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.

Trump takes his bully-to-the-press tactics overseas. Aboard Air Force One last Friday, the US President said he would sue the BBC over an edit of his January 6, 2021, speech for which the BBC has apologized. “They changed the words coming out of my mouth,” Trump added. How much does he want? “Anywhere between $1bn and $5bn.”

The threat is well tested. Over the past months, the US President filed a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times and used legal action to secure settlements from ABC and CBS. The new attack “also shows how his administration has sought to undermine the very concept of public media,” writes Joel Simon of the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, referring to the dismantling of the US Agency for Global Media that CGFoE covered in Widakuswara v. Kari Lake and RFE/RL v. Kari Lake.

The Trump administration keeps leaning on a tired refrain: declaring that the BBC is “100 percent fake news,” as the White House press secretary told The Telegraph. Such labels, worn-out as they are, still undermine the public’s trust in the media, while real, coordinated disinformation continues to shape people’s beliefs globally.

The Philippines, featured below, has seen the damage of falsehoods surging, online and off, including through the longtime practice of “red-tagging.” Few have fought the crisis of lies as relentlessly as Nobel-winning journalist Maria Ressa. “The line between information operations and information warfare is very thin,” Ressa told CGFoE.

This past weekend, Rappler, the Philippines’ foremost digital media, led by Ressa, hosted Social Good Summit 2025. Information integrity was on the discussion table, along with the power of civic spaces and journalism in advancing fundamental rights. International human rights lawyer and CGFoE expert Amal Clooney headlined the Summit. Both in her speech and in an earlier meeting with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., she urged the Philippines to decriminalize libel.

“States are weaponizing their legal system by using the criminal law to instill fear in journalists,” Clooney noted on stage. Calling for tenacity in action, “one case at a time, one country at a time,” she spoke of crippling lawsuits against the press, reporters unjustly imprisoned, and misinformation skewing elections. “My thesis is that justice must be waged,” Clooney stressed, “because justice is not a state – it’s an act.”

Nobel Peace Prize laureate and CEO of Rappler Maria Ressa and international human rights lawyer and CGFoE expert Amal Clooney discussed public governance, judicial oversight, and the role of civil society during The Rule of Law Forum hosted by the University of the Philippines College of Law in Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City, on November 14, 2025.

Photo credit: Jire Carreon/Rappler

India
Neha Singh Rathore v. State of Uttar Pradesh 
Decision Date: September 19, 2025
The Allahabad High Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and may be restricted when its exercise threatens national security, public order, or communal harmony. The case arose after Neha Singh Rathore, a singer and social activist, posted several tweets in April 2025 criticizing the Prime Minister and the ruling party for allegedly exploiting a terrorist attack in Kashmir for political gain. Following the viral posts, the police registered an FIR under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2008, alleging that her statements incited hatred and endangered India’s sovereignty. The Court examined whether her tweets were protected speech or punishable expressions, ultimately holding that their “timing and content were so crucial and worth considering” since they could disturb public peace. The Court concluded that her remarks, being “derogatory and disrespectful” toward constitutional authorities, fell outside constitutional protection.

Egypt
Hagar Mohamed El-Khreisey v. Public Prosecution
Decision Date: January 27, 2024
The Criminal Chamber of the Egyptian Court of Cassation upheld a lower court’s decision that convicted an individual for spreading false news about police officers. The case arose from a video posted on social media in which the applicant accused specific police officers of corruption, collusion, and threatening her family, which was later broadcast by a television channel affiliated with an opposition group. The lower court found that her actions amounted to the deliberate dissemination of false information harmful to the public interest and imposed a short prison sentence and a fine. On appeal, the Court of Cassation ruled that the lower court had provided adequate reasoning for its decision. It further held that the applicant’s statements, regardless of her claimed intent to seek help, constituted false news capable of undermining public order. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Philippines
ABS-CBN Corporation v. Datu Andal Ampatuan Jr.
Decision Date: April 25, 2023
The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled in favor of a broadcast network and its reporter, dismissing a petition for indirect contempt against them. The case arose after a television network aired an interview with a witness in the ongoing Maguindanao Massacre murder trials, which an accused alleged violated the sub judice rule by publicly discussing a matter before the courts and attempting to influence the outcome. The Court held that indirect contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding requiring a verified petition to allege specific facts demonstrating that the speech created a “clear and present danger” to the administration of justice. It found that the petition failed to meet this high standard, as it did not sufficiently allege how the interview posed an imminent and serious threat, particularly in a judge-tried case. Emphasizing that contempt powers must be used sparingly to avoid chilling free speech, the Court reversed the lower courts and dismissed the petition.

● COP 30: Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change. At this year’s UN Conference of the Parties in ​​Belém, Brazil, members of the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change adopted a declaration upholding the right to reliable environmental information. Drafted with the help of Reporters Without Borders and the Forum on Information & Democracy, the document, now signed by 12 States, includes such commitments as nurturing a diverse and resilient media ecosystem, guaranteeing the safety of environmental journalists, and urging technology companies to take part in assessing how platforms undermine climate information integrity.

● EU: European Democracy Shield. Last week, the European Commission announced a list of measures to bolster Europe’s collective capability to counter disinformation. The plan builds on three pillars: free and independent media, strong institutions, and robust civil society. As part of the “integrity of the information space” objective, the Commission will develop a Digital Services Act incidents and crisis protocol and launch an independent European Network of Fact-Checkers. Press freedom groups welcomed the pledges but cautioned that “promises” must become “concrete actions.” Reporters Without Borders, however, demanded stronger measures on access to reliable information for citizens.

● India: New IT Rules on Deepfakes Threaten to Entrench Online Censorship, by Sarthak Gupta. In an article for Tech Policy Press, CGFoE Legal Researcher and Editor Sarthak Gupta unpacks India’s proposed amendments seeking to curb the spread of “synthetically generated information,” commonly known as deepfakes. Citing the landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and other case law, Gupta argues the amendments place vague obligations on intermediaries and fail to define clear enforcement limits, threatening to censor non-malicious, expressive usage of AI. “Under the pretext of protecting users from misinformation,” Gupta writes, “the State acquires an expansive mandate to dictate the authenticity of online expression.”

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

● Joint UN, OSCE, OAS, ACHPR Declaration on AI, Freedom of Expression, and Media Freedom. Freedom of expression rapporteurs at the UN, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) endorsed a declaration on freedom of expression, access to information, and media freedom amid the growing ubiquity of AI. The document outlines seven guiding principles – such as “the right to freedom of opinion and expression […] must be embedded throughout the lifecycle of AI, including its design, development, training and deployment” – and offers recommendations to States, international organizations, the private sector, civil society, and the media.

● Sudan’s Information War: How Weaponized Online Narratives Shape the Humanitarian Crisis and Response, by Ila Schoop Rutten, Wala Mohammed, Stijn Aelbers. Addressing the reports of horrific atrocities in Sudan – streets so soaked with blood that its red was visible from satellite images – freedom of expression groups have underscored the role of information warfare in the conflict. This report, published by CDAC Network, a global alliance working to ensure people’s access to reliable information during crises, maps out how Sudan’s warring parties have used propaganda, hate speech, and connectivity blackouts to justify and fuel violence, along with obstructing effective humanitarian remedies. “Harmful information in Sudan is […] a central instrument of the ongoing conflict,” the authors contend. “It determines who gets help, who is trusted, and who is targeted.”

● New Documentary – Silenced: The War on Journalism. Produced by Al Jazeera, the film honors the legacies of journalists murdered for their work, with far too many in Gaza. Drawing from interviews with reporters and experts – Irene Khan, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, and Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of the Committee to Protect Journalists, among others – the documentary speaks to the current moment: the deadliest time for journalists globally.

● Call for Proposals – Lawyering Without Law: The Legal Profession in an Age of Authoritarianism. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University invites “theoretical, empirical, historical, and/or comparative” takes on the legal profession within authoritarianism. As part of the project, run in partnership with Senior Fellow Madhav Khosla, the Institute will host a workshop in September 2026 and publish selected essays on its website. Submit abstracts by December 5. Learn more here.

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