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.

For global freedom of expression, this August marks two grave anniversaries. Five years ago in Belarus, following a sham election and mass protests, dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenka unleashed a ruthless crackdown on dissent: more than 100,000 cases of repression have been documented since 2020, with “anti-extremism” laws as the state’s principal tools; inside the country, no independent media can operate today.

Four years ago in Afghanistan, the Taliban returned to power and dismantled the country’s legal framework in its entirety. Women and girls are being erased from public life. The Taliban effectively controls the media sector; a woman reporter recently spoke to the Committee to Protect Journalists about being interrogated: “They said that if I were found working with exiled media, it would be wajib al-qatl [permissible to kill me].”

Being among the world’s most dangerous countries for expression, Afghanistan and Belarus subject their citizens to egregious censorship. Yet globally, silencing is far from always this explicit. Its indirect forms can act as powerful deterrents – think of lawfare, disproportionate penalties, or threats by officials – and chill speech.

This week, we introduce you to the Factsheet on the Chilling Effect, designed to complement CGFoE’s forthcoming book chapter Global Standards on the Chilling Effect: A Comparative Analysis of Case Law from the African, European, and Inter-American Human Rights Systems. Prepared by Anderson J. Dirocie De León, Senior Legal and Policy Consultant; Juan Manuel Ospina Sánchez, Senior Legal Editor; and Lautaro Furfaro, Senior Legal Researcher, the Factsheet highlights how regional human rights courts have addressed the “chilling effect” – mechanisms that undermine freedom of expression by creating fear and uncertainty and leading to self-censorship.

As the Factsheet shows, protesters and journalists are frequent targets of the chilling effect. With demonstrations – and reporters’ coverage of them – facing more and more oppression around the world from Malaysia to Georgia to Cuba, it is urgent to examine how arrests and physical assaults during protests inhibit the exercise of freedom of expression. The recent news, summarized below, illustrates that urgency.

In Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, featured in the Factsheet, the ECtHR found that “the pre-trial detention of anyone expressing critical views produces a range of adverse effects, both for the detainees themselves and for society as a whole,” since imposing a measure involving deprivation of liberty “will inevitably have a chilling effect on freedom of expression by intimidating civil society and silencing dissenting voices.”

At a protest, arrests of hundreds, injuries of dozens, and criminal prosecution of at least one (likely a journalist) have the power to mute thousands, if not millions, of critical voices. Today, many of those in power rely on this math.

Chilling Effect imagined by ChatGPT

Oversight Board Cases of Images of Partially Nude Indigenous Women
Decision Date: June 3, 2025
The Oversight Board overturned Meta’s decisions in three out of four cases involving images of bare-chested Indigenous women (posted on Instagram and Facebook), finding that the company’s enforcement of its Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity Policy disproportionately restricted freedom of expression. Two Instagram posts featuring Himba women in Namibia were taken down after automated and human reviews upheld the removals. In contrast, a post by a Brazilian political party showing Yanomami women was restored under the newsworthiness allowance, and a German newspaper’s Facebook post of a Karo woman was allowed under a “spirit of the policy” exception. Of the four cases, Meta referred two to the Board after deciding to keep the content online despite finding it violated the company’s policy on nudity, while the remaining two arose from users’ appeals against content removals. The Board held that Meta failed to account for the cultural significance of non-sexual nudity in Indigenous traditions, particularly among the Himba and Yanomami peoples, and that the removal of such content was neither necessary nor proportionate under Article 19 of the ICCPR. While it upheld Meta’s decision to retain a post under the newsworthiness allowance, it considered that default removals and opaque internal exceptions failed to provide sufficient protection for Indigenous users’ rights to cultural expression and self-representation. The Board recommended that Meta publicly include a clear exception to allow depictions of bare-chested Indigenous women in contexts where such nudity reflects socially accepted customs and beliefs, does not misrepresent the individuals or communities depicted, and poses no safety risks.

Oversight Board Case of Content Targeting Human Rights Defender in Peru
Decision Date: May 27, 2025
The Oversight Board (OSB) overturned Meta’s decision to leave up a Facebook post containing a likely AI-manipulated image of a prominent Peruvian human rights defender, altered to show blood dripping from her face alongside a caption accusing NGOs of inciting violence and financial wrongdoing. Posted during anti-government protests by a member of La Resistencia – a group known for intimidating civil society actors – Meta considered the content did not constitute a “veiled threat” under Meta’s Violence and Incitement Policy and decided to keep it online. A Facebook user appealed the company’s decision before the Board. The OSB determined that both the image and caption, when taken in context, posed a credible risk of offline harm and that no action short of removal would sufficiently protect the targeted individual. Referring to Meta’s failure to recognize the threat and expressing concerns about underenforcement of veiled threats, the OSB recommended clarifying the Violence and Incitement Policy to cover coded threats across all forms of expression and conducting an annual accuracy assessment focusing on threats to human rights defenders and over-removal of political speech.

Oversight Board Case of Breast Cancer Awareness Content
Decision Date: May 25, 2025
The Oversight Board issued a summary decision overturning Meta’s removals of 15 posts shared on Instagram and Facebook during Breast Cancer Awareness Month that featured medical and health-related content, such as illustrations of symptoms, mastectomy scars, and nipple tattoos. Meta initially took down the 15 posts, and all 15 different users appealed against the removal. When the Oversight Board informed Meta about the appeal, the company reconsidered its initial decision and reinstated all the posts. While the Board welcomed Meta’s improvements in detecting breast cancer-related content, it found that enforcement errors continued to hinder users’ ability to raise awareness and access vital health information. The Board emphasized that such content is protected under Meta’s Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity Community Standard when shared for medical, educational, or awareness purposes. Acknowledging Meta’s correction of its initial errors, the Board reiterated the need for further improvements in enforcement accuracy. It encouraged the implementation of prior recommendations to strengthen Meta’s ability to identify and reverse mistakes.

Oversight Board Cases of Gender Identity Debate Videos
Decision Date: April 23, 2025
The Oversight Board upheld Meta’s decision to leave up two video posts referring to transgender individuals in derogatory terms under its Hateful Conduct and Bullying and Harassment policies. One Facebook post showed a transgender woman being confronted for using a women’s bathroom, while the other featured a video of a transgender girl winning a race, accompanied by a caption misgendering her. In both cases, Meta found no policy violations. A majority of the Board found the posts did not amount to direct attacks or incitement under applicable policies or international human rights standards. However, a minority disagreed, concluding that the posts met the threshold for removal due to the risk of discrimination and harm they posed, especially given the visibility of the content and its targeting of a minor. The Board issued policy recommendations to improve protections for LGBTQIA+ users and children, and called on Meta to conduct human rights due diligence on its recent policy changes to the Hateful Conduct Policy.

Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in), India’s leading digital rights organization, has received the Electronic Frontier Foundation Award 2025 for Defending Digital Freedoms. We extend our heartfelt congratulations to SFLC.in founder and CGFoE expert Mishi Choudhary and celebrate her work advancing online civil liberties. The Award Ceremony will take place on September 10, 2025, at the San Francisco Design Center Galleria. 

Mishi Choudhary, SFLC.in founder Photo source: mishichoudhary.com

● SEP 9: Book Discussion – Cambridge Handbook of Freedom of Thought. CGFoE will host a conversation about the recently released Cambridge Handbook of the Right to Freedom of Thought, edited by Patrick O’Callaghan, University College Cork, and Bethany Shiner, Middlesex University, London. The first publication of its kind, the book makes a groundbreaking contribution by mapping and critically analyzing the right to freedom of thought across national and regional legal frameworks. September 9, 2025. 11:00 AM-1:00 PM ET. Online. More details to follow.

● OCT 6: Book Launch – Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights. In collaboration with Davis Wright Tremaine, CGFoE co-organizes a discussion of a new book by Natalie Alkiviadou, Senior Research Fellow at the Future of Free Speech, Vanderbilt University. Speakers will include Robert Balin, Partner, Davis Wright Tremaine; Aryeh Neier, President Emeritus, Open Society Foundations; Richard Wilson, Professor of Anthropology, Princeton University; and Mishi Choudhary, Senior Vice-President and General Counsel, Virtru. October 6, 2025. Davis Wright Tremaine, 1251 6th Ave, 21st Floor, NYC. 4:00-5:30 PM ET. In person. Registration opens soon.

● Türkiye: War on Free Expression and Courage of Enes Hocaoğulları. The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association (ILGA) in Europe calls attention to the prosecution of 23-year-old Enes Hocaoğulları, a Turkish youth and LGBTQI+ rights defender. Arrested in Ankara in early August, upon his return from the Council of Europe, Hocaoğulları is accused of “spreading misleading information” and “inciting public hatred” based on the speech he delivered in Strasbourg, denouncing the Turkish authorities’ violent crackdown on protests. ILGA argues Hocaoğulları’s case fits the broader pattern of oppression in Türkiye: “the expansion of legal tools to punish dissent, the use of state bodies to remove LGBTI visibility, and the reliance on morality-based rhetoric to justify both.” Hocaoğulları is due to appear before the Ankara 86th Criminal Court of First Instance on September 8, 2025.

● US: Excessive Force Against LA Protesters. Human Rights Watch (HRW) presents evidence that US law enforcement agencies violated the public’s right to protest and the journalists’ right to report safely by using excessive force and “deliberate brutality” during Los Angeles protests, held in response to immigration raids, this past June. HRW observed the demonstrations, interviewed dozens of participants (including journalists), and analyzed lawsuits, media reports, the Los Angeles Press Club records, and photos and videos taken during protests. Based on that, HRW documented 65 instances where local, state, and federal law enforcement injured protesters, reporters, and observers: “Most were hit and injured by kinetic impact projectiles, including hard foam rounds, pepper balls, or the canisters delivering tear gas and flash-bang grenades.” HRW warns that the actual number of cases is most likely much higher.

● UK: Over 500 Demonstrators Arrested in One Day for Supporting Palestine Action. Index on Censorship reports that the UK police arrested 522 people “on suspicion of breaking terrorism laws” in a single day, August 10, at a protest in Parliament Square, London. The demostrators held posters saying, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action,” a statement deemed a criminal offense: the UK outlawed Palestine Action under anti-terrorism legislation. Citing UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk, Index on Censorship refers to the proscription of the group as an “impermissible restriction” on freedom of expression. “The power to proscribe an organisation is far-reaching, imposes significant limits on expression rights and should require a very high threshold to be met before it is exercised,” Jacob Rowbottom of the University of Oxford writes for Verfassungsblog, underscoring the chilling effect of the law.

● Serbia: Halt Crackdown on Student Movement, Uphold Human Rights and Academic Freedom, UN Experts Say. In light of Serbia’s escalating suppression of the largest protest movement in the country’s recent history, UN independent experts urge the authorities to guarantee the safety and rights of students, professors, civil society, and citizens. Since late June, the Serbian state has doubled down on the policing of peaceful demonstrations through arbitrary arrests, lengthy detentions, unlawful surveillance, pressure on schools, and excessive force, resulting in serious injuries. “What we are witnessing in Serbia is a systematic attempt to silence critical voices and dismantle the independence of academic institutions,” the UN experts said. In a recent statement, the European Federation of Journalists called on the Serbian police to halt the violence against journalists who report on the ongoing street clashes.

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 Impact of Digital Suppression and Censorship of Women’s Health, by Clio Wood, Anna O’Sullivan, Cristina Ljungberg, and Alexandra Lundqvist. This white paper, published jointly by CensHERship and The Case For Her this summer, outlines the alarming scale of digital censorship to which women’s health content is being subjected on major social networks and other very large online platforms, or VLOPs. Grounded in survey data, case studies, and complaints under the EU Digital Services Act, the report documents systematic removal, restriction, or down-ranking of “medically accurate, non-sexual content about menstruation, menopause, fertility, postpartum care, and sexual wellbeing.” Such posts routinely receive the labels of “adult content,” “inappropriate nudity,” or “sexual solicitation.” 95% of women’s health content creators surveyed reported they had experienced censorship; more than 50% of respondents said they self-censored to avoid content takedowns.

● Psychological First Aid Manual for Civil Society. Movimiento Vinotinto, a Venezuela-based NGO, published a report on the psychological impact of a crackdown on 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 – and includes the Psychological First Aid tools. Read more here.

● Global Dispatches on Press Freedom under Pressure. Published by the JURIST, this series of dispatches features contributions from correspondents around the world on the main challenges affecting media freedom in the political and social climates of Indonesia, Kenya, Ghana, Pakistan, Uganda, the United States, Tunisia, Ireland, Afghanistan, and the Western Balkans. Dive in here.