The Turkish authorities have been on a blocking spree. Last month alone, according to the Freedom of Expression Association—İFÖD, blocking orders affected at least 1,270 accounts with a combined 35 million followers on X. They were targeted as part of a sweeping crackdown on LGBTIQ+ groups and activists or for unclear “national security and public order” reasons. In at least 90% of the orders, X complied.
“Social media censorship is continuing with more accounts being blocked and withheld by X,” CGFoE expert and co-founder of İFÖD Yaman Akdeniz told us this week. “And X continues to be secretive about the access-blocking decisions.” Turkish courts blocked the accounts of numerous journalists, academics, and human rights organizations, including Akdeniz, İFÖD, and İFÖD’s EngelliWeb project that documents digital censorship and access restrictions in Türkiye.
On October 13, an appeal concerning the blocking of the EngelliWeb account was rejected by a short paragraph stating the decision in question was “in accordance with procedure and law.” An appeal concerning Akdeniz’s account is still pending. But in the case of İFÖD, “X has not sent us the details about the blocking decision,” Akdeniz said. “For over 10 days we have been unable to start legal proceedings challenging it.”
While the censorship is unfolding mostly on X, Meta blocked several media and civil society accounts too. The website and X account of T24, one of Türkiye’s largest remaining independent news outlets, were also blocked.
“The conduct of social media platforms forms an essential part of internet censorship in Türkiye,” said İFÖD, ARTICLE 19, Human Rights Watch, and over a dozen others in a joint statement, calling on the platforms to uphold their human rights responsibilities and not contribute to violations of the right to freedom of expression. The human rights groups urged the Turkish government to immediately cease restricting speech.
Yet attacks on digital rights will likely only escalate. From November 1, Türkiye bans social media for kids under 15 and introduces mandatory ID-based age verification for all users. “This means the end of anonymity, one of the last refuges of critical expression,” said İFÖD, announcing it will challenge these regulations before the Council of State, Türkiye’s highest administrative court.
Image credit: EngelliWeb
Court of Justice of the European Union
The Case of WebGroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates, and Coyote System
Decision Date: June 16, 2026
The Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) ruled on the compatibility of French restrictions on online pornography and the sharing of information about roadside checks with the EU E-Commerce Directive. The Court held that France could not impose general criminal-law restrictions on online service providers established in other Member States, but could require individual providers to implement age-verification measures to protect minors, subject to EU safeguards. It also held that targeted restrictions on sharing roadside-check information could be permissible without violating the prohibition on general monitoring obligations. Significantly, the Court clarified that online platforms exercising control over how user-generated information is disseminated through algorithms may lose the Directive’s hosting liability exemption. The French Council of State was left to apply these principles to the underlying disputes.
Netherlands
Meta v. Bits of Freedom
Decision Date: March 10, 2026
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal largely upheld a preliminary injunction finding by the Amsterdam District Court that a social media platform’s design of recommendation-system choices violated the Digital Services Act. The case concerned a challenge to the way users could select, retain, and access non-profiled recommendation systems on two large platforms. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the claims remained urgent because they sought to stop ongoing alleged unlawful conduct and to protect freedom of information gathering as part of freedom of expression. It also affirmed that non-profiled options had to be directly and easily accessible and that users’ choices had to be persistent, since automatic reversion to profiled systems could constitute a prohibited dark pattern. Although the parliamentary elections that had originally heightened urgency had passed, the suspension of enforcement and the platform operator’s implementation issues created a new situation that did not eliminate urgency. The Court of Appeal found the first-instance penalty cap of €5 million insufficient and raised the maximum to €10 million, while refusing a request to raise it to €100 million. It otherwise upheld the ruling.
United States
Calise v. Meta Platforms
Decision Date: September 22, 2025
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Meta Platforms, Inc. can be held to the promises in Facebook’s Terms of Service and Community Standards to act against fraudulent content, allowing Facebook users to pursue claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith against Meta, while dismissing their claim that the company negligently failed to warn them. The users had lost money to scam advertisements on Facebook and argued that Meta, despite promising to “take appropriate action” against harmful conduct and to remove fraudulent content, welcomed scam advertisers and let them return after removal. In 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, does not block claims based on Meta’s own promises, although it does block the users’ negligence, unfair competition and unjust enrichment claims. On remand, the District Court found Meta’s specific promises clear enough to be binding. It also refused, at this early stage, to enforce a clause capping Meta’s liability at $100, finding the clause so one-sided that users would have no real reason to pursue their rights. In January 2026, the court allowed Meta to appeal immediately, and the Ninth Circuit is now reviewing whether Meta’s terms bind it and whether the $100 cap is so unfair that it cannot be enforced.
NOV 18: Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights. CGFoE expert Natalie Alkiviadou, 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 Alkiviadou argues, fails to offer strong and consistent protection of freedom of expression. Join the event, organized by the University of Strasbourg. Online. November 18, 2026. 2:00 PM Strasbourg / 8:00 AM New York. Register here.
● Türkiye: Government Takes Over Independent TV News Channel. This Wednesday, Turkish police raided the headquarters of Halk TV, an independent news channel that reported on government corruption and the trial of Istanbul’s mayor, Ekrem İmamoğlu, who began his defense on the same day. The Istanbul prosecutor ordered the arrest of Halk TV’s owner on charges of financial crimes, as well as 16 other people. A state body attached to the presidency will now manage the channel. In other news from Türkiye, cartoonist Doğan Pehlevan received an 11-month suspended sentence for “insulting” the president in a tweet he denied posting.
● “That Violates My Policies”: AI Laws, Chatbots, and the Future of Expression. The Future of Free Speech published the 2026 edition of its annual report, examining how public governance of generative AI shapes the space for free expression and access to information. The authors assess legislation, public policies, and court decisions through updated analyses of the European Union and the United States and new analyses of Nigeria, Peru, Sweden, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam, expanding the 2025 report’s coverage of Brazil, China, India, and the Republic of Korea to 12 jurisdictions.
● MAP-AI Open Letter: Centering Human Rights in AI Governance. 87 civil society organizations, academics, technologists, and experts have endorsed an open letter calling on governments, companies, and the UN to ground AI governance and international cooperation in international human rights law. The letter was published by the Multistakeholder Approaches to Participation in AI Governance (MAP-AI) Project, a joint initiative of the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi and the Global Network Initiative.
● New Book: The Law, Society, and Politics of Entertainment in Britain: Regulation or Self-Censorship? by Jennifer Young. CGFoE expert Jennifer Young, Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Groningen, published a book examining the legal and regulatory frameworks shaping political entertainment and satire in the United Kingdom. The book, available in open access under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, draws on the historical and legal development of broadcasting regulation, along with interviews with comedians, writers, and executive producers.
Last Thursday in New York, the US, protests erupted after ICE agents shot Oscar Belgal, who was in his car with a five-year-old; a police officer knocked congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier to the ground. On Friday in Brussels, Belgium, police used tear gas, water cannon, and baton charges at a national strike of about 30,000 over education cuts; earlier unrest in Liège resulted in a gathering ban and more than 200 arrests. On Saturday in London, the UK, around 250,000, as per the organizer Palestine Solidarity Campaign, marched in solidarity with Palestinians; 20 arrests were made, including for support of Palestine Action. On Monday in Baku and other cities in Azerbaijan, students and teachers protested after girls wearing hijabs were not allowed to enter schools under new dress code rules; 37 were arrested. On Tuesday across France, tens of thousands—the unions recorded 480,000—rallied over school conditions and police violence as nationwide protests continue; police fired tear gas in Nantes, Paris, and Lyon.
More protests took place over the past week. Find them using our web tool.
As renewed youth-led protests have continued since October 2, India’s authorities have doubled down on their efforts to suppress them. Thousands have been detained.
Demands: In revising electoral lists, the Election Commission has reportedly removed around 130 million names, a move two election commissioners reportedly objected to repeatedly. Critics argue the removals disproportionately affect minorities, particularly Muslims. Protesters demand that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar resign and that the ban on protests at Jantar Mantar, a historic protest site in Delhi, be lifted.
Significance: Despite “unprecedented police action” on October 10, thousands more joined protests in the following days and faced detention. The mass protests have become a significant challenge to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government.
State Response: On October 10, the authorities declared the demonstration unsanctioned, closed 45 Delhi Metro stations, deployed more than 30,000 security personnel, suspended mobile internet in central Delhi, and turned stadiums into detention centers. People were stopped on trains, at checkpoints, and in their homes. Leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party, a satirical youth movement launched in May 2026, Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das, and Ashutosh Ranka were detained upon landing at Delhi airport and released by court order after about 24 hours. Delhi detention figures range from 2,500 to 7,000. About 400 people were reportedly held in Mumbai. Around 40 journalists were detained in Delhi and other cities on October 10 and 11. On October 13, Das and Ranka entered Jantar Mantar, a day after police withdrew its designation as a protest site, and were placed under preventive arrest. On October 14, a magistrate remanded them to five days’ judicial custody.
The Supreme Court is weighing in—continue reading our analysis here.
Journalism History Special Issue, edited by Anya Schiffrin. Journalism History released a special issue on “Media Literacy, Mis/Disinformation Research, and the Institute for Propaganda Analysis,” guest-edited by Anya Schiffrin, Director of Technology, Media, and Communications at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. Read the articles here.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.