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 marks International Human Rights Day, honoring the 1948 adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As CGFoE reaffirms that freedom of expression is a cornerstone right – enabling people to speak openly and challenge abuses – we celebrate the work of those who advance it: one hard-won step at a time.

Catalina Martínez Coral, Vice President for Latin America and the Caribbean at the Center for Reproductive Rights, is a human rights defender who builds coalitions. A leading strategist in feminist legal advocacy, she played a central role in the strategic litigation before the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), resulting in historic wins in Susana v. Nicaragua, Norma v. Ecuador, Lucía v. Nicaragua, and Fátima v. Guatemala.

“When I learned the stories of Lucía, Susana, Norma, and Fátima, I understood that what they endured was not only sexual violence, but the most extreme consequence of that violence – being compelled to carry a pregnancy, give birth, and assume motherhood when they were still children,” Martínez Coral told Lautaro Furfaro, Senior Legal Researcher at CGFoE and Professor at the University of Buenos Aires.

Thanks to the efforts of the They Are Girls, Not Mothers movement, the UNHRC recognized – among other violations suffered by the girls – that denying sexual and reproductive information, including comprehensive sexuality education and the possibility to access safe abortion, violates the right to freedom of expression.

In this interview, Martínez Coral explains that across all four cases, a lack of information on sexual and reproductive health was “not an isolated failure, but a structural violation,” stripping the girls of the ability to make informed decisions about their bodies and lives. Below is an abridged excerpt. The full version is available in both English and Spanish.

Catalina Martínez Coral, Vice President for Latin America and the Caribbean at the Center for Reproductive Rights, was recently recognized in the TIME100 Next 2025 list as one of the world’s most influential emerging leaders.

Photo: Courtesy of Catalina Martínez Coral

Lautaro Furfaro: What is most innovative about the Committee’s interpretation of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in these cases?

Catalina Martínez Coral: The most innovative aspect of the Committee’s interpretation is that comprehensive sexuality education and sexual and reproductive information are prerequisites for exercising autonomy and freedom of expression in a full sense. In order to make decisions, a girl needs to understand what consent is, identify when she is being sexually abused, know the risks that child pregnancy poses to her life and health, and know that there are services and alternatives available to her. All of this requires clear, accessible, and evidence-based information. The cases reveal this with overwhelming force: none of the girls had the minimum tools to understand what they were experiencing or to make free and informed decisions about their bodies. By recognizing this direct link between information and autonomy, the Committee takes a decisive step toward a deeper and more protective interpretation of Article 19.

What motivated you to undertake this complex, multi-country effort over so many years?

It was the certainty that the girls whose cases we brought had been forced into something no child should ever experience: a forced motherhood. When I learned the stories of Lucía, Susana, Norma, and Fátima, I understood that what they endured was not only sexual violence, but the most extreme consequence of that violence – being compelled to carry a pregnancy, give birth, and assume motherhood when they were still children. For me, that is one of the most profound and painful forms of dispossession: it takes away their bodies, their childhood, their health, and their future. And what is hardest to accept is that, in most cases, the very institutions that were supposed to protect them were the ones that failed them. What sustained my commitment was knowing that their fight went far beyond their individual stories and spoke for thousands of girls across Latin America who continue to face pregnancies and motherhood imposed by violence, poverty, silence, and States’ indifference. Accompanying them through this process reaffirmed something essential for me: reproductive justice is impossible unless we start by recognizing that girls have the right not to be forced into motherhood, and that litigating these cases was a way to break that cycle and open a different path for all of them.

Read the full interview in English or Spanish.

United Nations Human Rights Committee
Fatima v. Guatemala
Decision Date: July 11, 2025
The United Nations Human Rights Committee held that Guatemala violated Fátima’s right to freedom of expression, specifically her right of access to information under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by failing to provide her with clear, timely, and evidence-based information on sexual and reproductive health. The case arose from Fátima’s sexual abuse at the age of 13, which resulted in a forced pregnancy and motherhood after State authorities failed to inform her about emergency contraception, the possibility of a lawful therapeutic abortion, adoption, or post-cesarean medical care. The Committee held that this lack of information prevented her from making informed decisions about her body and her future and directly contributed to her forced pregnancy and forced motherhood. Reaffirming that the right of access to information includes the right to receive quality, evidence-based education on sexual and reproductive health, the Committee concluded that Guatemala’s omissions breached Article 19. As a remedy, the Committee ordered Guatemala to provide full reparation and compensation to Fátima, ensure psychological support, and adopt structural measures to guarantee access to sexual and reproductive health information and services for girls and adolescents, particularly victims of sexual violence.

Mexico
Montes v. Peredo
Decision Date: April 25, 2025
The Fifteenth Unitary Civil Chamber (Décima Quinta Sala Unitaria Civil) of the Superior Court of Justice of the State of Nuevo León, México, held journalist Ximena Peredo Rodríguez liable for moral damages. According to the Court, she abused her right to freedom of expression by publishing statements that unlawfully damaged Mr. Montes’ honor and reputation. The case stemmed from two opinion columns published in the newspaper “El Norte” in 2018, which referred to anonymous allegations of various forms of gender-based violence – including sexual harassment and abuse of power in an academic environment – posted on a university blog against writer Felipe de Jesús Montes Espino Barros. The appellate court overturned the first-instance ruling that dismissed the claim, holding that the columns exceeded the bounds of protected value judgments and amounted to the unlawful imputation of unproven criminal conduct. The Court held that such accusations required an adequate factual basis and a level of journalistic diligence, and could not rely solely on allegations published on an anonymous blog, regardless of its public nature. According to the judgment, the absence of verification, coupled with inflammatory language intended to cause harm, constituted reckless disregard for the truth and violated the writer’s right to honor and presumption of innocence. Consequently, the appellate court awarded Montes Espino Barros compensation for moral damages, including psychological therapy costs.

CGFoE extends its thanks to Ezequiel Curcio, University of Buenos Aires, for his substantial contribution to the drafting of the case analysis.

Oversight Board
Oversight Board Case of Explicit AI Images of Female Public Figures
Decision Date: July 25, 2024
The Oversight Board found that AI-generated nude images of female public figures violated Meta’s Bullying and Harassment policy and were inconsistent with the company’s human rights obligations. In a split outcome, the Board overturned Meta’s decision to leave up an AI-generated nude image of an Indian public figure highlighting flaws in the automated appeals system that closed the case without review. It also upheld Meta’s removal of a similar image depicting an American public figure. The Board emphasized that such content causes severe harm, particularly to women and girls who are disproportionately targeted, and concluded that removal is the only effective and proportionate response to protect individuals’ rights to privacy, dignity, and safety. It recommended that Meta clarify and consolidate its policies on manipulated sexual content, adopt clearer language reflecting the non-consensual nature of this abuse, and improve reporting mechanisms for victims, especially those without public visibility.

Oversight Board Case of Breast Self-Exam
Decision Date: December 18, 2023
The Oversight Board issued a summary decision overturning Meta’s original decision to remove a video on Facebook demonstrating how to perform a breast self-exam, as it fell within the health-related exceptions to the Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity policy. The Board highlighted this case as an example of an inconsistent enforcement choice that disproportionately impacted women’s freedom of expression and their right to access health information. It stressed that removing such educational content undermined efforts to promote the early detection of breast cancer and hindered the ability of women and girls to make informed decisions about their health.

CGFoE at Columbia’s SIPA: Guest Lecturer Marija Šajkaš Teaches a Class on Media and Freedom of Expression in Serbia. Last week, CGFoE’s Senior Communications Manager Marija Šajkaš was back in the classroom at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), sharing her expert insights on Serbia’s unfolding political crisis. Šajkaš joined the graduate class Human Rights in the Western Balkans, taught by SIPA’s Professor Tanya Domi, an affiliate faculty member of the Harriman Institute. A seasoned press advocate, Šajkaš discussed freedom of expression and the media, focusing on the current moment in Serbia: a time of youth-led nationwide protests – the most continuous anti-government movement in the country’s history – and escalating repression, with systematic attacks on journalists. Learn more about the discussion here. Photo: Marija Šajkaš’s personal archive.

● OAS: Gendered Disinformation – a Threat to Democracy and Security in the Americas. On December 8, the Inter-American Commission of Women (CIM) of the Organization of American States (OAS) hosted a high-level event, calling for urgent institutional and civic action to tackle campaigns that seek to censor women’s voices and normalize gender-based violence. Following reflections from speakers, including UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression Irene Khan and Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Pedro Vaca, CIM launched Responding to Gendered Disinformation: A Practical Guide, a tool to recognize the problem and apply strategic counter-steps. To strengthen the resilience of civil society, public institutions, and citizens against gendered disinformation, CIM will soon introduce a specialized online course on the Educational Portal of the Americas. Stay tuned.

● New Study: 7 in 10 Women Human Rights Defenders, Activists, and Journalists Report Online Violence. A new study by UN Women shows that online violence against women human rights defenders, activists, and journalists is peaking globally. Done in collaboration with TheNerve, City St George’s, University of London, the International Center for Journalists, and UNESCO, the report draws on a survey across 119 countries: 70% of women respondents reported experiencing online violence; 42% flagged real-world harm connected to online abuse. “This data shows that in the age of AI-fueled abuse and rising authoritarianism, online violence against women in the public sphere is increasing,” said lead researcher Julie Posetti of TheNerve. “But what’s truly disturbing is the evidence that women journalists’ experience of offline harm associated with online violence has more than doubled since 2020 […].”

● 2025 Round-Up: A Deadly Year for Journalists. Reporters Without Borders’ annual round-up, released this week, shows, once again, that the most extreme forms of censorship against journalists – by murder, detention, enforced disappearance, or hostage-taking – do not just prevail but grow in numbers. In 2025, 67 journalists were killed, with almost half of them by the Israeli army in Gaza; while Russia keeps targeting reporters with lethal force in Ukraine, Sudan has become yet another exceptionally dangerous conflict zone for media workers; in Mexico, where organized crime groups continue to gun down journalists, 2025 is the deadliest of the past three years. 503 journalists are behind bars worldwide, with China (121), Russia (48), and Myanmar (47) jailing the most. 135 journalists are missing globally; more than a quarter of them are still unaccounted for in Syria. Access all the data here.

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 Legal System Is Being Weaponized to Silence Survivors of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence. This report by Index on Censorship addresses a gap in policy conversations on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). Despite being primarily associated with journalism, SLAPPs increasingly target survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. Focusing on the legal systems of the UK and Ireland, the report reveals a pattern: threatening legal letters, complexities of legal action, high costs of defense, and hostile court environments – a system that does more than fail to protect survivors: it assists abusers in silencing them. “So much was taken from me when I was sexually abused, but I still had my voice. It felt like in suing me he was taking that final piece,” shared one survivor. “Being sued for defamation felt like the ultimate form of gaslighting. The impact of these proceedings will follow me for the rest of my life.”

● Unyielding: Personal Essays From Women Human Rights Defenders. How does one carry on the grueling work of human rights defense when violence, both online and offline, surges in response? This anthology gathers the stories of strength from women across Kenya, Pakistan, Myanmar, Mexico, Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Guåhan, Syria, Palestine, Iran, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Uganda, and Ethiopia.

● How a Small Group of Women Changed the Law on Deepfake Porn, by Anna Moore. Reporting for The Guardian, Anna Moore traces the campaign, led by women experts and survivors of deepfake abuse, behind the UK’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, which criminalizes the creation of intimate image abuse without consent.

● Job Opening: Research Officer – Rule of Law. Berlin-based Democracy Reporting International is hiring a full-time Research Officer with a strong expertise in EU Law and public law in EU Member States. Apply here by December 19.

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