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.

This week, we turn your attention to Ecuador. Recent jurisprudence from the country’s Constitutional Court shows a strong commitment to freedom of expression. “It marks an important framework shift in the State, where strong authoritarian pull of the executive power caused a democratic backlash, affecting speech on matters of public interest,” said Juan Manuel Ospina Sánchez, Senior Legal Editor at CGFoE.

To our colleague, the featured rulings are great examples of how the obstacles, environment, and practices that led to negative decisions by domestic courts, as in Palacio Urrutia or Viteri, are being overcome. “At least for the time being,” he added.

To complement the case analyses and expand on the potential impact of Ecuadorian jurisprudence in the region, Anderson J. Dirocie De León Senior Legal and Policy Consultant at CGFoE, interviewed Daniela Salazar Marín, Professor at San Francisco de Quito University and former Judge on the Constitutional Court of Ecuador.

The interview is a unique insight into how Ecuador’s Constitutional Court transformed the protection of freedom of expression. Yet, Daniela Salazar Marín’s reflections go beyond that. “They highlight not only the incorporation of international standards into constitutional adjudication,” noted Anderson J. Dirocie De León, “but also the humility and commitment of a jurist who served with integrity and dedication to the protection of fundamental rights.”

Read an excerpt below. The full version is available in English and the original Spanish.

Anderson J. Dirocie De León: As you transition from the bench, what legal or institutional reforms do you believe are most urgent to consolidate the advances made in freedom of expression and democratic accountability in Ecuador?

Daniela Salazar Marín: I believe it is essential that both regulatory and jurisprudential frameworks take into account certain new practices that challenge the protections we have established for freedom of expression. For example, I have mentioned in this interview that protections for the right to freedom of expression must be guaranteed both in the traditional sphere and in the digital world. However, in Ecuador today, it is possible to identify dozens of social media accounts that pose as media outlets but are nothing more than state propaganda machines or, worse still, government-sponsored disinformation. How do we adjust current standards to prevent these abuses? Similarly, certain journalists are allegedly receiving funding to stop exercising their role of seeking the truth or serving as vehicles of information and opinion, and instead devote themselves to spreading official propaganda or campaigns of disinformation and delegitimization. Do they deserve the same protection as those who are not funded by those in power? Recently, in Ecuador, a massive march was organized by the president himself against the Constitutional Court. Hundreds of public officials were forced to march, imposing a certain message on them. What kind of reaction does this type of practice deserve? Through discrediting campaigns on social media and marches sponsored by the government itself, the Constitutional Court has been attacked for being the only body that has placed limits on power. If we want to consolidate the jurisprudential advances achieved in the protection of rights, including the right to freedom of expression, we should start by protecting the institutions whose function is to protect rights. If we allow governments to intimidate the institutions created to protect us, if we challenge democratic principles, the separation of powers, or judicial independence, we will once again have a president ruling without checks and balances. By then, it will be too late.

To read the entire interview, visit our website.

Ecuador
Bermeo v. Lago Agrio Government
Decision Date: January 9, 2025
The Constitutional Court of Ecuador ruled that blocking and limiting users’ interactions on the Facebook pages of public institutions violated users’ freedom of expression. The Government of Lago Agrio (Ecuador) blocked Carlos Bermeo’s account on its Facebook page, preventing him from viewing content or commenting on posts. Bermeo argued that the Government of Lago Agrio violated his freedom of expression by restricting his ability to express opinions on public matters. The Government of Lago Agrio denied blocking him, claiming that Facebook removed his content for violating community standards and that the page was not under its full control at the time. The Court held that blocking, limiting interactions, or filtering users by the Government of Lago Agrio violated the right to freedom of expression since those measures did not pursue a legitimate aim, were not clear, previously defined, suitable, necessary, or proportional.

Lautaro Furfaro, Senior Legal Researcher at CGFoE: “The Constitutional Court’s decision in Bermeo v. Lago Agrio Government reflects an emerging Inter-American standard in the last year: official social media accounts are modern public forums where critical speech deserves the highest protection, a trend also visible in Lindke v. Freed (SCOTUS, 2024) and the Colombian Constitutional Court’s T-475/24 ruling.”

Almeida v. La Condamine School
Decision: January 19, 2022
The Constitutional Court of Ecuador held that the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent sanctions imposed on a 14-year-old student for creating an Instagram account with memes about his educational institution violated his right to freedom of expression. The case was brought by the student’s father after La Condamine school initiated disciplinary proceedings against the minor for allegedly publishing defamatory and disrespectful posts about the school staff. The District Conflict Resolution Board of the Ministry of Education gave the student a 30-day suspension. The student’s father argued that the memes were humorous and satirical, reflecting the student’s right to express critical opinions about his school. The Ministry of Education, the Undersecretary, and the District Conflict Resolution Board argued the memes constituted a serious offense under education law and that the sanction was lawful and proportionate. The Court concluded that the student’s satirical posts were protected by freedom of expression and underscored the importance of upholding this right within educational communities. It also stressed that the sanction created a chilling effect, discouraging other students from expressing their opinions.

National Undersecretary of Public Administration v. La Hora Newspaper
Decision Date: September 4, 2019
The Constitutional Court of Ecuador dismissed a constitutional protection action filed by a public official against a newspaper to obtain a court-ordered rectification. The case arose after newspaper La Hora published an article reporting on government spending on official advertising, based on information collected by an NGO. In response, the National Undersecretary of Public Administration demanded a “rectification,” arguing the information published was inaccurate. Dissatisfied with the subsequent newspaper’s reply, the public official filed a constitutional protection action. The Constitutional Court held that judicial orders compelling the newspaper La Hora to publish a rectification and a public apology unlawfully restricted freedom of expression. It stressed that faithful reporting of third-party data without adding subjective statements leaves no basis for a compelled rectification.

NEXT UP ON THE CFoE CALENDAR

● SEP 26: Book Workshop – Across the Great Divide: Platform Regulation in the United States and Europe. In partnership with Professor Ronald J. Krotoszynski from the University of Alabama, CGFoE and Columbia Law School will co-host a workshop on the forthcoming volume Across the Great Divide: Platform Regulation in the United States and Europe. The contributing authors will meet in person, with a few joining online, to discuss how the US, Canadian, and European jurisdictions approach platform regulation. Explore the list of speakers and their contributions here. Please note the event is closed to the public. Following the volume’s publication, CGFoE will host a public book launch – stay tuned.

● OCT 6: Book Launch – Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights. CGFoE and Davis Wright Tremain (DWT) invite you to the launch of a new book on hate speech and the ECtHR by Natalie Alkiviadou, Senior Research Fellow at The Future of Free Speech, Vanderbilt University. We will welcome Robert Balin, Partner, DWT; Aryeh Neier, President Emeritus, Open Society Foundations; Richard Wilson, Professor of Anthropology, Princeton University; and Mishi Choudhary, Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Virtru. October 6, 2025. DWT offices, 1251 6th Ave, 21st Floor, NYC. 4:00-5:30 PM ET. In person. Registration is open.

● SEP 12: Presentation of New Report – Digital Repression in Venezuela 2024-2025. At this upcoming virtual event, Movimiento Vinotinto, an NGO that monitors human rights violations in Venezuela, will launch its new report Digital Repression in Venezuela 2024-2025: The Human Face of Repression Against Cyberactivists. Based on testimonies and legal analysis, the report documents how Venezuela has persecuted dissent with the help of digital tools. Starting at 10:00 AM Caracas Time. Online. Register here.

● IACHR to Ecuador: Guarantee Independence of Constitutional Court. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) urges Ecuador to guarantee judicial independence and the safety of judges. Last month, Ecuador’s Constitutional Court temporarily suspended several provisions of new laws on security, intelligence, and transparency due to the risks they could pose to human rights. Ecuador’s executive branch and legislators strongly opposed the decision; ​​President Daniel Noboa held a protest against the Court and proposed a referendum to allow impeachment of its judges. The IACHR calls on Ecuador to uphold the separation of powers: “The protection of rights in a democratic system depends on a legal and institutional framework that ensures effective judicial oversight of the constitutionality, legality, and conventionality of acts by the executive power, legislative branch, and other public authorities.”

● Ecuador: Right to Defend Rights at Risk Under President Daniel Noboa’s Government. Front Line Defenders sounds the alarm over the recent institutional and legislative changes in Ecuador that threaten to shrink the space for human rights defense. By Executive Decree No. 60, the government reduced and merged ministries, including the Ministry of Women and Human Rights. Front Line Defenders stresses that Social Transparency Law, Solidarity Law, Intelligence Law – upon the review of the latter two, Ecuador’s Constitutional Court found possible fundamental rights violations – could undermine the work of rights defenders “by creating a framework conducive to their criminalisation and stigmatisation, as well as violating freedom of association and the right to participate in public affairs.”

● Ecuador: August One of the Deadliest Months for Journalists. LatAm Journalism Review of the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas cites a recent report by La Fundación Periodistas Sin Cadenas (FPSC) on the state of press freedom in Ecuador. Between January and August 2025, the FPSC recorded a total of 168 attacks against reporters and the media. Last month alone, the FPSC’s reports point to 22 such attacks, including the murder of press members and allegations that undercover police infiltrated journalists’ chat groups. The report refers to August 2025 as one of the deadliest months for the country’s press: “It is the first time since the 2018 kidnapping of a Diario El Comercio reporting team that two journalists and one media worker have been killed in a single month.”

● Nepal: Call for Accountability Over Protest Crackdown, End to Digital Repression and Police Misuse of Force. In a collective statement, the International Federation for Human Rights, CIVICUS, and other groups demand that Nepali authorities end the violent crackdown on peaceful protesters, lift curfews, and amend repressive digital laws in line with international human rights standards. On September 4, Nepal imposed a sweeping ban on 26 social media platforms and messengers; on September 8, the country’s youth rallied against the ban and corruption; in Kathmandu, the police opened fire and used other excessive force, killing at least 19 protesters and injuring hundreds. “As a state party to ICCPR, Nepal must uphold its international obligations. To protect civic space, the government must respect the fundamental rights of its people – both online and offline,” the groups underscored.

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 Process Is the Punishment”: Criminal Defamation SLAPPs in Peru. In collaboration with the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights, the TrialWatch initiative of the Clooney Foundation for Justice published a report – in both English and Spanish – on the increasing use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) to silence journalists in Peru. Based on 56 criminal defamation cases (42 of which concerned public interest) filed in 2007-2022 by, in the majority, public figures (93%), as well as the accounts of journalists gathered through interviews and a survey, the report documents a systematic abuse of press freedom in violation of Peru’s regional and international obligations.

● Tunnel Vision: Anti-censorship Tools, End-to-End Encryption, and the Fight for a Free and Open Internet, by Grant Baker, Nils Berglund, Allie Funk, Patryk Pawlak, and Kian Vesteinsson. The report, prepared jointly by the European University Institute and Freedom House, explores the growing global threat to free and open Internet: state restrictions on anti-censorship technology – like virtual private networks, or VPNs – and end-to-end encryption protocols. One example is Venezuela, where last summer, during mass protests against President Nicolás Maduro’s election fraud, the government blocked the end-to-end encrypted app Signal. In the past five years, at least 21 of the 72 countries evaluated by Freedom House for the 2024 Freedom on the Net report curtailed access to secure communication technologies.

● IAPA: 2025 Grand Prize for Press Freedom Honors Daniel Coronell. The Inter American Press Association (IAPA) is awarding its 2025 Grand Prize for Press Freedom to Daniel Coronell of Univision News at TelevisaUnivision, recognizing his leadership in Spanish-language television journalism in the US and “his steadfast commitment to defending freedom of the press and expression in the Americas.”

● Call for Applications: 2026 Tech Policy Press Fellowship Program. Tech Policy Press invites journalists, researchers, and policy experts working at the intersection of technology and democracy to apply for its 2026 fellowship program: a year-long, part-time opportunity with a $10,000 stipend. The deadline is October 15. More here.

In case you missed it…

● Book Discussion – The Cambridge Handbook of the Right to Freedom of Thought. This week, CGFoE hosted a high-profile conversation on The Cambridge Handbook of the Right to Freedom of Thought, edited by Patrick O’Callaghan and Bethany Shiner. More than 100 people from over 30 countries registered to attend the event. “The book exposes how little we know about freedom of thought, and how differently, in different country contexts, we understand it,” said speaker Ahmed Shaheed, former UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. You can find the recording here. More to come: We will soon publish answers to the questions raised at the event.

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