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.

“Are we on the right path when it comes to dealing with hate speech in Europe?” Dr Natalie Alkiviadou, Senior Research Fellow at the Future of Free Speech at Vanderbilt University and a CGFoE expert, recently asked, introducing her new book on the European Court of Human Rights. “I feel that we are not,” she added.

Earlier this month, in partnership with Davis Wright Tremaine, CGFoE co-hosted the launch of Dr Alkiviadou’s Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights. The study examines the Court’s approach to hate speech and argues for a stronger and more consistent protection of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.

“[T]he book exemplifies the delicate but indispensable work of reconciling freedom and equality within democratic societies,” writes Anderson J. Dirocie De León, CGFoE’s Senior Legal and Policy Consultant, in his review. “It offers readers not definitive answers but a comprehensive set of tools for thinking critically about the boundaries of expression, the nature of harm, and the obligations of States and institutions to protect both individual liberty and social justice.”

The book launch discussion, moderated by CGFoE’s Associate Director Dr Hawley Johnson, featured leading international experts on hate speech. Aryeh Neier, President Emeritus of Open Society Foundations, spoke on US legal standards and the undermining of free speech in the country today: “That’s a quite different sort of assault on freedom of expression than we’ve seen at any time previously,” Neier noted.

Mishi Choudhary, Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Virtru and founder of SFLC.in, discussed hate speech in India and the failures of Big Tech: “The hypocrisy of American platforms as the First Amendment defenders has been something that we, who have worked on [digital rights] since 2012, have been calling out for a long time.”

For more insights on the evolving hate speech jurisprudence, particularly in the context of political polarization and digital ubiquity, watch the event’s full recording on our YouTube channel. For more resources on the topic, such as CGFoE’s Special Collection Paper on Hate Speech, authored by Dr Alkiviadou, visit our website.

Earlier this month, CGFoE co-hosted the launch of Dr Natalie Alkiviadou’s Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights. The discussion, moderated by CGFoE’s Associate Director Dr Hawley Johnson, featured leading international experts on hate speech.

The event’s full recording is now available on our YouTube channel.

Hungary
HGV v. Members of the Hungarian Nation
Decision Date: November 5, 2024
The Hungarian Constitutional Court dismissed an application to annul a lower court’s decisions which had found that an article containing statements insulting to the Hungarian nation was not protected by the right to freedom of expression. Two individuals had sought a declaration that the article had infringed their human dignity in terms of the Hungarian Fundamental Law which excludes from protection of the right any expression that is “exercised with the aim of violating the dignity of the Hungarian nation”. The Court of First Instance had found the article to be in violation of dignity and although the Court of Second Instance had reversed that judgment, the Curia had upheld the first judgment. The Constitutional Court, concurring with the findings of the Curia, established that the individuals were members of a community protected by the Fundamental Law, and that the fact that the expression was on matters of public interest does not remove the requirement not to humiliate individuals as members of the community.

The Case of a Defamatory Statement about a Hungarian Local Mayor on an Online News Portal
Decision Date: July 16, 2024
The Hungarian Constitutional Court overturned two lower courts’ decisions which had found an editor guilty of criminal defamation. The editor’s news website had published an opinion article criticizing a municipal mayor, accusing him of “demeaning women.” The mayor then filed a complaint alleging that the editor had not amended the opinion piece content and so had committed the offense of defamation under the Criminal Code. The court of first instance found that the statement in question was an untrue statement of fact and was not protected by freedom of expression because it was outside the scope of public affairs. On appeal, the second instance court upheld the lower court’s decision, noting that the statement infringed the mayor’s dignity and exceeded the criminal law limits of critique. The Constitutional Court found that the lower courts had not properly considered the constitutional issues involved when the rights to freedom of expression and dignity intersect and found that the comment fell within the bounds of protected speech.

Slovenia
Peter Čeferin v. Slovenia
Decision Date: May 15, 2008
The Constitutional Court of Slovenia rejected a constitutional complaint and upheld a fine imposed on a lawyer for insulting court-appointed experts. The case originated from a criminal trial where the lawyer, acting for the defence, used highly derogatory language to describe the work and professional competence of psychiatric and psychological experts. The Court found that while a defence lawyer’s freedom of expression is broad and serves the crucial function of ensuring a fair trial, it is not unlimited. It held that the lawyer’s statements, which constituted personal attacks rather than reasoned criticism, exceeded the acceptable limits of professional argumentation. The Court concluded that the fine was a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the authority of the judiciary and the dignity of its appointed experts, and that it did not violate the lawyer’s constitutional right to freedom of expression.

● UN: 65 Nations Sign the Convention on Cybercrime Amidst Civil Society’s Calls to Refrain. Last week, in Vietnam, the UN Secretary-General praised the newly adopted Convention on Cybercrime, now signed by 65 Member States, as “a historic step toward a safer digital world.” The Convention is the result of five-year negotiations and the first international treaty to define the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images as an offense. Civil society groups, however, have been consistently criticizing the treaty for lacking adequate human rights safeguards. In a statement endorsed by IFEX, ARTICLE 19, and others, the groups underscore that the Convention allows for broad surveillance powers and could be abused by certain governments to prosecute critics, journalists, LGBTQI+ people, activists, whistleblowers, and protesters.

● Council of Europe: Anti-Racism Commission Monitors Finland, Ireland, Montenegro. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance released reports on the legal, institutional, and policy progress of Finland, Ireland, and Montenegro in combating discrimination. One prescribed priority for Finland is establishing a special multistakeholder working group to determine an action program against racist and anti-LGBTQI+ hate speech. In the case of Ireland, the Commission called for “new legislative measures punishing hate speech” as Roma and Travellers continue to face pervasive racism and discrimination. As for Montenegro, the report recommends, among other things, that the authorities encourage politicians, officials, and cultural, religious, and business leaders to actively exercise counter speech to tackle racist and anti-LGBTQI+ hate speech. In related news, POLITICO reports that France, Austria, and the Netherlands push the EU for tighter anti-hate speech rules.

● US: Knight Institute Seeks Immediate Release of Trump Administration Agreements with Major Law Firms. In a new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University challenges the Office of Management and Budget and the US Department of Justice over their failure to provide records relating to the agreements struck between the Trump administration and major law firms. The Knight Institute filed its FOIA request with the agencies back in May but received no response to date. At least nine law firms have settled with the White House or cut their DEI programs. “Americans have a right to know the details of these agreements,” said Katie Fallow of the Knight Institute, “and what the government expects from the firms that decided to capitulate to the administration’s unlawful coercion.” See the complaint here.

● Türkiye: Draft Law Threatens LGBTQI+ People with Prison. Human Rights Watch (HRW) urges the Turkish government to withdraw its proposed anti-LGBTQI+ amendments which, if enacted, would clear the way for “one of the most alarming rollbacks of rights in decades.” The draft provisions, included in the 11th Judicial Package, criminalize “attitudes or behaviors contrary to biological sex and general morality,” as well as their “promotion,” drastically obstruct gender-affirming health care, and impose prison sentences for both transgender people seeking such care and medical professionals providing it. Citing Bayev and Others v. Russia, HRW stresses that the provisions would undermine the very existence of LGBTQI+ persons, their identity, and right to freedom of expression. In a separate statement, media freedom groups sound an alarm over the possible criminalization of journalistic reporting on the LGBTQI+ community if the amendments are adopted.

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

● UN Special Rapporteur Report: Threats to Freedom of Expression Online in Turbulent Times. The latest report of UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression Irene Khan focuses on the “paradigm shift” brought by surging authoritarianism, recent changes in the governance of speech on social media platforms, States’ responses to it, and the rapid advances of AI. “The harms, as well as the benefits, are as much the outcome of the policies and products of digital companies as they are of States’ action or inaction,” Khan writes. The report outlines the dangers of “privatization” of freedom of expression, companies’ neglect of due diligence and risk mitigation, their AI innovation race without human rights guardrails, and the outsized market power of a few platforms, concluding with recommendations for governments, companies, investors, and civil society.

● Punishment Before Trial? ‘Hate Speech’ Raids in Germany, by Alexander Hohlfeld. In an article for The Bedrock Principle, Alexander Hohlfeld argues that, while Germany’s legal approach to “hate speech” is problematic, its enforcement – through the so-called “action days” involving regular raids on private homes in response to statements posted online – is “disproportionate, unconstitutional, and incompatible with a free society.”

● Silence in the Valley: The Brutal Repression of Kashmiri Writers, by Mir Aiyaz. Reporting for Index on Censorship, Mir Aiyaz speaks to Kashmiri writers, who are self-censoring as Indian authorities ban books and raid authors they deem to be promoting “false narratives,” “glorifying terrorism,” and “inciting secessionism” in the region. The list of 25 banned works includes Booker Prize-winning Arundhati Roy.

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