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.

“If First Amendment freedoms are compromised, our democracy will be compromised, too,” argues a collective letter published this week by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “We fear that if major institutions continue to submit rather than stand on their rights, the freedoms of speech and the press will be seriously and perhaps irrecoverably weakened.”

Responding to President Trump’s multi-frontal assault on free speech, the signatories – ACLU, the Committee to Protect Journalists, FIRE, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, Reporters Without Borders, PEN America, and the Knight Institute – call on American universities, media, law firms, and companies to mount an unyielding response that shields freedom of speech and the press without compromise.

“Leaders of civic and other major institutions […] must stand more firmly in defense of First Amendment freedoms, and they must fight back unhesitatingly and energetically when their rights, and the rights of those they serve and represent, come under threat,” the organizations state, stressing: “We are ready to help.”

One indispensable component of free speech in a democracy is humor. Several landmark cases, like Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, recognize humor’s essential role in public life. In times of crises especially, joke-cracking and leg-pulling abound. Yet once humor – be it stand-up comedy, caustic political cartoon, or slapstick – ends up in court, how does one avoid stifling humorous expression?

The Forum for Humor and the Law (ForHum) and CGFoE just published the first edition of a toolkit that deals with the assessment of humor in legal cases. Drawing from international human rights law and humor scholarship, What’s in a Joke? Assessing Humor in Free Speech Jurisprudence is designed to aid legal professionals in reaching a balanced approach to humor in the judicial context.

Authored by Alberto Godioli (University of Groningen), Sabine Jacques (University of Liverpool), Jennifer Young (University of Groningen), and Ariadna Matamoros-Fernández (University College Dublin), the toolkit includes I. Introduction, II. Standards and jurisprudence (ICCPR Articles 19 and 20), III. Tools for interpreting humor in free speech cases, and IV. The intersection of humor and Intellectual Property law.

“Satire is a form of artistic expression and social commentary which, by its inherent features of exaggeration and distortion of reality, naturally aims to provoke and agitate,” the toolkit authors cite the ECtHR in Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria. “Accordingly, any interference with the right of an artist – or anyone else – to use this means of expression should be examined with particular care.”

Access the full toolkit here.

Cartoon by Tjeerd Royaards Toolkit What’s in a Joke? Assessing Humor in Free Speech Jurisprudence is out now! Published by the Forum for Humor and the Law (ForHum) and CGFoE, this first edition deals with the assessment of humor in legal cases, aiming to help legal professionals reach a balanced approach to humor in the judicial context.

European Court of Human Rights
P. v. Poland
Decision Date: February 13, 2025
The First Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously found a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in a case concerning a Polish teacher who was dismissed for maintaining a personal blog with homosexual content. The applicant, an award-winning Polish and English teacher at a secondary school in Koszalin, was disciplined in 2013 after school authorities discovered his blog on a website for homosexual men, which contained explicit written and photographic content depicting same-sex relationships. He had also brought his same-sex partner on school trips without official authorization, introducing him to others as his cousin. Despite the teacher’s immediate compliance with the principal’s request to delete the blog, he faced disciplinary proceedings that ultimately resulted in his dismissal. The ECtHR determined that while teachers hold positions of public trust where certain duties extend beyond their professional activities, the domestic authorities failed to provide “relevant and sufficient reasons” for this severe sanction, noting that the blog was legal, intended for adults, unaffiliated with the school, and not actively transmitted to students. Furthermore, the Court recognized the broader context of negative societal attitudes toward LGBTI people in Poland, concluding that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression neither corresponded to a pressing social need nor was proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting students’ morals.

India
Bose v. M/S. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private
Decision date: February 18, 2025
The Supreme Court of India quashed criminal defamation proceedings against journalists and editors of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd., ruling that procedural requirements under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not followed when issuing summons to the accused who resided outside the court’s jurisdiction. The case concerns a complaint filed by auction house Bid & Hammer, which alleged that news articles published by the defendants in 2014 defamed their reputation by questioning the authenticity of paintings they planned to auction. The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court failed to conduct a mandatory inquiry before issuing a summons, and the High Court erred by selectively examining only one article while ignoring others. The Court emphasized that criminal liability must be individually determined, finding that allegations against Editorial Director Jaideep Bose merely stated he “oversaw the publications” without substantiating his control over content selection. Additionally, the Court noted that no evidence was presented showing actual damage to Bid & Hammer’s reputation despite a decade passing since the auction. While affirming the importance of press freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, the Court also cautioned media professionals about their responsibility when publishing content that could impact individuals’ reputations.

North Macedonia
Angjushev v. Cvetkovska
Decision Date: October 24, 2023
The Basic Civil Court Skopje in the Republic of North Macedonia issued a judgment granting Kocho Angjushev’s defamation claim against the defendants Saska Cvetkovska and the non-profit organization Investigative Reporting Lab – Macedonia (IRL). In its decision, the Court determined that part of the documentary Conspiracy Against the Air produced by IRL, which aired on 16 May 2021, was defamatory. The Court reasoned that the defendants made insufficient efforts to contact the plaintiff (former Vice Prime Minister for Economy) regarding the allegations presented in the documentary about possible acts of corruption. It also held that they could not seek protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as journalists, given that the Investigative Reporting Lab was registered as a civil society association and Saska Cvetkovska served as its editor-in-chief. The Court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff non-material damages for 60 denars (1 euro) and to publish the judgment in the daily newspaper Sloboden Pecat within 15 days after the decision was issued.

MAY 27: What is a SLAPP? Identifying the Tools, Tactics, and Trends. How can one tell a SLAPP from other lawsuits? Index on Censorship is launching the new Am I Facing a SLAPP? tool – a resource of support to anyone facing a legal battle with the potential goal of silencing them. Leading anti-SLAPP experts helped develop the tool using a robust methodology. At an upcoming webinar, Index on Censorship will present the resource and discuss the tactics and trends of SLAPPs with Amy Jacobsen, Legal Counsel at Greenpeace; Tracy, SLAPP Target; and Mark Stephens, Partner, Howard Kennedy, and Trustee, Index on Censorship (Chair). May 27, 2025. 7:00-8:30 AM ET / 12:00-1:30 PM BTS. Online. Register here.

● India: Interactive Online Database of Criminal Cases Against Journalists. The TrialWatch Initiative of The Clooney Foundation for Justice, the National Law University Delhi, and Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute have conducted a study of criminal cases targeting journalists between 2012 and 2022 across states in India. With more than 400 cases analyzed and documented in a 186-page report, the study has been launched as an interactive online database. What are the profiles of the journalists who underwent criminal prosecution? What were their charges? Which kind of reporting provoked the opening of proceedings against them? How did journalists experience the criminal justice system? How often were they arrested? The project answers those and more questions in graphs and charts complemented by journalists’ testimonies.

● IACHR: Special Rapporteurship Publishes Thematic Report on the Exile of Journalists in the Americas. The Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has published Exile of Journalists and Freedom of Expression, a thematic report on increasing numbers of regional journalists forced to flee their countries in 2019-2024. Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela stand out in the severity of causes for exile: weak institutions of protection, instrumentalization of the court system, and violence targeting reporters. “The exile of journalists is a form of censorship aimed at silencing critical voices and depriv[ing] societies of their right to be informed,” the Office of the Special Rapporteur underscores. “It constitutes a human rights violation that transcends individual harm […].” Relying on international human rights law and international refugee law, the report offers an international legal framework for protecting journalists in exile.

● Nigeria: Meta’s Users Face a Choice of Either No Rights or No Services. In a collective appeal to Meta, ARTICLE 19 and African digital rights organizations urge the company to stop crippling democratic accountability, comply with consumer and data protection laws, and ensure users’ rights in Nigeria. Last summer, Nigeria’s Federal Commission for Competition and Consumer Protection (FCCPC) issued a US$220 million fine to Meta for its multiple violations of competition and data protection rules; last month, the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal upheld the sanction; Meta responded by threatening to halt its services in the country. “Meta’s size and market dominance do not place it above the law,” the collective letter states, strongly supporting the FCCPC’s course of action. In an earlier-published analysis, ARTICLE 19 stressed the Commission’s decision recognized “the link between protecting fundamental rights, such as data protection, and safeguarding competition.”

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

When Lies Outpace Truth: How Disinformation Undermines AI During Conflict Events & National Crises, by Anees Qureshi and Maria Patel. This case study, released by Pakistan-based human rights organization Bytes for All and featured by IFEX this week, sheds light on AI’s alarming failures to distinguish facts from falsehoods at a critical time – an unfolding interstate conflict, a national crisis – when misinformation floods the Internet. During the recent Pakistan-India escalating tensions, the authors tested several AI models (ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and DeepSeek) with prompts of queries imitating user interactions: for instance, by asking “Did India capture Pakistani pilots?” The assessment of responses to made-up or satirical content showed that AI systems “can be overwhelmed or manipulated during these high-risk events, resulting in biased or incorrect fact-checking outcomes.”

Platforms on the Hook? EU and Human Rights Requirements for Human Involvement in Content Moderation, by Emmanuel Vargas Penagos. In this article published in ​​Cambridge Forum on AI: Law and Governance (2025), Emmanuel Vargas Penagos, Co-Founder of El Veinte, a freedom of expression organization based in Colombia, analyzes EU’s legal requirements for human involvement in automation (and content moderation specifically) through the human rights lens. The article explores justifications for human involvement in the moderation of online content, different types of such involvement, and requirements for it as outlined in EU’s relevant legislation and case law at the Court of Justice of the EU.

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