Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University: Newsletter, 19 March 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.

This Tuesday, Argentinians participated in a nationwide decades-old civic ritual: they took to the streets in a commitment to memoria, verdad y justicia. March 24 marked 50 years since the 1976 civic-military coup that resulted in seven years of dictatorship, one of Latin America’s bloodiest: 30,000 people were forcibly disappeared, and around 500 children were appropriated—about 300 of whom still do not know their true identity—among many other human rights violations.

Argentina’s post-dictatorship human rights movement launched a tireless pursuit of accountability. Seen as a model globally, the movement led to the Trial of the Juntas (more than a thousand perpetrators punished), the establishment of the National Genetic Data Bank, and the recovery of identity for stolen children. Over the past years, however, President Javier Milei has challenged that progress dramatically.

“Milei is hardly the instigator of Argentina’s memory wars, but his government has taken denialism further than any predecessor, turning it into state policy,” writes journalist Jordana Timerman. Milei and his supporters have disputed the number of victims and promoted the so-called “complete memory”—a concept that emphasizes the violence of left-wing guerrilla groups and downplays the role of the junta. Rumors even point to something far-fetched until now: Milei could pardon convicted military officers.

Argentinians are fighting back. Their slogans, “Memory, Truth, and Justice” and “Never Again,” have once more grown into urgent demands. From Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires, where the Mothers and Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo began their struggle, to town squares across the country, where hundreds of thousands of Argentinians mobilized, Tuesday’s rally was one of the biggest in recent history. People carried photos of victims, with some placards saying, “We are still looking for you.”

Far beyond Argentina, other autocrats are rewriting history. In City of Philadelphia v. Doug Burgum, featured last week, a US district court ordered the Trump government to restore slavery-related historical exhibits—the exhibits it removed. The decision opened with George Orwell’s 1984: “As if the Ministry of Truth […] now existed, with its motto ‘Ignorance is Strength,’ this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims—to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not.”

Pakistan
The Case of Arshad Sharif
Decision Date: January 14, 2026
The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan held that it would not continue judicial supervision over the investigation into the killing of journalist Arshad Sharif and therefore disposed of the suo motu proceedings. Arshad Sharif, a Pakistani investigative journalist critical of political and military authorities, faced multiple criminal cases and threats after the removal of former Prime Minister Imran Khan in April 2022, which led him to leave Pakistan and travel first to the United Arab Emirates and later to Kenya. On October 23, 2022, he was fatally shot by Kenyan police officers at a roadblock in Kajiado County near Nairobi. The Court held that the federal government had already created a Special Joint Investigation Team and initiated diplomatic cooperation with Kenya through Mutual Legal Assistance mechanisms, while Sharif’s family had also pursued legal remedies in Kenyan courts. The Court emphasized that criminal investigations fall within the domain of law-enforcement authorities and that continuous judicial monitoring could interfere with investigative processes; therefore, there was no justification for maintaining ongoing judicial oversight.

Revisit CGFoE’s recent interview with Javeria Siddique, a Pakistani journalist, columnist, author, photographer, and Arshad Sharif’s widow. For our “Jurisprudence in Focus” series, Siddique reflected on her tenacious fight for justice—in two courts, in two countries—for her late husband and the backlash she has faced for speaking out. 

European Court of Human Rights
Mladina v. Slovenia (No. 2)
Decision Date: January 13, 2026
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Slovenia violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by sanctioning the publisher of Mladina magazine for publishing a satirical article and photographs that compared a Slovenian politician’s family portrait to one of Joseph Goebbels. The case arose after the magazine published the article, which criticized the political communication methods of B.G., a Slovenian parliamentarian. This was within a broader public debate sparked by a Facebook post that had made a similar comparison. B.G. initiated civil defamation proceedings, claiming that the visual comparison with the Nazi propaganda minister had damaged his honor and reputation, especially since the images included his family and young children. The domestic courts ordered the magazine to publish an apology and to pay damages for non-pecuniary harm. The ECtHR held that the domestic courts failed to provide sufficient and relevant reasons to justify their interference with the right to freedom of expression of the company that publishes the magazine Mladina. The Court emphasized that the publication contributed to a debate of public interest and stressed that satire is a form of expression that relies on exaggeration and provocation and therefore requires particularly careful scrutiny when restrictions are imposed. The Court noted that B.G. was a public figure who had a reduced expectation of protection from criticism, that the photograph had been taken at a public event and previously published with his consent, and that the domestic courts had failed to assess the publication in its full satirical context. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the interference was not necessary in a democratic society, ruling that there had been a violation of Article 10.

Mortensen v. Denmark
Decision Date: October 21, 2025
The European Court of Human Rights held that the criminal sanction imposed by a Danish High Court on a private individual for calling a well known public figure a Nazi on Twitter was a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The post concerned the leader of a right wing political party, who had garnered media attention for his anti-Islam protests and viewpoints as well as his involvement in cases related to the burning of Korans. The High Court found the statement to be a defamatory value judgement that did not have a factual basis nor contribute to matters of public interest and ordered the individual to pay fines and compensation totaling the equivalent of 5350 Euros. The European Court of Human Rights found that the Danish authorities had not conducted a proper balancing exercise between the right to freedom of expression and the right to private life and that, in contrast to the government’s view, the statement contributed to debate of public interest.

APR 1: The Inter-American Legal Framework of Freedom of Expression: From Origins to Renewal and Recent Developments on Hate Speech. Join our upcoming online discussion, organized jointly by CGFoE and the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Since 2010, the Inter-American Legal Framework regarding the Right to Freedom of Expression has become a key reference for courts, states, academics, and civil society throughout the Americas. 15 years later, the IACHR’s Office of the Special Rapporteur released the updated 2025 edition, followed by a thematic report on hate speech. In light of these recent publications and new challenges, we will discuss the evolution of Inter-American standards on freedom of expression and the system’s developing approach to hate speech. Next Wednesday, April 1, 10-11:30 AM New York | 9-10:30 AM Bogotá | 11-12:30 PM Buenos Aires. Online. In Spanish, with simultaneous interpretation into English. Register here.

● Bahrain/UAE: Cybercrime Laws Used to Curb Online Rumors Amid Regional Tensions. As part of its Global Legal Monitor, the Library of Congress reports on the statements issued by Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates warning the public against disseminating false information online as the regional war continues. Under cybercrime laws in both countries—the UAE’s Federal Decree-Law No. (34) of 2021 and Bahrain’s Law No. 60 of 2014—spreading false information can constitute a criminal offense. Covering the ongoing freedom of expression crackdown in Bahrain, Human Rights Watch flags a ban on protests and arrests of dozens for demonstrating peacefully or posting online, with the authorities seeking the death penalty in some cases.

● More Reports on the Right to Protest: HRW on Yemen, Amnesty on Austria. In another recent report, Human Rights Watch investigates February 2026 protests in Yemen’s Aden, Shabwa, and Hadramout, concluding that the government-aligned forces arbitrarily detained dozens of protesters and used excessive force, killing at least six and injuring dozens more. In “Freedom of Expression Is Highly Selective,” Amnesty International documents the crackdown on Palestinian solidarity in Austria, where the authorities prohibited at least seven gatherings in Vienna over the popular chant, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free.” (See CGFoE’s analysis of an Oversight Board case regarding the online use of the phrase: the Board argued that a blanket ban would infringe on users’ freedom of expression.)

● Pakistan: Release Human Rights Activist Dr. Mahrang Baloch. CIVICUS calls for the release of human rights defender Dr. Mahrang Baloch, whose continued imprisonment, marred by due process violations, “reflects a broader pattern of harassment against activists, journalists, and dissenting voices” in Pakistan. A prominent leader of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), Dr. Baloch was arrested a year ago at a peaceful sit-in protest in solidarity with the detained BYC members. The charges brought against Dr. Baloch under anti-terrorism laws and the public order ordinance relate to her human rights work. Despite facing serious health issues, Dr. Baloch and other imprisoned activists are being denied adequate medical care.

Call for Applications: Europe Litigation Surgery. Media Defence will select 12 participants for its upcoming litigation surgery, which will take place on June 9-11, 2026, in Budapest, Hungary. Apply here by April 8.

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