The Budapest Pride Parade will take place this June. The state won’t attempt a crackdown: one year since the rally was banned, the police authorized it. The news, a hopeful sign, follows an unprecedented ruling: the EU’s top court found former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s anti-LGBTQ+ legislation had breached several fundamental rights, including a ban on discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation.
Orbán’s so-called “illiberal democracy,” built for the past 16 years, resulted in eroded judicial independence and near-total media capture, among a pile of other concerns. In April, Hungarians voted for change. Now hopes and doubts mount. Will the new government deliver? And more importantly, how? “The conundrum to resolve […],” writes Polly Botsford of the International Bar Association, “lies in how to re-establish the rule of law while also respecting the processes required to uphold it.”
One case we are featuring this week points to the scale of what needs fixing. The EU’s Court of Justice held that Hungary’s automatic refusal to renew independent radio station Klubrádió’s broadcasting rights was disproportionate and incompatible with EU law. CGFoE expert Natalie Alkiviadou unpacks the landmark decision: “The CJEU treated access to broadcasting frequencies as a factor that can influence the effective exercise of freedom of expression, media independence and pluralism.”
While the EU Commission lauds the “wind of change” under Prime Minister Péter Magyar and sets to unfreeze billions of funds, the old system, for now, still rolls. The country’s only remaining progressive newspaper, Népszava (which claims it upheld editorial independence despite accepting former government ads), announced that May 28’s print issue might be the last. Its printing house and distributor terminated their contracts. Both belong to Mediaworks, a holding with ties to Orbán’s Fidesz party.
The European Federation of Journalists urgently calls on the Hungarian government and the EU to help restore Népszava’s print edition and thus protect media pluralism and people’s right to be informed. The question stands: How does one undo an entire system of media control by legal and democratic means only? Media freedom groups are weighing in. Hungary’s new government must listen.
After 153 years in print, Népszava, Hungary’s only remaining left-wing newspaper, announced that May 28’s paper edition might be its last. Mediaworks, a holding with ties to former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party, terminated Népszava’s printing and distribution contracts. The case shows the extent of Hungary’s media capture established under Orbán’s 16-year rule. Press freedom groups appeal for urgent protection of media pluralism.
Court of Justice of the European Union
European Commission v. Hungary
Decision Date: February 2, 2026
The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Hungary violated multiple obligations under the EU electronic communications law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by adopting and applying national legislation and administrative decisions that effectively stripped Klubrádió, a commercial radio station, of its right to broadcast on the FM frequency 92.9 MHz in Budapest. The Court found that Hungary’s Law on Media Services automatically and disproportionately precluded the renewal of broadcasting rights upon any finding of a repeated infringement—even where, as in Klubrádió’s case, the underlying conduct amounted to nothing more than the late filing of monitoring reports, had already been penalized by nominal fines, and had not recurred—without allowing any assessment of the seriousness of that infringement or its proportionality as a ground for denial. The Court further found that Hungary’s Media Council took ten months to issue its refusal decision in violation of a mandatory six-week deadline, conducted a subsequent tendering procedure too late to prevent the frequency from going unused, and rejected Klubrádió’s tender in that procedure on grounds that were either remediable clerical errors or criteria never disclosed in the call for tenders (minor programming inconsistencies and a negative net worth), in violation of the principles of transparency and proportionality.
United States
Dickinson v. Trump
Decision Date: February 3, 2026
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted a temporary restraining order, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their First Amendment retaliation claim arising from federal officers’ use of force against peaceful protesters and journalists. The case arose from a pattern of conduct at protests near a federal facility, where the plaintiffs alleged that officers repeatedly used chemical agents and projectile munitions without warning against individuals engaged in protected activities such as protesting, observing, and newsgathering. The Court held that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits by showing they were engaged in protected First Amendment activity, that the government’s conduct would chill a person of ordinary firmness, and that there was substantial evidence, both direct and circumstantial, of retaliatory intent—including a sustained pattern of excessive and targeted force. It further found irreparable harm due to the ongoing chilling of First Amendment rights, emphasizing that “the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” and concluded that the balance of equities and public interest strongly favored relief because preventing constitutional violations is of paramount public importance.
Hungary
The case of the deletion of a Facebook post and disabling of comments
Decision Date: November 18, 2025
The Hungarian Constitutional Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions that the removal of comments on a Facebook page was not an unjustifiable limitation of a Facebook user’s right to freedom of expression. The user had noticed that his comments had been deleted (and he was prevented from making further comments) on a Facebook page run by the mayor of Budapest and brought a court application seeking a declaration that his rights to freedom of expression and the protection of personal data had been infringed. The lower courts found that the user had consented to the processing of his data when he joined the platform, and that the page’s operator was entitled to delete or block activity. The Constitutional Court found no violation of the right to the protection of personal data or of the right to a fair trial or of freedom of expression and it dismissed the petition seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality and the annulment of the judgment of the Curia.
László Toroczkai vs. Independent Bailiff
Decision Date: September 23, 2025
The Hungarian Constitutional Court ruled that the lower courts had correctly found that a bailiff’s personality rights had been infringed by the publication of an interview with him without his consent. A politician had filmed an unplanned interview with the bailiff and then uploaded clips of the video to social media platforms and his own personal website. The bailiff had consented to the publication only if he viewed the clips before publication. The lower courts had found there was a violation of personality rights and awarded damages. The Constitutional Court held that the lower courts had correctly assessed that the bailiff did not qualify as a public figure in the circumstances and that he had not consented to the publication, and so the politician’s freedom of expression had not been infringed.
● Hungary: On Law and Politics in the Transition. In cooperation with the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Vervassungsblog runs a series of analyses and critiques on Hungary’s transition to constitutional democracy. A recent article by Bernát Török, Law Professor and UNESCO Chair at Ludovika University of Public Service in Budapest, outlines what lies ahead for the renewal of Hungary’s media regulation. “Institutional guarantees of pluralism must once again be integral to the operation of the media authority,” Török argues.
● Ghana: Parliament Approves Bill Criminalizing Promotion of LGBTQ+ Activity. Last Friday, Ghana’s parliament passed a bill that imposes up to ten years of prison for persons who “promote, sponsor, or advocate LGBTQ+ acts.” Additionally, the law prohibits funding to associated groups. Human rights organizations warned of a devastating setback for the country’s already vulnerable human rights situation, urging the government to “uphold the international legal protections that guarantee every Ghanaian equality, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, and privacy.”
● Gulf States: More Than 1,000 Arrested in Sweeping War-Related Crackdown on Expression. Amnesty International has documented over 1,000 arrests in retaliation for war-related expression, including online content, across the Gulf states. At the beginning of the US-Israel war against Iran, the authorities of Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Oman alerted the public against sharing “rumors,” “false information,” or content from “unknown sources” online. Mass arrests followed. Dozens were sentenced to years in prison—in some cases, to a ten-year term.
● Argentina: Anti-Picket Protocol and Press Union Fighting Back. Media Defence interviewed lawyer Damián Loreti, who represents the Press Union of Buenos Aires in a class action against Resolution 943/2023, or “the anti-picket protocol”—see CGFoE’s analysis of a ruling that declared the protocol unlawful. The case has now reached the Supreme Court. Loreti described the March 2025 protest in Buenos Aires as “a turning point,” with more than 20 people hospitalized, over 100 arrested, 15 journalists prevented from reporting, and photojournalist Pablo Grillo gravely injured.
Across Bolivia, protests and roadblocks against austerity measures have continued for over a month; protesters call on President Rodrigo Paz, who fled the capital, to resign; the defense minister stepped down; the country faces a public health crisis, rising death toll, and acute shortages of food. On Saturday in London, the UK, a crowd with actor Ian McKellen marched against colonial-era laws that criminalize LGBTQ+ people in 29 Commonwealth states. On Monday, across Israel, tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Israelis protested mandatory military enlistment; police used water cannons and horses. On Monday in Tirana, Albania, thousands protested a planned luxury tourism project linked to US President Donald Trump’s family, raising environmental concerns. On Monday in Nanyuki, Kenya, hundreds protested a planned Ebola quarantine center for US citizens only; two people died; Kenya’s High Court suspended the plan. That day in Kenya’s capital, Nairobi, hundreds protested a surge in violence against women.
Delaney Hall Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Centre in Newark, New Jersey, became a site of protests and freedom of expression violations in the past two weeks as hundreds of detainees joined a hunger and labor strike.
Background: Privately-owned Delaney Hall reopened in early 2025 as part of President Trump’s mass deportation campaign and holds almost 1,000 detainees, many requiring urgent medical treatment, who cook, clean, and repair the center for $1 a day or nothing at all. On May 22, around 300 detainees announced a hunger strike against prolonged detention, “medical neglect, lack of air conditioning, and lack of food—including rotten and spoiled meals.” Federal, state, and local lawmakers, along with human rights groups, have alleged that the facility’s conditions are dire.
Significance: The protests have combined an internal strike with nightly rallies outside, congressional oversight attempts, and active engagement from New Jersey’s governor and mayor. CNN recently reported that nearly 50 ICE detainees have died in the nationwide anti-immigration crackdown during Trump’s second term.
State Response: Across multiple days, ICE and police used batons, tear gas, and horses to disperse outside protesters. Six were arrested on May 27, for allegedly assaulting federal officers, and nine on May 29; total arrests amounted to a minimum of 18. The New Jersey governor and health authorities were denied access to the facility. The Department of Homeland Security dismissed allegations of human rights violations at Delaney Hall, accusing “sanctuary politicians” of “spreading categorically false smears” and “inciting violent riots.” Newark Mayor imposed a mandatory overnight curfew.
Some Results: ICE agreed to leave the area around the facility, as the governor placed state police in charge. Family visits, suspended earlier, were allowed to resume.
FoE Violations: Targeted suppression of newsgathering adds to restrictions on assembly rights: on May 26, photojournalist Cristina Panagi, with visible press credentials, was pepper-sprayed by a federal officer; officers reportedly pointed pepper spray directly at a cluster of journalists covering the protests; on May 27, Panagi was shoved by an ICE officer. In Dickinson v. Trump, featured this week, a US court ruled that federal officers’ repeated use of force against peaceful protesters and journalists likely violated the First Amendment, noting substantial evidence of retaliatory intent.
The Joke’s on Who? On the ‘Presumed Audience’ as an Alternative to the ‘Reasonable Reader’ in Satire-Related Cases, by Rohaan Thomas Mathew. In this blog post, Rohaan Thomas Mathew critiques the “reasonable reader” standard and considers the “presumed audience” approach, using Z.B. v. France and Petrov v. Russia to examine how humour is interpreted in free speech cases.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.