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.
In Türkiye, the state’s grip on speech tightens. From Diyarbakır to Ankara to İstanbul, journalists stand trials on criminal charges related to terrorism, insulting the president, or joining an unlawful protest. As of this week, at least 27 members of the media are in jail. Lawyers, civic activists, and opposition politicians face similar charges. A draconian anti-LGBTQI+ bill is pending, while those who protest it are under investigation.
Türkiye’s scale of censorship staggers: by the end of 2024, the total number of websites and domain names blocked in the past years reached 1,264,506, as documented by Dr. Yaman Akdeniz of the Freedom of Expression Association (IFÖD). IFÖD’s latest report shows that 5,740 news articles scraped last year were based on 803 court orders.
Amid the crackdown, some persist in pushing back. Dr. Akdeniz, a seasoned and unwavering defender of freedom of expression, is one of them. He won CGFoE’s 2016 Prize for Excellence in Legal Services. His most recent court victories include two key freedom-of-information decisions: a Constitutional Court ruling against the Ministry of Justice, which had refused to provide data on prosecutions under controversial laws, and an Ankara 22nd Administrative Court ruling against the telecom authority, which had declined to disclose official legal orders behind an internet throttling restriction.
This week, Marija Šajkaš, CGFoE’s Senior Communications Manager, speaks to Dr. Akdeniz about the dire state of freedom of expression in Türkiye and his continuous efforts to counter censorship. Below is an excerpt. Find the full interview here.
Dr. Yaman Akdeniz is a Law Professor at Istanbul Bilgi University and co-founder of İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği, İFÖD – the Freedom of Expression Association. Photo: courtesy of Yaman Akdeniz
Marija Šajkaš: There has been an obvious lack of transparency in Türkiye for many years. How do you obtain reliable data under these conditions?
Yaman Akdeniz: Since the Turkish Telecommunication Authority does not publish statistical information about the number of access-blocked websites, we developed a tool that “crawls” through the internet, trying to find blocked websites, including high-profile ones, news articles, and social media accounts. We gather that data and make it public. We also have an emergency detection system set up, and, for example, last August, we detected blocked access to Instagram before anyone else realized it was taking place: at five o’clock in the morning, we received a notification on our phones and verified it; by six o’clock in the morning, we notified everyone in Türkiye. Even the Meta representatives didn’t know because they were not informed about the decision. And their London team phoned me asking, “Are you sure?” We said, “Yes, of course, we are sure. We don’t just publish speculation.” Our technical expert further develops this system, and we will continue to make censorship and access-blocking practices more transparent.
How can we help? Do the resources provided by Columbia Global Freedom of Expression contribute to your work?
I personally use the Case Law database frequently, and I’m impressed by how it has developed. I also rely upon comparative research and use the Special Collection papers to build our legal arguments in strategic litigation. But primarily, we use the database for checking on comparative jurisprudence-related developments. Also, the newsletter, from my point of view, is a critical tool. It helps me and our legal team stay informed about developments elsewhere. This is the only newsletter I am subscribed to, and I often wait to read it with a cup of tea on Saturday mornings. Protecting freedom of expression requires collective resilience, and it’s an ongoing battle. Whether you’re a lawyer, journalist, activist, academic, or student, we have to keep resisting. Sometimes, authorities tell us that the strategic litigation cases we pursue are futile. Even if you win these cases, nothing will change, they say. But from a historical perspective, documenting the human rights abuses is particularly important. And we should never normalize censorship. Defending human rights today is defending the future and democratic principles tomorrow.
To read the full interview, visit our website.
India
X v. Union of India (Sahyog Portal)
Decision Date: September 24, 2025
The Karnataka High Court held that the Indian Government acted lawfully in allowing its ministries, departments, and police agencies to issue online content removal orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and in creating the “Sahyog Portal” for coordination with social media companies. X Corp. (formerly Twitter) had challenged these actions, arguing that Section 79 only provided legal protection to intermediaries and did not give the Government power to block content, which could be done only under Section 69A and the 2009 Blocking Rules. The Court rejected this argument, ruling that Section 79(3)(b) allowed authorities to act against unlawful content and that intermediaries must comply or lose their legal immunity. It also noted that X Corp., being a U.S. company, could not claim rights under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The Court emphasized that freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) and that “law cannot be honored in one jurisdiction and flouted in another.” Upholding the legality of Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Intermediary Rules and the Sahyog Portal, the Court concluded that the system was “an instrument of public good,” ensuring accountability in the digital space, and dismissed X Corp.’s petition.
European Court of Human Rights
Nemytov v. Russia
Decision Date: August 27, 2025
The Third Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that Russia violated the applicants’ rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly by arresting, detaining, and fining them for peaceful demonstrations held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case involved three Russian citizens, Nemytov, Azar, and Burma, who were prosecuted under regional bans on public events, including solo pickets and small outdoor protests. The Court found that although the restrictions aimed to protect public health, Russia’s “blanket ban” on assemblies was excessive, lacked proportionality, and effectively silenced political expression. It stressed that “political life cannot be suspended during a pandemic” and that public health concerns could not justify indefinite suppression of peaceful protest. The Court ruled that the sanctions, particularly administrative detention, were disproportionate and created a chilling effect on free speech and civic participation, thus expanding the protection of democratic freedoms under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.
Tergek v. Türkiye
Decision Date: April 29, 2025
The European Court of Human Rights held that Türkiye did not violate Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned a prisoner’s complaint that his right to receive information was infringed when prison authorities refused to deliver documents printed from the internet, sent to him by his wife, which contained educational and physiotherapy materials, on the grounds that internet printouts posed risks to prison order and security. The Court found that this interference was prescribed by domestic law and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security and preventing disorder and crime. In assessing proportionality, the Court accorded a wide margin of appreciation to the national authorities, accepting that the review of a large volume of non-official printouts could overwhelm prison staff and that the prisoner had alternative means of accessing information. The Court concluded that the domestic courts, particularly the Constitutional Court, had conducted a careful balancing of the competing interests and that the measure was not disproportionate,
Georgia’s Future Academy Wins 2025 Templeton Freedom Award. Kudos to Georgia’s Future Academy – a youth-focused pro-democracy organization led by human rights lawyer, civic advocate, and CGFoE legal researcher Marine Kapanadze – for receiving Atlas Network’s prestigious 2025 Templeton Freedom Award. At a time of widespread crackdown on dissent, Georgia’s Future Academy is building the country’s largest pro-liberty youth network through civic education programs and the “My Vote” election observers’ campaign. “For us, this recognition is deeply personal,” Kapanadze wrote, “it belongs to every freedom fighter in Georgia and beyond, especially the political prisoners who sacrificed their liberty for a greater cause.”
● Türkiye: Analysis of Anti-LGBTQI+ Legislation; Women, LGBTQI+ Activists Investigated Over Protest. Human rights lawyer Levent Pişkin analyzes Türkiye’s anti-LGBTQI+ draft legislation and argues that its provisions, which are part of the 11th Judicial Package and seek to criminalize the LGBTQI+ very existence, breach multiple international treaties, customary international law, and Türkiye’s own constitution. Citing case law, including Bayev and Others v. Russia, Pişkin outlines the many violations: concerning the prohibition of discrimination, right to privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly, among others. In related news, IFEX reports, citing bianet, that the İstanbul Prosecutor’s office is investigating a group of women and LGBTQI+ activists, who demonstrated against the anti-LGBTQI+ provisions. The charges invoked – over chants like “Get your hands off my body, state” – are “public denigration of the Turkish nation and the state” under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code.
● Southeast Europe: BIRN’s Report on Digital Rights Violations Posing Democratic Risks. Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) released its annual report evaluating the state of digital rights in Southeast Europe. Based on 1,440 recorded incidents, the study reviews Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Hungary, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, and Türkiye. BIRN surveys the overarching trends: the countries’ rapid digital advances meeting democratic regression, tech-enabled abuse, and inadequate protections. Examples of digital regulations being used as tools to censor, persecute dissent, or justify surveillance multiply. In addition to across-the-region observations, BIRN provides country chapters that assess national political and legal contexts and offer recommendations.
● India: How X’s Failed Legal Challenge Reshapes Free Speech, by Sarthak Gupta. Writing for Tech Policy Press, CGFoE Legal Researcher and Editor Sarthak Gupta explains the ramifications of X v. Union of India, featured above, in which the Karnataka High Court dismissed X’s challenge to India’s content-takedown practices. X also contested the legality of the “Sahyog Portal,” a centralized digital platform that enables government agencies to issue bulk takedown notices to online intermediaries; the High Court upheld the portal as a legitimate administrative measure. Gupta unpacks the ruling and argues that the Court “has effectively sanctioned a system of indirect state censorship that chills online expression by coercing intermediaries into over-removal of content under threat of losing statutory immunity.”
This section of the newsletter features teaching materials focused on global freedom of expression which are newly uploaded on Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers
Freedom of Information (FoI) in Türkiye: Challenges and Strategic Recommendations. As part of its ongoing project investigating the status of freedom of information (FoI) in Türkiye, the International Press Institute (IPI) launched the IPI FoI Platform to gather data on how responsive the Turkish institutions are to FoI requests. This report examines the platform’s submissions, as well as feedback from users, and reveals recurrent shortcomings affecting the right to FoI. Out of 290 FoI requests submitted to the portal since January 2025, 166 received responses, yet only 10% of them qualified as fully “comprehensive.” Of the requests that were rejected (69 in total; 55 still pending), the most common justifications provided were “published or publicly disclosed information and documents,” “requests requiring separate or special work,” and “practices not concerning the public.”
● Türkiye’s Saturday Mothers Win Index on Censorship 2025 Freedom of Expression Award. Index on Censorship recognized Türkiye’s Saturday Mothers with the 2025 Freedom of Expression Award in the Campaigning category. The country’s longest-running peaceful protest movement – they have demonstrated for thirty years in İstanbul, demanding justice for the forcibly disappeared – the Saturday Mothers have undergone legal harassment, targeted smear campaigns, and police brutality. Earlier this year, 45 of them appeared in court for a 2018 vigil but were acquitted.
● Op-Ed: Trump Shrugged off Khashoggi’s Killing. This Is a New Low, by Jodie Ginsberg. In a piece for The Guardian, Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of the Committee to Protect Journalists, lays out the stakes of President Trump’s dismissal of journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder in a Saudi consulate. “Things happen,” said the US President at a press conference with the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, last week. “This marks a new and abject low for a president who has made little secret of his contempt for the truth – or for the press,” writes Ginsberg.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.
Leave a Reply