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.

“Tech companies found ways to insidiously manipulate. I always say they hacked our biology,” Nobel Peace Prize winner and CEO of Rappler Maria Ressa told CGFoE in a recent interview. “Using the worst of our emotions – fear, anger, hate – they pushed us to change the way we see the world.”

In an age of disinformation, algorithmic manipulation, and curated “personalized realities” that fracture societies, how free are we in forming our thoughts?

It is against the concerns such as those voiced by Ressa – along with neurotechnology developments leading to “mind reading” – that scholarly conversations on the right to freedom of thought take shape. Yet a paradox persists: Featuring prominently in the popular, historical, and political discourse, the right remains obscure in the legal realm.

“The right to freedom of thought sits within all international human rights instruments and a whole heap of domestic bills of rights or constitutions, but is infamously known to be overlooked,” said legal scholar Bethany Shiner this past May at the launch of The Cambridge Handbook of the Right to Freedom of Thought. “No one knows what [the right] is, what it protects, what its limits are, how it operates, and what its application is.”

Addressing this gap in legal expression on the right, The Cambridge Handbook, co-edited by Bethany Shiner and Patrick O’Callaghan, makes a landmark contribution to comparative legal scholarship. It spans five legal systems in Asia (Japan, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, India), five in Europe (Türkiye, Germany, France, the UK, and the ECHR), five in Africa (Kenya, Zambia, Mauritius, South Africa, and the ACHPR), and six in the Americas (Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the US, Canada, and the ACHR).

Joining this critical global dialogue, CGFoE will host a virtual conversation on the right to freedom of thought next Tuesday, September 9, 2025. CGFoE’s Associate Director Hawley Johnson, Senior Legal Researcher Lautaro Furfaro, and Editor Caroline James will welcome The Cambridge Handbook’s co-editors, selected contributors, and other experts, including current and former UN Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Religion or Belief Nazila Ghanea and Ahmed Shaheed.

Tune in from 11:00 AM to 12:30 PM ET on Zoom or via our YouTube livestream.

“Freedom of thought is the water that nourishes the tree of other human rights, democracy, and development,” The Cambridge Handbook contributor Sfiso Benard Nxumalo argues in his chapter on the African human rights system.

How can freedom of thought be safeguarded as an independent right, distinct from related rights such as freedom of expression or freedom of religion?

Do not miss our upcoming discussion on the right to freedom of thought next Tuesday, September 9, 2025. Nxumalo will join CGFoE as a speaker, along with The Cambridge Handbook’s co-editors and other selected contributors and experts. Register here.

Serbia
Jovanović – Ćuta v. Digital Media Network doo Beograd (24SEDAM)
Decision Date: April 9, 2025
The Belgrade Court of Appeal upheld the Higher Court’s judgment, determining that the internet portal 24SEDAM harmed the reputation and honor of the plaintiff, Mr. Jovanović – Ćuta, by republishing an op-ed written by the then Prime Minister of Serbia and originally published on the Government’s official website. The Portal reported on statements made by the Prime Minister of Serbia in which she called the plaintiff “a failed investor in small hydropower plants and a jackass.” She also propagated false and unsubstantiated allegations about the plaintiff, namely that he was receiving foreign funding in order to cause harm to the State and its institutions. The Court based its decision primarily on the fact that the internet portal reproduced statements capable of causing reputational harm while relying solely on their prior publication on the Government’s official website and authorship by the Prime Minister – without conducting independent verification in line with journalistic due diligence or assessing whether their dissemination served a legitimate public interest. The Court noted that although the plaintiff is an opposition member of parliament who, as a public officeholder, is expected to tolerate a higher degree of criticism, the article republished by the portal contained nothing but a sensationalist and defamatory narrative and, as such, did not contribute to a political or general interest debate and was therefore deemed unlawful. Accordingly, the Court ordered the responsible editor and the publisher of the portal to pay the plaintiff non-pecuniary damages, equivalent to approx. $400 USD, for the violation of his honor and reputation.

Hungary
Tibi Atya v. Kulcsár Edina and Csuti
Decision Date: October 22, 2024
The Hungarian Constitutional Court confirmed two lower courts’ decisions and found Tibi Atya, a blogger, guilty of criminal libel. The blogger had used coarse and obscene language in posts about two media personalities, Kulcsár Edina and Csuti, who subsequently approached the courts as private prosecutors. The Constitutional Court accepted that the lower courts had correctly found that the blogger’s statements were not about matters of public interest and the media personalities were not public figures. It held that the statements were gratuitous, obscene and abusive and so infringed the media personalities’ human dignity.

László Toroczkai v. Meta
Decision Date: March 27, 2024
The Hungarian Curia upheld the judgment of a lower court, finding that Meta was entitled to remove a politician’s Facebook account for breach of its Community Standards. László Toroczkai, the leader of the Our Homeland Movement political party, had written four posts on Facebook which Meta found violated its hate-speech restrictions and led to Meta removing his Facebook and then Instagram accounts. The Curia upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal which found that Meta was entitled to remove the Facebook account but not the Instagram account as the content was only posted on Facebook.

Slovenia
National Public Broadcasting Organization Radio-Television Slovenia v. Slovenia
Decision Date: February 5, 2004
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia ruled that the arbitrary reduction of the public radio and television broadcaster’s funding, as prescribed by the challenged provisions of the Media Act and the relevant secondary legislation, violates the constitutional right to freedom of expression by undermining the public broadcaster’s financial and programmatic independence without a substantiated justification. The case arose when the public broadcaster challenged amendments to the Media Act that diverted 3% of its funding to other media programs, arguing this interfered with its ability to operate independently, violating its constitutional protections. Despite objections from the Government, some members of parliament, and the public broadcaster, the amendment was adopted without evaluating its impact on the broadcaster’s operations. The Court ruled that the legislature failed to justify the funding reduction or assess its impact on the broadcaster’s constitutional role, rendering the decision arbitrary. The Court emphasized that safeguarding the broadcaster’s financial independence is essential to protect freedom of expression and ensure the public’s right to information.

● EU: CASE and ECPMF Launch Anti-SLAPP Monitor. The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe and the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom have launched the European Anti-SLAPP Monitor. The platform will document how the EU and Council of Europe Member States, including Kosovo, transpose and implement nationally the European instruments on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs): EU Anti-SLAPP Directive 2024/1069 and the Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2024)2. The tool will track the countries’ progress – be it through new laws or legislative amendments – in six categories: “No Information,” “Not Started,” “Started,” “Delayed,” “Partially Implemented,” and “Implemented.” So far, only Malta has reached the status of partial implementation, but its legislation, while covering cross-border SLAPPs, does not protect against domestic ones.

● Serbia: Women’s Sexuality Is Being Weaponized to Silence Dissent, by Hristina Cvetinčanin Knežević. The Balkan Investigative Reporting Network covers a case of image-based sexual abuse targeting a 22-year-old female student in Serbia. Having been detained at a protest with her electronic devices seized, Nikolina Sinđelić publicly alleged that the commander of a special unit, Marko Kriček, had physically assaulted her and threatened her with rape. Soon after, intimate photos of Sinđelić as a minor appeared online and were picked up by a pro-government TV channel. Even though Serbia’s Criminal Code prohibits “public distribution of private images,” no investigation has been opened against the channel. Journalist Hristina Cvetinčanin Knežević argues that non-consensual distribution of intimate images as a tool of silencing dissent is a global issue, referring to the 2020 ECtHR’s ruling in Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan.

● Türkiye: MFRR Partners Condemn Broadcast Blackout Targeting TELE1. In a joint statement, five members of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) coalition denounced the Turkish broadcast regulator RTÜK’s decision to impose a five-day blackout and heavy fines on TELE1 for criticism of the authorities. This past July, RTÜK targeted TELE1 with a ban, alleging that, commenting on the ruling party’s responsibility for the 2016 coup, TELE1’s editor-in-chief had “incited hatred and enmity among the public.” Initially, an Ankara court suspended the ban, but on August 27, the suspension was overturned, allowing the blackout to be enforced between August 31 and September 5. “RTÜK issued at least 46 sanctions in the first half of 2025 alone, 42 of them targeting critical outlets, with total fines amounting to nearly 100 million Turkish liras (~2 million Euros),” the statement stressed.

● Montenegro: Stop Attacks On Human Rights Defenders. Montenegro-based Centre for Civic Education calls on the ruling Democratic Montenegro party to cease publicly smearing prominent human rights defender Tea Gorjanc Prelević. Through anonymous statements accusing Gorjanc Prelević of political bias, “opposing vetting in the police and security services,” “misleading the public,” and being “ready for dirty work,” Democratic Montenegro has led a multi-day attack against Gorjanc Prelević, who, according to the Centre, appeals to law and the right to criticize the authorities. “Where a party assumes the role of judge, the rule of law ceases,” says the civil society statement in support of Gorjanc Prelević. “Censorship, verdicts without trial, and the suppression of criticism pave the way to authoritarianism and evoke totalitarian models.”

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

Election Report: Assessment of Foreign Manipulation and Interference in the 2025 Polish Presidential Election. The report assesses foreign interference in the 2025 Polish elections, identifying persistent information threats. Prepared by members of Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Information Sharing and Analysis Centre, Alliance4Europe, and Debunk.org, the study builds on the work of 28 organizations and 90 practitioners. In the information operations analyzed, the dominant narrative casts the EU and Ukraine in a negative light, accusing them of election interference and presenting far-right politicians as guardians of Poland’s sovereignty. The tactics of manipulating public opinion involve creating fake online personalities and exploiting vulnerabilities in policy and moderation on X, TikTok, and Meta platforms.

● Op-Ed: From Hungary to Slovakia, Civil Society Is Under Siege, by Sanjay Sethi and Jennifer Laourou. In this piece for CreativesUnite, Sanjay Sethi and Jennifer Laourou of the Artistic Freedom Initiative examine how Hungary and Slovakia are undermining civil society through versions of “foreign agent” laws. As Slovakia goes down Hungary’s path with newly adopted “transparency” amendments, Sethi and Laourou urge the EU to act.

● CJR Article: The Killing of Anas al-Sharif in Gaza May Be a War Crime. Could Israel Be Prosecuted? by Joel Simon. Writing for Columbia Journalism Review in the aftermath of the killing of Al Jazeera correspondent Anas al-Sharif – along with five other journalists on August 10, five more a week later, and more than two hundred in total – in Gaza, Founding director of the Journalism Protection Initiative at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism Joel Simon speaks to experts in international humanitarian law on the possible way to justice and corresponding challenges.

● Call for Applications: Media Defence Asia Pacific Litigation Surgery. Ahead of the November 18-20 litigation surgery in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Media Defence invites applications from Asia Pacific-based lawyers. Designed to help participants advance with a freedom of expression case they are working on, the surgery will feature “expert-led sessions, case-based discussions, and peer learning activities.” The deadline is September 19.

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