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.
On Sunday, International Women’s Day, one of the biggest—and loudest—rallies took place in Mexico City: tens of thousands marched, turning the streets into a sea of purple, a signifier of justice, and green, a signifier of hope. At the Zócalo square, by the metal barricades installed around the National Palace, protesters clashed with the police. The women’s rage has a data point: on average, 10 women are murdered daily in Mexico.
“How can we express ourselves freely if the natural consequence of doing so is to experience gender-based violence?” ask the authors of CGFoE’s new Special Collection paper on freedom of expression case law examined through a gender lens. In How Do Women Experience the Exercise of Their Right to Freedom of Expression? Some Answers from Court Rulings, now available in English and soon in Spanish, Alejandra Negrete Morayta and Estefanía Mullally outline the costs of speaking up—within global structural discrimination based on gender.
The paper analyzes 51 decisions—all included in the CGFoE database—by national and international courts, human rights protection bodies, and quasi-judicial mechanisms, spanning 28 countries across Latin America, North America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa. It identifies patterns affecting women’s freedom of expression: reprisals for dissent, expulsion from the public sphere, repression of protest and religious expression, online violence, and abusive lawsuits.
Interviews with journalists and human rights defenders complement the paper, illustrating the impact on women’s lives. In one case of retaliatory litigation, Mexican political scientist and feminist communicator Ximena Peredo Rodríguez was held liable for moral damages after referring to anonymous allegations of gender-based violence against a former university professor, who sued her for defamation.
“That makes me understand the times we are living in as complex times, a frontal attack on human rights, on women’s rights,” Peredo said of her case in an interview featured in the paper. “But also as an unprecedented authorization for women to respond […]. I don’t experience it as a victim, even though I am a victim. But I put it in a much bigger bag. And that’s where I like to be.”
CGFoE’s new Special Collection paper How Do Women Experience the Exercise of Their Right to Freedom of Expression? Some Answers from Court Rulings by Alejandra Negrete Morayta and Estefanía Mullally is now available in English and soon Spanish.
European Court of Human Rights
Azadlıq Newspaper v. Azerbaijan
Decision Date: November 25, 2025
The European Court of Human Rights held that Azerbaijan violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by imposing a disproportionate monetary sanction on Azadliq newspaper in civil defamation proceedings. The case arose after the newspaper published an article accusing Mr. T.A., the chief executive of the Baku Metro, of misappropriating funds remaining on passengers’ metro cards after a fare increase and alleging a lack of effective oversight of the Metro’s finances. Domestic courts ordered the newspaper to publish a correction and pay non-pecuniary damages, finding that the allegations were unsubstantiated and that the article harmed Mr. T.A.’s reputation. The Court accepted that the interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of others. In assessing necessity and proportionality, it reiterated that press freedom entails duties and responsibilities, including the obligation to act in accordance with responsible journalism and to rely on a sufficient factual basis. It agreed that Azadliq had not demonstrated adequate verification of the allegations. However, the Court emphasized that the domestic courts failed to properly balance the right to freedom of expression with the protection of reputation, instead assessing the article as a whole without providing relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the severity of the damages award. It further stressed that unpredictably large damages can produce a chilling effect on public-interest reporting and noted that the domestic courts did not address Azadliq’s submissions regarding its financial hardship when evaluating proportionality. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the monetary sanction did not bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the legitimate aim pursued.
Ilareva v. Bulgaria
Decision Date: September 9, 2025
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Bulgarian authorities failed to protect human rights activists from online hate speech and death threats, thereby violating their right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The three activists, who advocated for migrants and minorities, were targeted on Facebook with violent imagery and explicit calls for their execution. Although the authorities opened criminal proceedings, the Court found that the investigation was ineffective, as it was artificially limited in scope and involved no genuine efforts to identify the perpetrators. The ECtHR emphasized that States’ positive obligations to protect individuals from serious threats apply equally in online and offline contexts. It concluded that the failure to properly investigate these discriminatory attacks infringed the activists’ rights under the ECHR.
United States
Little v. Llano County – Updated Case
Decision Date: May 23, 2025
The United States Fifth Circuit Court held that Llano County officials did not violate the First Amendment when they removed seventeen books from the county’s public library shelves following citizen complaints about their racial, sexual, and LGBTQ themes. The case arose after several library patrons sued, arguing that the removals amounted to unconstitutional censorship and violated their right to receive information. A district court and an earlier appellate panel agreed, ordering the books returned. However, sitting en banc, the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that the First Amendment does not give the public a right to demand that government libraries provide or retain particular books. The Court explained that decisions about which books to keep or remove are part of a library’s normal curatorial discretion and constitute government speech, not a public forum for private expression. It compared libraries to museums, which select what to display without constitutional challenge. The Court also overruled its earlier precedent in Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board (1995), rejecting its reliance on Board of Education v. Pico (1982), and concluded that removing books for reasons such as relevance, suitability, or community standards does not violate free speech rights. The dissenting judges, however, accused the majority of endorsing censorship, warning that the ruling allowed government officials to “silence disfavored ideas” under the guise of library management.
● CSW70: Call for Resistance to Attacks on Gender Justice and Women’s Rights. At the 70th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW70), an Amnesty International delegation urged action against systemic undermining of gender justice and women’s rights. “Powerful states are weaponizing gender to justify repression and adoption of punitive laws,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General and CGFoE’s former Director. “Corporate and other non-state actors are planting the seeds of moral panic by spreading hateful narratives and disinformation.” Amnesty’s newly released briefing Humanity Must Win details how, despite systematic repression, initiatives continue to expose human rights violations and pave the way to justice in Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, China, Gaza, Hungary, Malawi, and Latin America.
● Azerbaijan: Nine Jailed Women Journalists Report Sexual Abuse. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) sounds the alarm over physical and psychological violence and gender-based threats in detention in Azerbaijan, where nine women journalists remain behind bars. On March 8, Azerbaijan’s women detainees received roses; two weeks prior, three Meydan TV journalists had reported rape threats and sexist humiliation at a pre-trial detention center. RSF has documented a series of similar accounts in recent months. “The gendered dimension of these abuses […] is part of a deliberate strategy of humiliation and dissuasion designed to strike these journalists at their core and send a chilling message to all women who might want to investigate, report and speak out,” said Jeanne Cavelier of RSF.
● New Study: Feminist Analysis of Women Human Rights Defenders’ Digital Experiences. This study by the Association for Progressive Communications analyzes the legal frameworks and digital experiences of women human rights defenders in six countries, revealing links between technology-facilitated gender-based violence and digital authoritarianism. Focusing on Brazil, Ecuador, India, the Philippines, Uganda, and Tanzania, the study finds “a continuum between online violence and offline repression,” misogynistic rhetoric leading to real-life threats, structural discrimination built into technology, a surge in surveillance, and criminalization of dissent with the help of anti-terrorism, cybercrime, and morality laws.
Across the world on Sunday, March 8, from Seoul to Paris to Santiago, thousands marked International Women’s Day in marches and demonstrations, protesting discrimination and gender-based violence; some rallies also denounced the US-Israel war against Iran (Spain) and environmental damage due to oil and gas extraction (Indigenous groups in Ecuador); in Islamabad, Pakistan, police briefly arrested several activists, who tried to hold a rally despite a government ban. On Monday, March 9, a group of students in Cuba organized a sit-in on the steps of Havana University, protesting the rapidly worsening state of education amid an energy crisis.
On March 8, police in Musoma, northern Tanzania, fired tear gas and conducted arrests at an International Women’s Day gathering, organized by the women’s wing of the main opposition party CHADEMA. The incident is part of Tanzania’s broader crackdown on freedom of expression and assembly rights, following the disputed October 2025 election and protests that left hundreds dead.
Background: Repression targeting critics dragged on for years and intensified before the October 2025 presidential election, which, with main opposition candidates in prison or barred from running, incumbent Samia Suluhu Hassan won in a landslide. The African Union concluded the vote did not comply with democratic standards due to ballot stuffing, internet blackout, excessive force, and politically-motivated abductions.
Significance: People protested the sham vote in cities across Tanzania starting on the election day. A deadly crackdown followed. Opposition protests have been effectively banned.
State Response: Under a nationwide internet shutdown, between October 29 and November 3, security forces deployed disproportionate and lethal force against protesters, firing tear gas and live ammunition at those who posed no imminent threat. Dozens of bodies were piled up in morgues, and evidence suggests that security officers interfered with the treatment of some of the injured. At least three journalists were killed. Over 2000 people were arrested. Ahead of Independence Day rallies planned for December 9, 2025, authorities detained protest organizers and banned all gatherings. Citing a court injunction against CHADEMA’s political activities, police barred the party’s women from holding a March 8 celebration and detained most of them—around 300 in total, according to a CHADEMA representative—while en route to Musoma.
Toll: At least 700 people were killed between October 29 and November 3, 2025.
Grave Human Rights Violations: The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, UN experts, and human rights watchdogs have pointed to extrajudicial killings, kidnappings, and mass arbitrary arrests, calling on Tanzania to guarantee an independent investigation of all the allegations and safeguard freedom of expression.
Inside the Legal Defense of Georgia Fort and Don Lemon, by Joel Simon. Writing for Columbia Journalism Review, Joel Simon, founding director of the Journalism Protection Initiative at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, covers the case of Don Lemon and Georgia Fort: the two US journalists arrested while reporting on an anti-ICE protest at a church in January. Lemon and Fort are being prosecuted under the laws that protect religious worship and face a decade in prison.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.
Leave a Reply