, the authorities obtained a judicial warrant to search his home and office. Media Defence intervened in the case, highlighting how such acts by officials “not only endanger existing sources but also erode the trust potential future sources need to come forward with crucial public interest information.”

● Ukraine: Russia Has Committed 833 Crimes Against Journalists and Media. Citing the Institute of Mass Information (IMI), IFEX highlights the crimes committed by Russia against the Ukrainian press. Since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, Russia has murdered 12 journalists during their reporting, kidnapped 29, wounded 42, threatened 129, and was behind 103 cyber attacks targeting the press. Because of the invasion, 332 media outlets were forced to shut down. IMI has recorded a total of 102 media workers killed and 14 missing. This week, an investigation led by Forbidden Stories revealed that the repatriated body of Ukrainian journalist Victoria Roshchyna, whom the Russian forces had abducted and placed in detention, showed signs of torture and was missing organs.

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

​Deepening Crisis In Media Freedom Across the EU Puts Democracy At Risk. Civil Liberties Union for Europe released its fourth annual report, Liberties Media Freedom Report 2025. Based on the data provided by 43 partner organizations, the report covers the state of media freedom and pluralism, the safety of journalists, freedom of expression and access to information, and relevant legislation across 21 EU Member States. One of the main findings is high media ownership concentration (in Croatia, France, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden). As the EU is approaching the stage of enforcement with regard to its key press-related laws, the report calls on the EU bodies to cooperate with civil society and urges national authorities to ensure the proper transposition of the European Media Freedom Act and the Anti-SLAPP Directive into national legislation.

The Government Against the University: Reports from Colombia, Hungary, Poland & Turkey. At times when governments perceive universities as adversaries, how can academic institutions defend academic freedom? Earlier this week, the Buffett Institute for Global Affairs, Northwestern University, and the Committee on Global Thought at Columbia University hosted an online discussion around that question. The panel welcomed István Rév of Central European University (Hungary and Austria), Andrzej Rychard of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Can Candan of Boğaziçi University (Turkey), and Johanna Mick Clausen of the Universidad de Los Andes (Colombia). Watch the recording here.”

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