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.
How can public-interest reporting, like investigations of corruption, human rights abuses, or environmental disputes, be interrupted? It is possible to muzzle a journalist without explicit censorship. A legal threat is a powerful tactic. Violence—or a threat of violence—could deter many. AI-enabled harassment can be staggeringly effective, too.
Publications are facing barrages of legal threats. At a recent public forum, Wall Street Journal editor Emma Tucker spoke on how those in power start legal processes before journalists publish their stories. Tucker called it a “PR strategy,” which aims to halt reporting in its tracks, beyond the publication that is being threatened.
Most reporters do not have a newspaper of the Wall Street Journal kind pledging to defend them. “I have censored myself many, many times,” a journalist told The Dial as the magazine turned to reporters from around the world to create a toolkit for US-based journalists. “If a story endangers my safety or I’m going to be reporting it on my own, I sometimes just decide that it’s not worth it. Particularly if I’m freelancing.”
Women journalists are particularly vulnerable, as AI facilitates image-based gendered abuse in the extreme—from “nudification” to deepfake videos simulating rape. A very worrisome study of the impact such online violence triggers has reported that 45% of women journalists and media workers self-censor today—the number has doubled over the past five years. An industry that already underrepresents women may be “on the brink of a massive talent exodus,” writes Erin Spencer Sairam of Forbes.
As indirect censorship tactics proliferate, they are often described under the umbrella term of the chilling effect—the concept CGFoE discussed at a webinar this week. In case you missed it, watch the launch of Legal and Ethical Issues of Chilling Effect, a book that fills many of the topic’s research gaps and includes a chapter by the CGFoE Team, on our YouTube channel.
On May 12, 2026, across Argentina, hundreds of thousands of students, professors, university workers, researchers, and members of the general public took part in the 4th Federal University March to protest President Javier Milei’s ongoing austerity measures affecting public higher education.
Photo 1 (left): CGFoE Program Coordinator Estefanía Mullally marched in San Carlos de Bariloche. “Why are they so afraid of educating the people?” reads the front sign.
Photo 2 (right): CGFoE Senior Legal Researcher Lautaro Furfaro protested in Buenos Aires. The sign he captured says, “Milei, comply with the law.”
European Court of Human Rights
Morawiec v. Poland
Decision Date: February 5, 2026
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that the Republic of Poland violated the right to freedom of expression of a Polish judge after she was suspended from her judicial duties for criticizing judicial reforms. In 2020, a prosecutor sought to lift Judge Morawiec’s immunity based on criminal charges of intentional abuse of power by a public official, misappropriation of funds, and bribery, which followed her vocal public criticism of government reforms. The Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court (DCSC) lifted her immunity, suspended her from her judicial duties, and reduced her salary by 50%. However, a second-instance DCSC panel later quashed this decision and refused to lift her immunity after finding the prosecutor’s evidence insufficient to substantiate the charges. The ECtHR recognized Judge Morawiec as “one of the most outspoken critics” of judicial reforms and held that the purpose of the government’s measures was to intimidate and create a “chilling effect” on judges who may choose to debate the issues of judicial independence publicly. The ECtHR also considered that the domestic proceedings before the DCSC were not conducted before an “independent and impartial tribunal” and therefore were not in “accordance with the law,” as required by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 21,000 for non-pecuniary damages and EUR 6,000 for costs and expenses.
Egypt
The Case of Egyptian Influencer Mohamed Abelaty
Decision Date: January 17, 2026
The Second Appellate Misdemeanour Circuit of the Cairo Economic Court acquitted a social media content creator of violating “family values” under Egypt’s Cybercrime Law, holding that his videos, although containing vulgar language and sexual innuendo, did not rise to the level of undermining the ethical foundations of the family. The case arose from the defendant’s publication of comedic but offensive video clips on YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram. At first instance, the defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, including violation of family values, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the court adopted a narrow interpretation of the family‑values offense, emphasizing that coarse words alone are insufficient without a meaning that genuinely attacks the shared moral principles of the community. While upholding the convictions for obscene content and public indecency, the court reduced the prison term to three months, thereby partially restricting expression but significantly limiting an ambiguous legal provision.
Croatia
RTD d.o.o. v. Croatia
Decision Date: June 26, 2019
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia found that lower courts violated a newspaper publisher’s right to freedom of expression by ordering it to pay damages for harming a judge’s reputation. The case arose from an article reporting that the president of a court had speculated that another judge serving on the same court was the author of an anonymous letter which had harshly criticized him. The Court held that the reporting concerned a matter of public interest, specifically the functioning of the judiciary, requiring a careful balancing of the rights to reputation and expression. It determined that the lower courts failed to adequately justify why the second judge’s reputation rights outweighed the publisher’s freedom of expression, noting that judges, as public officials, are subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism. The Court also raised concerns that the amount of damages awarded was not properly reasoned and could create a chilling effect on future reporting. Consequently, the case was sent back to the first-instance court for a new decision that properly balances these competing constitutional rights.
● US: Amicus Briefs Say Trump Immigration Policy Chills Researchers’ Speech, by Murad Ali Bhatti and Siddharth Muchhal. In this article for Tech Policy Press, former legal externs at the Knight First Amendment Institute, Murad Ali Bhatti and Siddharth Muchhal, unpack three amicus briefs filed in Coalition for Independent Technology Research v. Rubio, a challenge to a US immigration policy targeting researchers and online safety workers. In their submissions, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Integrity Institute , and the International Fact-Checkers Network at the Poynter Institute argue the policy chills speech throughout the field and seeks to “shape the conditions under which online speech is produced, moderated, and studied.”
● EU: As Deadline Passes, MFRR Renews Call for Urgent Transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. As the deadline to transpose the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive passed last week, the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) coalition called on EU Member States—nearly all of them failed to meet the deadline—to urgently commit to media freedom by accelerating their legislative processes. In related news, ARTICLE 19 published a legal briefing, Un-SLAPPED, which reviews the impact of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation and advocates for anti-SLAPP frameworks grounded in international human rights law.
● West, Central, East Africa: SLAPPs Pose Threat to Climate and Environmental Journalists, by Jordan Higgins and Dr. Marystella Simiyu. A new report by the International Press Institute examines vexatious legal cases targeting climate and environmental journalists across Africa—those on the front lines of covering the global climate crisis. Based on interviews and research on Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Kenya, Somalia, Mozambique, and South Africa, the report finds that while SLAPPs—often brought by “foreign-owned energy and resource extraction companies”—represent a grave threat to environmental and climate journalism, no African country has anti-SLAPP laws in place yet.
On Friday, May 8, at the Venice Biennale, Italy, the Art Not Genocide Alliance and national trade unions staged a 24-hour strike against Israel’s participation in the exhibition. (Earlier, Pussy Riot and FEMEN stormed the Russian pavilion with smoke and Ukrainian flags.) Also on Friday, the anniversary of the end of World War II, thousands of students across Germany walked out of school to protest the government’s military service modernization law. On Sunday, in London, the UK, thousands rallied against rising antisemitic attacks, including a stabbing in Golders Green, with cross-party political speakers participating. That day in Mogadishu, Somalia, demonstrators protested government-ordered home demolitions and evictions; security forces reportedly killed one protester while dispersing crowds. On Tuesday, across Argentina, hundreds of thousands protested President Javier Milei’s austerity measures affecting public higher education.
Workers, teachers, unions, Indigenous organizations, and peasant movements have been staging nationwide protests against President Rodrigo Paz amid a deepening economic crisis, austerity measures, rising fuel prices, and controversial reforms affecting land rights and public services. On May 1, the Bolivian Workers’ Central (COB), the country’s main trade union, announced an indefinite general strike.
Demands: Workers call for higher wages and compensations due to the removal of long-standing fuel subsidies; teachers demand a “single free public education system”; Indigenous and peasant organizations mobilize against Law 1720, arguing that it undermines collective land rights and allows agribusiness to expand into Indigenous and peasant territories. Months of unrest, including road blockades, preceded the strike; land workers and Indigenous representatives marched for weeks to reach the capital of La Paz in early May.
Significance: Bolivia is facing its largest economic crisis in 40 years, intensified by the global economic shock that the US-Israel war against Iran had triggered. The cross-sector mobilization points to unified resistance: the COB, peasant, and Indigenous organizations formalized their alliance with a “pact of no betrayal,” calling for President Paz to resign unless their demands are met.
State Response: The Paz government’s response has combined dismissal of demands and the use of force, with clashes between protesters and police reported. 13 protesters were arrested following the riot police dispersal of workers who had occupied Bolivia’s Ministry of Labour. Security forces have deployed tear gas against protesters near the presidential palace in La Paz.
FoE Violations: Law enforcement actions, like the use of force and tear gas, raise proportionality concerns. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) had monitored earlier social unrest in Bolivia and its impact on human rights, urging the state to “strengthen democratic spaces for dialogue to resolve disputes,” which the IACHR’s latest annual report on the country reiterates.
● Call for Papers: Ethical, Legal, and Empirical Perspectives on Freedom of Expression of Academic Teachers Today. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia nad Prawem (The Critique of Law. Independent Legal Studies), a Poland-based scholarly legal journal, invites submissions to its thematic issue on academic freedom of expression. Submit abstracts to Dr Mateusz Wojtanowski, University of Wrocław, at mateusz.wojtanowski@uwr.edu.pl by May 31. Learn more here.
● The European Court of Human Rights Knowledge Sharing platform recently added a selection of Case Law Guides in Bosnian, Hungarian, and Polish. Find them here.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.
Leave a Reply