Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University: Newsletter, 19 February 2026

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.

“It’s already clear that 2026 will be a year of immense global security challenges,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General and CGFoE’s former Director, ahead of the Munich Security Conference. She urged world leaders to “find their backbones” and resist “the attacks on international law that endanger us all.”

Last week, the international powerhouse gathered at Hotel Bayerischer Hof in Munich, Germany, for one of the year’s most important diplomatic events. Outside, some 250,000 people protested the Iranian regime and its unprecedented bloody crackdown on nationwide protests. “Change, change, regime change,” the demonstrators chanted.

The conference attendees were preoccupied with another kind of change: that of US officials’ tone. Last year, Vice President JD Vance declared Europe’s suppression of free speech a threat bigger than Russia’s military aggression. This year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio appealed to transatlantic unity—to a standing ovation. Some European leaders perceived his address as “reassuring.” Yet it was not that. Not at all.

Rubio argued that the “euphoria” of Germany’s reunification and the Soviets’ fall led western states to “a dangerous delusion,” including a belief that “the ‘rules-based global order’ […] would now replace the national interest.” He went on to praise the “western civilization,” made up of “proud” nations, referring to “mass migration” as a key threat.

Rubio’s vision, one of empire, fundamentally contradicts international human rights law. Agnès Callamard described that vision as an “incredibly racist project,” “predicated on the subservience of Europe and white Christian supremacy.” The Guardian columnist Nathalie Tocci named it a new “MAGA trap.”

In the US, red-hat attacks on fundamental rights continue, targeting immigrants, protesters, media, NGOs, universities. “[W]hen governments start to use authoritarian techniques to try to seize control of the society,” CGFoE Founder Lee C. Bollinger reflected recently, “they want to go after sources of independent thinking and voices.”

As Rubio spoke of a future in Munich, he meant a MAGA future far beyond the US. It welcomes no independence of voices unless they stick to the formula: brute power prevails over human rights, rule of law, and democracy. It is a vision of a future—amplified by the silence of most world leaders—that endangers us all.

In a new book, CGFoE Founder and former Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger unpacks the American university phenomenon and argues that, at a perilous time for democracy, the university plays a vital truth-seeking role:

“The university must be defended if the American experiment is to continue.”

European Court of Human Rights
Green v. United Kingdom
Decision Date: April 8, 2025
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that the United Kingdom did not violate the right to respect for private and family life—under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—when a Member of Parliament disclosed confidential details about a former chairman of a British company. The British businessman alleged that the State failed to fulfill its positive obligations by allowing the Member to reveal confidential information. The Court argued that parliamentary immunity is essential to protect free speech and that the States have a wide margin of appreciation when dealing with issues related to parliamentary immunity. The ECtHR highlighted that the UK Parliament has repeatedly examined—and ultimately rejected—proposals to introduce ex ante and ex post controls “on the power to use parliamentary privilege to reveal information.” On this point, the Court emphasized that national authorities are better placed than an international court to assess whether restrictions on the conduct of Members of Parliament are necessary.

Case of Mária Somogyi v. Hungary
Decision Date: May 16, 2024
The European Court of Human Rights held that Hungary had violated a Facebook’s user’s right to freedom of expression by holding her civilly liable for a post which had criticised a local municipality. A Facebook user shared a post which expressed dissatisfaction with the municipality’s property management practices and expressed her own opinion on money spent by the municipality. The municipality and municipal office then filed a lawsuit for violation of the personality right to reputation. The Hungarian Court of First Instance found that the Facebook user had infringed the municipality and the municipal office’s personality rights to reputation by spreading false statements of fact and ordered an apology and monetary damages. The Court of Appeal reduced the amount of damages and found that the municipal office’s rights had not been infringed. The Curia upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision and the Constitutional Court rejected the Facebook user’s constitutional complaint. The European Court of Human Rights found that the civil penalties did not serve a legitimate aim when a public entity—such as a municipality—brings a claim for an infringement of personality rights.

Lithuania
In Re Protection of Minors and Freedom of Expression
Decision Date: December 18, 2024
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania held that Article 4, Part 2, Point 16 of the Law on the Protection of Minors from the Negative Impact of Public Information was unconstitutional. The case concerned whether classifying information about family models differing from marriage between a man and a woman as harmful to minors unlawfully restricted freedom of expression and violated the constitutional principle of the rule of law. The Court reasoned that the provision imposed a content-based restriction on expression that was neither necessary nor proportionate in a democratic society, failed to meet requirements of legal clarity and foreseeability, and improperly limited minors’ access to objective information reflecting real social relations, thereby infringing Article 25 of the Constitution and core constitutional values of pluralism and legal certainty.

FEB 26: Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights at University of Bristol. CGFoE expert Dr. Natalie Alkividaou, Senior Research Fellow at the Future of Free Speech, Vanderbilt University, will discuss her new book on the European Court of Human Rights’ approach to hate speech—an approach that, as Alkividaou argues, fails to offer strong and consistent protection of freedom of expression. In person at 2.13 Wills Memorial Building, University of Bristol, and online. February 26, 2026. 5–6:30 PM UK time / 12–1:30 PM NY time. Reserve your spot here.

MAR 26: Four Years of Academic Freedom Act in Québec. The Observatory of Freedom of Expression at the University of Québec at Chicoutimi will host a discussion, marking four years since the adoption of the Academic Freedom Act in Québec: Has the Act strengthened academic freedom? Or has it been “a partisan response to an imaginary problem”? Online. In French. March 26, 2026. 12:00 PM Québec / NY time. Learn more and find the Zoom link here.

● Kazakhstan: Draft Constitution Raises Rights Concerns. Human Rights Watch warns that the proposed amendments to Kazakhstan’s constitution—fast-paced for the March 15 referendum—would undermine checks on executive power and human rights. The proposed changes, affecting 80 percent of the constitution, could subject freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly to undue restrictions and include a definition of marriage as a “union between a man and a woman,” further deepening the discrimination of LGBTQI+ persons in Kazakhstan. The authorities have been silencing public criticism of the amendments through intimidation, fines, and arrests.

● Türkiye: Social Media Platforms and the Illusion of Transparency. The Freedom of Expression Association—İFÖD published the English version of its most recent report, Digital Obedience Regime: Social Media Platforms and the Illusion of Transparency in Türkiye, authored by CGFoE Expert Dr. Yaman Akdeniz of Istanbul Bilgi University and Senior Researcher Ozan Güven. The report is part of the EngelliWeb initiative, which has documented Türkiye’s scale of censorship: 1,264,506 websites and domain names blocked by the end of 2024. In other news, citing “protection of national security and public order,” an Istanbul court blocked access to news reports about a CEO whose name appears in the Epstein files.

● Germany: Preliminary Observations by UN Special Rapporteur Irene Khan. Concluding the first-ever official visit by a UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression to Germany, Irene Khan published preliminary observations on the country’s contracting freedom of expression. While acknowledging the grave threats of hate speech, Khan noted that the German government has prioritized security-oriented approaches, many of which do not align with international human rights standards. “A primary concern in Germany remains the use of anti-terrorism laws to restrict advocacy for Palestinian rights,” Khan said, “chilling public participation and shrinking discourse in academia and the arts.”

● Job Vacancy: Regional Director for Europe. Amnesty International is hiring a Regional Director for Europe to join its senior leadership team in London. The deadline is February 22. Learn more here.

● Job Vacancy: Research and Communications Officer. CIVICUS is recruiting a Research and Communications Officer to support its Lens initiative and the State of Civil Society Report. Remote candidates are eligible. Apply here by February 23.

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