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.

It takes a village – often a global one – to stand up for the right to speak. Scores of activists, lawyers, journalists, scholars, and artists help advance freedom of expression daily. In our new interview series, Portraits of FoE (Freedom of Expression) Defenders, CGFoE sets to amplify their voices every month.

We open the series with Serbia-based media lawyer Nevena Krivokapić Martinović, who is the Freedom of Expression and Online Media Coordinator at the SHARE Foundation and Moot Coordinator of the Monroe E. Price Media Law Moot Court (Price Moot), the world’s largest competition in media law, at the University of Oxford.

Marija Šajkaš, CGFoE’s Senior Communications Manager, speaks to Nevena about the Price Moot Court, its long-term partnership with CGFoE, and the state of digital rights in Serbia. Below is an excerpt. You can find the full interview on our website.

Nevena Krivokapić Martinović is a Serbia-based media lawyer focusing on human rights in the digital environment. Photo: courtesy of Nevena Krivokapić Martinović

Marija Šajkaš: Price Moot is uniquely focused on freedom of expression, media law, and digital rights. Many participants rely on CGFoE’s Case Law Database when preparing arguments. How important are resources like CGFoE for teams and coaches during the competition?

Nevena Krivokapić Martinović: Invaluable. The CGFoE Case Law Database gives teams access to a wide range of judgments from multiple jurisdictions, helping them build arguments grounded in real jurisprudence. It also supports coaches in guiding students through complex legal principles. For many teams – particularly those from under-resourced institutions – this access levels the playing field and enhances the quality of their advocacy.

In what way has CGFoE supported the Moot Court over the years?

CGFoE has been a long-term partner to the Moot. Beyond offering research resources, they’ve provided judges, supported our Regional Rounds, and conducted projects that involved many students and coaches. CGFoE’s commitment to fostering free expression through education and dialogue has made a lasting impact on the competition and its community.

The partnership goes both ways. Many Price Moot alumni are now CGFoE legal researchers and experts. What are your hopes for future collaboration between Price Moot and CGFoE?

I hope this relationship will continue to deepen and expand. The natural overlap between the Moot’s mission and CGFoE’s work offers countless possibilities – from co-developing educational resources to organizing alumni-led workshops and expanding global access to jurisprudence. Together, we can ensure that Price Moot not only trains excellent advocates but also continues to build a global movement for the protection of freedom of expression.

India
Allahabadia v. Union of India
Decision Date: February 18, 2025
The Supreme Court of India granted a stay order on the criminal proceedings against the Indian YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, who is facing multiple First Information Reports (FIR) after a controversial episode aired on a private channel on February 8, 2025. While serving as a judge on India’s Got Latent show, Allahbadia took part in a conversation that involved sexually explicit remarks. Clips from the exchange surfaced beyond the member-only channel resulting in public outrage and legal complaints. Allahbadia petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking to quash or consolidate the FIRs, a stay on investigations, protection from arrest, and lifelong security. The Court granted the stay on several conditions, one of them that Allahbadia does not upload videos to YouTube until further notice. The Court further indicated the need for effective regulatory measures that balance societal morality with the constitutional right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights
CAJAR v. Colombia
Decision Date: October 18, 2023
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) declared Colombia internationally responsible for human rights violations, including the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, committed against members of the Corporación Colectivo de Abogados “José Alvear Restrepo” (hereinafter “CAJAR”), a non-governmental organization dedicated to the defense of human rights in Colombia. Over several decades, CAJAR members and their family faced arbitrary intelligence operations, harassment, defamation, and threats, including some acts involving direct state participation. These actions formed part of a broader pattern of persecution against human rights defenders in Colombia, which severely disrupted CAJAR’s work. The IACtHR held that Colombia carried out arbitrary intelligence activities against different members of CAJAR since the 1990s, at least until 2005. The Court established that the victims had been subjected to violence, intimidation, harassment, and threats – some of which involved the direct participation of State agents. It also noted that CAJAR members were subjected to disparaging and stigmatizing statements by high-ranking public officials and government offices, linking them to illegal guerrilla groups. The IACtHR further considered for the first time the right to informational self-determination as an autonomous human right, as protected by articles 11 and 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), and determined that Columbia violated this right by denying access to publicly held information. The Court also recognized for the first time the right to defend human rights as an autonomous right, and concluded that Colombia violated the right to defend human rights because it violated articles 4.1 (Right to Life), 5.1 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8.1 (Right to a Fair Trial), 13.1 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), 16.1 (Freedom of Association) and 25.1 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the ACHR.

CGFoE thanks Ezequiel Curcio and Solcire Prevignano of the University of Buenos Aires Law School for their contribution to the case analysis. The support they offered during the initial drafting phase proved essential.

United States
Freeman v. Giuliani
Decision Date: August 30, 2023
A US District Court entered a default judgment against Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s former attorney, holding him liable for defaming election workers during the 2020 election. Giuliani had accused the election workers of election fraud, claims which were widely disseminated on social media, news networks, and even on his podcast. Despite Georgia election officials publicly debunking the claims with a detailed explanation, the election workers experienced sustained racist abuse, threats, and harassment. The Court held that Giuliani had not complied with his discovery obligations as he had failed to preserve and provide the workers with the relevant requested documents. The Court further noted that he had acted in bad faith throughout the proceedings, producing only “blobs of indecipherable data” and engaging in what the Court described as “only lip service” to the judicial process.

JULY 15: Presentation of the Report – Psychological First Aid Manual. At this upcoming webinar, Movimiento Vinotinto, an NGO monitoring human rights violations in Venezuela, will launch its new report on the psychological impact of Venezuela’s most recent suppression of dissent. Within the context of the so-called “Operation Tun Tun,” the study focuses on the most vulnerable groups: human rights defenders, journalists, community leaders, and others. Speakers Manuel Virguez, Director of Movimiento Vinotinto, and Magjell Andrade, Researcher at Movimiento Vinotinto, will present their findings and psychological first aid tools. The webinar will be in Spanish and English. July 15, 2025. 10:00 AM ET. Online. Register here.

● China: Government Impunity for Crackdown on Lawyers Fuels Decade of Repression. More than 30 human rights organizations, Amnesty International among them, signed a joint statement calling on the international community – concerned governments and the UN – to open an independent investigation into China’s persecution of human rights defenders. This month marks ten years since the “709” events: On July 9, 2015, the Chinese police targeted 300 lawyers and activists whose work exposed and challenged the rule of law violations. What followed included forced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, lengthy prison sentences on spurious charges, and collective punishment of family members. The statement emphasizes that none of the officials were held accountable at the time, which led to a decade of intensified repression and possible crimes against humanity in Xinjiang.

● Serbia: Authorities Should Refrain from Excessive Use of Force and Arbitrary Arrests. Amid the crackdown on student-led anti-government protests in Serbia, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Michael O’Flaherty calls on the authorities to abstain from the use of force and arbitrary detentions and guarantee freedoms of assembly and expression as they are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. “Peaceful demonstrations are legitimate tools for civil society to show discontent, including with the political situation, and should be protected,” the Commissioner said in a statement. The JURIST reports on the recent escalation: The Serbian police have been resorting to excessive force, severely injuring some and arresting dozens; on July 3 alone, 79 demonstrators were detained in Belgrade.

● US: Major Lawsuit Challenging Attempted Deportation of Student Protesters Goes to Trial. With more than sixty lawsuits pending to challenge President Trump’s attacks on freedom of speech and the press, one goes to trial this week. In the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge William G. Young presides over American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute in March with a central claim that the US government’s “ideological-deportation policy” targeting pro-Palestine voices among students and faculty is unconstitutional. According to Knight’s daily updates, the court has heard testimony from noncitizen witnesses and a senior immigration enforcement official, whose agency created a team, referred to as the “Tiger Team,” to investigate 5,000 names of student protesters listed by Canary Mission, a group doxxing critics of Israel.

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

● The Safety of Journalists: UN Human Rights Council Resolution. At its 59th session this week, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a new resolution on the safety of journalists by consensus. The resolution, endorsed by ARTICLE 19, contains new language and more robust commitments. For instance, on strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, the resolution now urges states to take a range of measures to prevent the abusive practice by adopting an early dismissal mechanism, introducing legal support along with remedies for victims, imposing penalties against those who initiate SLAPPs, ending so-called “forum-shopping,” and training judicial professionals in identifying and dealing with such cases. Other new and strong additions concern surveillance, armed conflict and occupation, transnational repression, and social media platforms.

● Inter-American Legal Framework on the Right to Freedom of Expression: Updated Edition. The Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights released a new edition of the Inter-American Legal Framework on the Right to Freedom of Expression. Consolidating freedom of expression standards established by the bodies of the Inter-American system, this 139-page document builds on the earlier version, published in 2009 by the Office of Special Rapporteur Catalina Botero, CGFoE’s former consulting director. The updated version recognizes new categories of specially protected expression, like “speech on environmental issues and speech denouncing gender violence,” reflects the evolution of case law “on the incompatibility of criminal legislation to protect the honor of public officials over critical comments,” and adds strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) to categories of analysis, among many other additions. For now, the document is available in Spanish only.

● OSB Call for Public Comments: Moderation Impact in the Horn of Africa to Be Assessed in Somaliland Cases. Meta’s Oversight Board (OSB) announced new cases for consideration: Within the context of posts reporting on Somaliland current affairs, OSB will assess Meta’s content moderation impact on media freedom in the Horn of Africa. The Board invites public contributions to the case by midnight Pacific Standard Time on July 15. Learn more here.

In case you missed it…

● Media Defense Webinar: (Mis)Use of Data Protection Laws to Suppress Public Interest Journalism. Last week, Media Defence and the International Press Institute held a webinar on the increasing abuse of data protection to silence investigative journalists. Legal experts and reporters discussed the various tactics, ranging from content takedown orders to SLAPPs, and cases from Serbia and Türkiye. The recording is available on YouTube.

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