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.

In downtown Los Angeles this week, near the Museum of Contemporary Art, protesters held banners denouncing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as officers in anti-riot gear stood by. Behind them, a giant mural, Barbara Kruger’s artwork, posed questions. The white letters on the vibrant red background asked, “Who is beyond the law?”

That is a potent visual of today’s America. President Trump has ordered the deployment of almost five thousand troops – the National Guard and active-duty Marines – to LA, the epicenter of rallies against the crackdown on immigrants since last Friday. By now, protests have spread from coast to coast, resulting in hundreds of arrests. Meanwhile, federal agents are doubling down on scouring workplaces – a farm field, a meatpacking plant, a car wash – for migrants to deport, causing panic.

On Monday, California filed a lawsuit against the President, asserting that the deployment of troops to LA, a move that bypassed Governor Gavin Newsom, is unconstitutional. “At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection,” the complaint stated, arguing that most protesters exercised their rights under the First Amendment peacefully. On Tuesday, a federal judge rejected Newsom’s request for an emergency injunction to block the deployment of the military.

Press freedom groups have condemned the multiple assaults on journalists during the protests: Among them, an Australian reporter was shot with a rubber bullet while on air, and a British photojournalist underwent surgery after a plastic bullet hit his leg. The Knight First Amendment Institute issued a statement on Monday, “Law enforcement’s most important job at a protest is to protect First Amendment rights.”

A joint letter led by the First Amendment Coalition, Freedom of the Press Foundation, and Los Angeles Press Club, signed by 26 organizations, sounds an alarm over federal officers’ violations of press rights. PEN America, a signatory, stresses, “The National Guard is not trained to serve the function of a domestic law enforcement agency and […] does not have protocols in place to ensure that reporters can perform their jobs in accordance with press freedom protections.”

Turning to international and regional standards on press freedom during protests, we bring Silveira v. São Paulo State Treasury Office to your attention. In this decision – nominated for the 2024 CGFoE Prizes – the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil held that the State was liable for injuries to journalists caused by the police during protests. Justice Luís Roberto Barroso foregrounded the role of reporters at rallies:

“When a journalist covers an event, documents a demonstration, even if it eventually degenerates into turmoil, more than exercising their own right, they are exercising a right of the community, in fact, a right of each of us, which is the right to be adequately informed about what is happening.”

 

In another collaboration, CGFoE and the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) Law School will teach an online class, “Hate Speech, Discriminatory Expressions, and Freedom of Expression in International Human Rights Law: Tensions, Standards, and Possible Responses,” on June 17, 2025, at 4:00 PM New York / 5:00 PM Buenos Aires.

The session is part of UBA’s Diploma in Equality and Non-Discrimination and will be taught by Lautaro Furfaro, Adjunct Professor at UBA and Senior Legal Researcher at CGFoE, Dr. Hawley M. Johnson, CGFoE’s Associate Director, Estefanía Mullally, Program Coordinator at CGFoE and Academic Coordinator at UBA, Anderson Javiel Dirocie De León, Senior Legal and Policy Consultant at CGFoE, and Juan Manuel Ospina, Senior Legal Editor at CGFoE.

The class will be in Spanish and is open to the public with prior registration.
During the Q&A session, priority will be given to the diploma students. Learn more here.

Court of Justice of the European Union
Stevi and The New York Times v. Commission
Decision Date: May 14, 2025
The General Court of the EU annulled the EU Commission’s refusal to grant access to text messages exchanged between its President and the CEO of Pfizer during early COVID-19 vaccine negotiations. The case, commonly known as “Pfizergate,” arose after New York Times journalist Stefania Stevi, invoking EU transparency laws, challenged the Commission’s refusal to grant her access to undisclosed communications between the Commission President and Pfizer CEO regarding a €35 billion vaccine deal. This followed allegations of insufficient transparency in the EU’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement. The Court ruled that the right to access EU institution documents extends beyond formal records to include informal communications, such as text messages, if they relate to institutional activities or decision-making. The Court reaffirmed that transparency is a foundational principle of EU law and that access to documents is essential to ensure public accountability, especially in high-stakes matters such as vaccine procurement. The Court also held that institutions cannot avoid scrutiny by failing to register or retain relevant communications. The judgment underscored the obligation of EU bodies to adapt their transparency practices to modern communication tools.

Kenya
Tekle Fisseha Mengistu and Katiba Institute v. Global Witness and Kenya Human Rights Commission
Decision Date: April 3, 2025
The High Court of Kenya ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear a petition against Meta Platforms, Inc., the parent company of Facebook, and certified the case for hearing by a multi-judge panel. The petition concerned Meta’s alleged failure to regulate harmful content on its platform. It arose from claims that Meta’s content moderation practices and algorithms facilitated the spread of inciteful, hateful, and dangerous content, resulting in serious harm in Kenya and other African countries. The Court rejected Meta’s application to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the alleged violations of constitutional rights fell within its authority under Article 165(3)(b). It further found that the case involved disputed facts about the company’s operations in Kenya, which required examination at trial. The Court concluded that the issues raised involved fundamental constitutional rights and could not be resolved without a full hearing. It also noted that the petition raised novel and complex legal questions concerning digital rights, corporate responsibility, and the cross-border effects of online expression.

European Court of Human Rights
Bakradze v. Georgia
Decision Date: November 7, 2024
The European Court of Human Rights Court found a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) regarding claims of discrimination brought by a former judge, Ms. Maia Bakradze. Bakradze, who was also president of the Unity of Judges of Georgia (a professional association advocating for judicial independence and transparency) argued that her exclusion from two judicial reappointment competitions was not based on her professional qualifications but was instead motivated by her leadership in the NGO and her public criticism of the High Council of Justice (HCJ). The Court found that the interviews conducted by the HCJ focused disproportionately on her role in the NGO and her views on judicial reform, rather than her competence as a judge. It held that this treatment constituted discriminatory interference with her rights to freedom of expression and association.

Slovenia
Pirjevec v. Turk
Decision Date: March 18, 2021
The Constitutional Court of Slovenia ruled that while the right to freedom of expression protects critical and caustic statements, there is nevertheless a limit to the expression of crude value judgments. Dr. Jože Pirjevec, a historian of Yugoslavian history filed a private criminal prosecution against Dr. Boštjan Marko Turk, a professor of French literature and a conservative commentator, whom he claimed insulted him in a news article. Pirjevec’s birth name was Giuseppe Pierazzi, a legacy of Italian Fascist policies, which he changed to a Slovenian variant as an adult. Turk alleged in his article that Pirjevec’s use of his Italian birth name in early professional writing validated fascist denationalization policies. The Ljubljana District Court found Turk guilty, and the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed his appeal upholding the first-instance court’s ruling. On February 18, 2016, the Supreme Court acquitted Turk of the alleged criminal offense. The Constitutional Court reversed the Supreme Court’s ruling arguing that in cases where the speaker is not concerned with influencing debate on matters of public interest, but solely with insulting, shaming, or ridiculing someone, such speech may be unlawful.

● JUNE 17: Reversing the Backslide in the Rule of Law and LGBTQI+ Rights. The International Bar Association’s LGBTQI+ Law Committee and European Regional Forum will host a webinar on strategies to reverse the current rule of law crisis, focusing on the protection of LGBTQI+ rights. The speakers – D’Arcy Kemnitz of the National LGBT Bar Association, Washington, District of Columbia, US, and Krzysztof Śmiszek, MEP, Wrocław, Poland – will offer a transatlantic angle to the discussion covering the US and Europe: they will cover President Trump’s curtailing of LGBTQI+ rights through executive orders and the latest legislative and judicial developments in Europe. Online. June 17, 2025. 10:00-11:00 AM New York Time / 3:00-4:00 PM London Time. Participants will receive a certificate of attendance. Learn more here.

● JUNE 30: The (Mis)Use of Data Protection Laws to Suppress Public Interest Journalism. Media Defence and the International Press Institute are co-organizing an upcoming webinar on data protection laws and the silencing investigative reporters. How come the laws initially designed to ensure the right to privacy have become a popular tool for targeting public interest journalists? Legal experts and reporters will unpack this question and others, as well as the various tactics, ranging from content takedown orders to SLAPPs. Online. June 30, 2025. 8:00-9:15 AM New York Time / 2:00-3:15 PM Central European Time. Register here (spots are limited) and receive the names of the panelists as soon as they are confirmed.

● US: Preventing Use of National Guard to Evade Posse Comitatus Act, by Elizabeth Goitein. Published by the Center for a New American Security – and before President Trump federalized California’s National Guard last weekend – the article focuses on a matter of extreme urgency these days: What are the loopholes of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), a federal law that restricts the use of armed forces on the US soil? Elizabeth Goitein, Senior Director of the Liberty & National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, argues that preventing the president from using the military to suppress protests is one of the clearest concerns of the PCA. “[T]here is a risk that a president could interpret Section 502(f) to authorize the deployment of a state’s National Guard forces into another state without the receiving state’s consent,” Goitein writes. “Such a deployment would not only be unconstitutional […]; it would gravely undermine the PCA.”

● Georgia: Georgian Dream to Sue Critics Over “Insults” on Social Media. Civil Georgia reports that the country’s ruling party, the Georgian Dream, announced it filed a complaint with the Interior Ministry against its critics over alleged “insults” targeting the party members “in public,” including on social media. At a briefing last Friday, Member of Parliament Irakli Kirtskhalia said the complaint responded to an “externally funded hate speech campaign.” Kirtskhalia cited the recent amendments – swiftly passed in February – that made public “insults” of the authorities an administrative offense. The European Commission for Democracy through Law issued an Urgent Opinion in March, calling for a review of the amendments. “The new rules […] contain a number of vague and broadly framed provisions, granting the authorities excessively broad discretion in their application,” the Opinion stated. “The lack of clarity in the legal framework increases the risk of abuse.”

● US: Fourth Circuit Revives Challenge to Policy Silencing Immigration Judges. In a press release, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University said that the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reinstated a legal challenge against the Department of Justice policy restricting the speech of immigration judges. The Knight Institute filed the lawsuit on behalf of the National Association of Immigration Judges on grounds that the policy violated the First Amendment in 2020; a district court dropped the case in 2023, arguing that the challenge should have gone through the US Special Counsel. Last week, however, according to the Knight Institute, the Fourth Circuit “expressed concern that the Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board […] may no longer have the independence necessary to safeguard the rights of federal employees.”

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

Going Global: China’s Transnational Repression of Protesters Worldwide. As part of ARTICLE 19’s global #FreeToProtest campaign advancing the right to protest principles, this new report documents China’s systematic targeting of its critics through transnational repression. The most prolific perpetrator of such repression globally, China has resorted to harassment, violence, abduction, forced repatriation, surveillance, censorship, and retaliation against family members in China, among others, to silence protesters abroad. Building on research and almost thirty interviews with the diaspora from China, “including ethnic Han Chinese, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Kazakhs, and Mongolians, as well as Hong Kongers,” the report records incidents that took place in 2011-24 across Asia, Europe, and North America and offers recommendations to the Chinese authorities, host states, and tech companies.

● OSB: Why Freedom of Expression Must Be the Centerpiece of Systemic Risk Assessments. In this recently published white paper, the Oversight Board argues that human rights – and freedom of expression in particular – must be at the heart of systemic risk assessments. The paper forwards four focus areas that could strengthen platform accountability and improve content governance and insists on “a consistent and effective rights-based approach.”

● Call for papers – Confronting Technofeudalism and Digital Authoritarianism: Challenges and Solutions for the 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 “Future of online content moderation as a tool of repression” and “The global rise of digital authoritarianism.” The deadline for abstracts is June 17. Learn more here.

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