Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University: Newsletter, 5 November 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.

How can we end impunity for crimes against journalists? November begins with that question. Press freedom advocates begin with it every day. This week, reminders are more forceful: the media has been under siege, yet not enough is being done to push back.

We at CGFoE marked November 2, International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists, by joining the 1st Townhall Meeting of the Coalitions on the Safety of Journalists, a gathering of those concerned about journalists’ security, from civil society organizations to state representatives. Led by UNESCO, the event was part of a global advocacy campaign, “Threats Evolve. Impunity Endures.”

Impunity—in numbers and the sheer damage to journalism and journalists globally—endures and climbs. In this year’s report on the safety of journalists, UNESCO recorded a total of 1,641 journalists killed worldwide since 2006: on average, one every four days. Every four days. In 2024-2025, the killings of media workers rose by 20% to 189. Among those cases, six out of seven remain ongoing or unresolved.

Serbia is one country where such impunity has persisted. “In the case of Slavko Ćuruvija—the only of Serbia’s four cases of murdered journalists to have reached the Supreme Court—the alleged perpetrators walked free,” CGFoE Senior Communications Manager Marija Šajkaš told UNESCO’s Townhall audience. “CGFoE’s Database hosts an entire record of impunity for crimes against journalists in Serbia.”

Hundreds of cases we have published show that violence continues to undermine the work of journalists globally, while other types of threats, like surveillance, add up. And as protests surge, so do attacks on journalists covering them. We have been tracking this increased frequency: from physical violence to sexual harassment.

In Mombasa, Kenya, journalists themselves protested impunity this Monday and demanded expedited investigations. UNESCO’s Observatory has documented four cases of journalist killings in Kenya since 1993. But local press freedom advocates say the number is higher. None of those cases have been resolved.

The UNESCO Director-General has published a report on The Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity. It covers January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2025, and includes an overview of judicial inquiries and trends in journalists’ safety from 2006 until 2025.

Read the report’s full version or highlights.

Mozambique
Ombudsman of Mozambique v. Telecommunications Traffic Control Regulation
Decision Date: July 29, 2026
The Constitutional Council of Mozambique declared unconstitutional several provisions of a regulation that gave the telecommunications regulator powers to monitor communications, collect user data, suspend services, and intervene in operators’ networks. The Court found that, although the Telecommunications Law authorized the Government to regulate the sector, that authority did not extend to government implementing measures restricting fundamental rights. Because restrictions on freedom of expression and information, privacy, and private communications required legislation by the Assembly of the Republic, the Court held that the Government had exceeded its regulatory authority.

United Kingdom
Bahrain v. Shehabi
Decision Date: July 27, 2026
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held, by a 3–2 majority, that a foreign State could not invoke State immunity against a civil claim brought by two exiled pro-democracy activists whose computers in the United Kingdom were allegedly infected with spyware by agents operating abroad. The activists sought damages for psychiatric injury resulting from the covert surveillance. The foreign State argued that it was immune because its agents were never physically present in the United Kingdom. The majority ruled that the statutory exception to State immunity for personal injury caused by acts committed in the United Kingdom did not require the agents’ physical presence there. Remotely manipulating computers located in the United Kingdom was sufficient to bring the claim within the exception. The Court emphasized that foreign States conducting surveillance on another State’s territory risk being sued there. The dissenting judges argued that an act occurs where the agent is physically located and that the majority’s interpretation conflicted with international law.

Court of Justice of the European Union
The case on the non-commercial broadcasting of Russian media in Europe
Decision Date: July 2, 2026
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that the EU prohibition on broadcasting content from sanctioned Russian media outlets extends to individuals who make such content publicly available, regardless of whether their activities are commercial or profit-making. The case arose from criminal proceedings in Germany against three individuals suspected of broadcasting videos from RT – Russia Today Germany on a publicly accessible website financed through voluntary donations. A German court sought clarification on whether these individuals qualified as “operators” under Article 2f(1) of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, which prohibits the broadcasting of content produced by media outlets listed in Annex XV, as well as activities that enable, facilitate, or otherwise contribute to such broadcasting. The CJEU interpreted “operator” broadly to encompass any natural or legal person responsible for making the prohibited content available or transmitting it to the public, irrespective of whether the activity is conducted in a professional or commercial capacity. It further clarified that neither free access to the website nor its reliance on voluntary donations excluded the individuals from the prohibition. Similarly, the extent or duration of the broadcasting was immaterial, as the Regulation establishes no minimum threshold for its application.

● Russia: Novaya Gazeta—“We Have Been Killed.” Last week, Novaya Gazeta, Russia’s most prominent independent newspaper, announced it would no longer exist. Its statement blamed the security agency, the Ministry of Justice, the Prosecutor’s Office, and “others who have usurped power” and established “[a] military dictatorship.” CGFoE’s eight analyses of cases involving Novaya Gazeta and its journalists, six of whom were murdered, illustrate the newspaper’s tireless battle against censorship and impunity. “[The authorities’] decades-long predatory campaign has resulted in the near-complete annihilation of free media in Russia,” said Denis Krivosheev of Amnesty International, “and now, of its most celebrated and distinguished champion.”

● India: Solidarity with Digital Rights Organizations Amid Censorship. IFEX stands in solidarity with SFLC.in, Internet Freedom Foundation, and others defending digital rights in India as they face takedown requests related to their work documenting violations of free expression. This week, X notified SFLC.in of takedown requests issued by the Delhi Police covering 42 URLs and citing hate speech, alleged defamation of a Hindu nationalist organization, and safety and security concerns. “We believe that these requests are unlawful and disproportionate and undermine the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression,” SFLC.in said in a statement.

● US: Knight Institute Is Suing Over Trump’s Purge of the White House Press Corps. The Knight First Amendment Institute and the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School filed a lawsuit arguing that Trump’s policy of restricting the access of White House journalists is unconstitutional. While media companies have sued, too, Jameel Jaffer, Knight’s Executive Director, says the Institute’s lawsuit is different in several respects: it is filed on behalf of the media’s readers and listeners (read their statements here) and focuses on “the implications of Trump’s policy for the public and for our democracy”; crucially, the Court is being asked to prohibit the enforcement of the policy in the future.

● IACHR: Venezuela Urged to Repeal the “Law Against Hate.” With the process to reform the Law Against Hate, for Peaceful Coexistence, and Tolerance ongoing, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and its Special Rapporteurship on Freedom of Expression call on Venezuela to “repeal any legislation that unduly restricts the right to freedom of expression.” Both the IACHR and the Rapporteurship have documented how the law has been used to punish critical speech and expressions of public interest. Citing Venezuela’s civil society, they argue the partial amendment would not fix the law’s inherent flaws.

Ahead of this week’s Supreme Court hearing over the ban on Palestine Action in the UK, police arrested 325 people at a Palestine Action protest in London last Saturday.

Background: The UK proscribed Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 on July 5, 2025, after direct action activists damaged two military planes. Defend Our Juries organized the latest protest against the ban. Participants held signs reading, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” The group chose to protest outside the US embassy to highlight what it calls US influence on the ban.

Significance: On October 31, hundreds joined the London and Edinburgh protests, the largest gathering against the ban under Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who took office in July. Facing arrests—the total now amounts to 4,200—protesters have demonstrated repeatedly since July 2025. Nearly half of all terrorism arrests in the country since the start of the so-called “war on terror” took place in the past year.

State Response: Police warned of arrests beforehand. Of the 325 arrested in London, 320 were held for allegedly expressing support for a proscribed organization. While no one was arrested in Edinburgh, Scotland’s police are identifying people seen with messages of support for the group. 27 protesters were arrested outside the Supreme Court on November 4.

Legal Process: The High Court found the ban unlawful in February 2026; the Court of Appeal reversed that ruling in June. The ban stayed in force throughout. Trials are postponed pending a final decision. The UK Supreme Court heard Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori’s appeal this week on whether the proscription is compatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. UN Special Rapporteur Ben Saul, Amnesty UK, Liberty, English PEN, and PEN International are interveners at the Supreme Court. The ruling is expected by the end of December.

FoE Violations: Amnesty International called the arrests a “disgraceful attack on freedom of speech.” Earlier, it stressed that since July 2026, most protesters were arrested under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, “which carries a penalty of up to 14 years in prison”; Amnesty argued arrests over placards violate UK obligations because such expression does not incite violence, hatred, or discrimination. US journalist Jeremy Loffredo intended to cover the October 31 protest, but the UK reportedly refused him entry. Last month, police briefly arrested five journalists covering a protest in Leicester.

Georgia: Sinatle Media Bets on Collective Power to Keep the Lights on for Independent Journalism. “For Sinatle Media,” the International Press Freedom Institute writes of Georgia’s independent media network, “a collective response to Georgia’s media crisis was never optional.” The network, whose name means “light” in Georgian, unites 22 independent media organizations leading the “Lights Must Stay On” campaign. In doing so, they resist authoritarianism together.

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