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.
Can we measure freedom of expression by the freedom to criticize? If one is free to speak truth to power, does that mean one truly enjoys full freedom to speak?
In his recent op-ed, Eduardo Bertoni, former Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, explains: freedom of expression goes beyond the freedom to criticize and requires an environment that facilitates criticism – without chilling speech. Bertoni warns, “[W]hen fear of retaliation for critical speech becomes entrenched and prolonged, it leads to self-censorship.”
In Argentina today, freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, and the press are at stake. And threats of direct or indirect retribution for expression grow.
Last week, Mapuche Indigenous communities peacefully protested in front of a local government building in Neuquén, Patagonia. They demanded that the authorities grant them legal personhood, a right guaranteed by the Argentine Constitution and international human rights treaties. Without this recognition, the Indigenous communities are excluded from mapping decisions and denied any say on projects that affect their lands in Vaca Muerta, where oil and gas companies operate.
On July 20, the police dispersed the Mapuche protest violently, arresting over 20 people, including children, the elderly, journalists, and members of the Provincial Committee against Torture. Several protesters were injured. One of them, a 13-year-old boy, suffered a fractured rib after being kicked and hit with a shotgun by the police.
The government of Neuquén exerts pressure on local reporters, threatening to cut official advertising if the media cover Mapuche-related news. In a statement, the Mapuche Confederation of Neuquén has denounced this media blackout, which further isolates the communities and obstructs public scrutiny of state violence.
We at CGFoE express our solidarity with the Mapuche communities and all those affected by state repression. As affirmed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Paillama v. Chile, a case on violations of the rights of Mapuche communities in Chile, peaceful protest and cultural expression – particularly when connected to historical claims – are protected forms of collective expression.
In his op-ed, Eduardo Bertoni stresses, “An appropriate environment for [the exercise of freedom of expression] is one in which both the institutional architecture and the attitude of those in power play a fundamental role, enabling criticism and guaranteeing the absence of fear of arbitrary reprisals.”
We call on the government of Neuquén to guarantee the rights to peaceful assembly, expression, and freedom of the press – in the absence of arbitrary reprisals.
Photo credit: Mapuche Confederation of Neuquén
Oversight Board Symbols Adopted by Dangerous Organizations
Decision Date: June 12, 2025
The Oversight Board upheld Meta’s decisions to remove two posts on the grounds that they both constituted glorification of white nationalist and supremacist ideologies in violation of the Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy. The first post showed a woman with “Slavic Army” text and a Kolovrat symbol over her face covering, with a caption expressing Slavic pride and urging their “people to wake up.” The second depicted a woman wearing Nazi-associated jewelry (iron cross with swastika) and a T-shirt showing an AK-47 and “Defend Europe,” captioned with an Odal rune. The Board also agreed with Meta to leave up a third post, featuring a quotation and artwork involving the Odal rune, since it did not violate the policy due to its neutral context and lack of references to hateful ideologies. While a minority of Board members disagreed with the removal of the Kolovrat post, the majority found it necessary and proportionate to prevent harm. The Board also expressed concerns about overenforcement and lack of transparency in Meta’s policies and enforcement practices, and issued four recommendations to improve clarity, accuracy, and public accountability, including publishing clearer definitions, reviewing symbol classifications, developing safeguards against false positives, and enhancing user transparency.
Oversight Board Posts Displaying South Africa’s Apartheid-Era Flag
Decision Date: April 23, 2025
Meta’s Oversight Board issued a summary decision upholding Meta’s decision to leave up two Facebook posts featuring images of South Africa’s 1928–1994 flag. Meta’s human reviewers had determined the content did not violate the Community Standards, and two users then appealed to the Oversight Board. The majority of the Board found that while the posts conveyed a racially insensitive message, they did not meet the threshold for violating the Hateful Conduct policy, as they did not clearly advocate for racial exclusion, segregation, or incite violence or discrimination. A minority of the Board disagreed, arguing that the use of the apartheid-era flag constitutes a direct and unambiguous symbol of support for racial segregation. The Board was unanimous in finding that both posts violated the Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy, although it split on the reasoning: the majority viewed the posts as “unclear references” to white separatism, while the minority considered them to explicitly glorify that hateful ideology. However, the majority concluded that the likelihood of imminent discrimination or violence was low and that, in this case, the content should remain online. The Board also recommended that Meta clarify its policies by resolving conflicting language around references to hateful ideologies and by explicitly listing apartheid as a standalone hateful ideology under the Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy.
Oversight Board Case of Posts Supporting UK Riots
Decision Date: April 23, 2025
The Oversight Board overturned Meta’s original decisions to leave up three Facebook posts shared during the UK riots in the summer of 2024, following the murder of three girls in Southport. In the aftermath, widespread disinformation falsely claimed the perpetrator was a Muslim asylum seeker, fueling anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment that spilled into violent protests across the country. Although the posts were reported, Meta’s automated systems kept them on the platform. The Board found that each post posed a likely and imminent risk of harm, and that their removal was necessary and proportionate under international human rights standards, including the Rabat Plan of Action. While Meta eventually activated its Crisis Policy Protocol and designated the UK a High-Risk Location, the Board criticized the company’s delayed response and failure to promptly moderate harmful visual content, calling for clearer enforcement standards, particularly for image-based posts, and faster deployment of crisis interventions.
Oversight Board Cases of Criticism of EU Migration Policies and Immigrants
Decision Date: April 23, 2025
The majority of the Oversight Board found that two immigration-related posts shared on Facebook ahead of the June 2024 European Parliament elections violated Meta’s Hateful Conduct policy and should be removed. One post, published by a Polish political party, deliberately used a racial slur to provoke hostility against migrants; the other generalized immigrants as “gang rape specialists,” perpetuating dehumanizing stereotypes. Both posts were reported by users for hate speech. Meta initially found no policy violations and left the content online. Users then appealed to the Oversight Board. The majority found that, in this electoral context, removing the content was necessary and proportionate to protect the rights of affected groups. While the Board reaffirmed that freedom of expression is particularly vital in the context of political debate, it concluded that these posts shared during a period of rising anti-migrant sentiment posed a heightened risk of discrimination and harm. A minority of the Board disagreed, finding that while the posts were offensive, they did not meet the threshold for removal under international human rights standards, and that restricting them risked undermining legitimate political discourse. The Board recommended that Meta add the term murzyn to its Polish slur list, revise its internal guidance to presume generalizations about immigrants are harmful unless clearly limited, improve transparency in content moderation, and conduct and publicly report on human rights due diligence regarding its updated Hateful Conduct policy, particularly its impact on migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers.
For our Spanish-speaking readers:
UBA on CGFoE Class: Hate speech, Discriminatory Expression, and Freedom of Expression in International Human Rights Law. The University of Buenos Aires (UBA) Law School published an article about the joint CGFoE-UBA class on hate speech, taught by the CGFoE Team last month. Led by Lautaro Furfaro, Adjunct Professor at UBA and CGFoE’s Senior Legal Researcher, the class began with a conceptual introduction by Dr. Hawley Johnson, Associate Director of CGFoE, on freedom of expression as a founding right for democracy. The team’s other presentations covered the relevant developments within the African Human Rights System, the European System, Meta’s Oversight Board, and, with a focus on discriminatory speech against women journalists, the Inter-American System.
● JUL 28: Satire on Trial – The Case of LeMan and the Shrinking Space for Media in Türkiye. The Media Freedom Rapid Response will host a conversation about the escalating judicial, economic, and physical crackdown on Türkiye’s satirical magazine LeMan. The speakers – among them Terry Anderson, Executive Director at Cartoonists Rights Network International, and Zehra Ömeroğlu, Cartoonist and Former Contributor to Leman – will also discuss the country’s broader suppression of artistic expression and freedom of the press. Online. July 28, 2025. 11:00 AM CET. Register here.
● OCT 3-4: Global Free Speech Summit 2025. Organized by The Future of Free Speech (FFS) and Vanderbilt University, the second annual Global Free Speech Summit – an event on the global challenges to freedom of expression and solutions to tackle them – will take place in Nashville, TN, on October 3-4, 2025. The star list of speakers and panelists includes Jacob Mchangama, FFS’s Founder and Executive Director, Greg Lukianoff, CEO of FIRE, and Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of the Committee to Protect Journalists. The event is invite-only. Apply for your participation here.
● Egypt: CGFoE Joins Statement Calling for Ashraf Omar’s Release. In a joint statement, CGFoE and twenty-two other signatories mark one year since the unlawful arrest of Egyptian cartoonist Ashraf Omar and urge the Egyptian authorities to release him from detention immediately. Omar’s case is marred with egregious violations of his rights, including through physical violence. Charged with “joining a terrorist group,” “disseminating false information,” and “abusing social media,” Omar has spent this past year in the procedural limbo of “pre-trial detention.” With a clear goal of intimidation, the authorities also arrested his wife, Nada Mougheeth, on charges of “spreading false rumours” and “supporting terrorism,” later releasing her on bail. “Freedom of expression is suffering an assault on a mass scale, all over the world,” the organizations emphasize. “Ashraf Omar personifies the struggle.”
● ECtHR: Humor and the Meaning of “Context,” by Alberto Godioli and Jennifer Young. Featured by Strasbourg Observers, this position paper surveys humor-related jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) based on the toolkit What’s in a Joke? Assessing Humor in Free Speech Jurisprudence, published by the Forum for Humor and the Law (ForHum) and CGFoE this spring. Turning to ForHum’s database for this paper, toolkit co-authors Alberto Godioli and Jennifer Young, both of the University of Groningen, analyze relevant ECtHR rulings in four groups of most common justifications for restriction: “namely reputation, public morals, prevention of disorder, and rights of others (with special regard to advocacy of hatred and incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence).” The paper’s second part unpacks the role of context through an interdisciplinary lens.
● Russia: Proposed Amendments to Counter-Extremism Laws Escalate Assault on Dissent. In separate statements, Amnesty International and the Committee to Protect Journalists are sounding the alarm as Russia’s parliament considers new legislative amendments. One draft law allows for the labeling of any group as “extremist” without a court order if a single member has an “extremism” related conviction. Another proposal introduces fines for “searching for or accessing knowingly extremist materials.” (Russian officials list more than 5,400 such banned materials.) “Punishing people for seeking information online is a direct barrier to the free flow of information and an assault on access to independent news,” said Anna Brakha, Europe and Central Asia Senior Researcher at CPJ. A representative from a digital rights group told CPJ that the law would bring “the most massive example of chilling effect” to Russia’s digital space.
This section of the newsletter features teaching materials focused on global freedom of expression which are newly uploaded on Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers
An Assessment of Bangladesh’s Media Landscape: Free, Independent, and Pluralistic Media, by Joan Barata Mir and S M Shameem Reza. This study, a collaboration between UNESCO and the UN Development Programme, responds to the increasing calls for reforms of the media sector in Bangladesh, voiced in the wake and aftermath of last summer’s mass uprising. Based on the research conducted between July and December 2024, the lead experts – Dr. Joan Barata Mir of The Future of Free Speech, Vanderbilt University, and Dr. S M Shameem Reza of the Department of Mass Communication and Journalism, University of Dhaka – evaluate the legal, political, institutional, and financial challenges that Bangladesh’s media landscape is facing. These findings inform the report’s key recommendations, grounded in international human rights standards, for legal and institutional reforms.
● Open Vacancy: Head of Editorial, Digital & Content at OSB. The Oversight Board is seeking a senior editorial and communications specialist to become the Head of Editorial, Digital, and Content. Location: London (or hybrid). Apply here by July 21.
● AI Slop and the Battle for Truth — Why Platform Dominance Threatens Quality Information, by Anya Schiffrin. In an op-ed for Daily Maverick, adopted from a recent public talk, Anya Schiffrin, Director of the Technology, Media, and Communications specialization at Columbia School of International and Public Affairs, discusses the present-day’s dire need for quality information and platforms’ resistance that stands in its way. “The good news is we have the tools,” Schiffrin argues. Watch her deliver the talk at Internet Governance Forum 2025 in Norway this past June.
For our India-based readers:
● India: A Survey on User Awareness and Experience of Content Moderation on Meta Platforms. The Centre for Advanced Studies in Cyber Law and Artificial Intelligence at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, invites you to take a short survey about user engagement with Meta’s content moderation mechanisms – reporting tools on Meta-owned platforms and the Oversight Board in particular.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.
Leave a Reply