Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University: Newsletter, 12 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.

F.C., a history student at the National University of La Plata, Argentina, described himself as an activist: he had campaigned for legal abortion and against gender-based violence. Yet something would come to contradict his feminist stance. In 2018, Facebook and Instagram accounts, named “Gender Commission” of the faculty where F.C. studied, published an anonymous post. In it, a fellow student accused F.C. of sexual and psychological abuse. The post spread. Photos of F.C. appeared on campus.

F.C. sued Facebook Argentina, arguing his rights to honor, privacy, and his own image had been violated. This past September, Argentina’s Supreme Court held that the post was a form of “online public escrache,” or public shaming, that left F.C. with no way to defend himself. The Court ordered Facebook Argentina to remove the post and hand over the data of the account holders—to identify those who published it in the first place.

“The ruling represents a significant setback for the protection of women’s freedom of expression,” said Estefanía Mullally, Program Coordinator at CGFoE. “By placing the post’s alleged harmful effects at the center of its analysis, the Court fails to adequately consider the structural inequalities and institutional barriers that make public denunciations a necessary form of expression for many women.”

To Mullally, who co-authored CGFoE’s Special Collection Paper on women’s exercise of the right to freedom of expression, the decision contrasts starkly with the gender-sensitive reasoning of Colombia’s Constitutional Court in Guerra v. Ruiz-Navarro, which recognizes escrache as a form of feminist public denunciation aimed at exposing and preventing gender-based violence. Similar recognitions, Mullally notes, can be found in Akbar v. Ramani (India) and Montes v. Peredo (Mexico).

Of particular concern, the Argentine Supreme Court fails to assess the risks of identifying account holders in a context where anonymity is an essential condition for speech. “The threat of exposure, intimidation, or legal retaliation can silence women, deter them from speaking out, and ultimately drive their voices out of the public sphere,” Mullally added. “The Court’s reasoning appears to send a troubling message: women can denounce gender-based violence only if they are willing to risk being identified and exposed to further harm.”

Estefanía Mullally, Program Coordinator at CGFoE, on the recent ruling of Argentina’s Supreme Court: “F.C. v. Facebook Argentina SRL represents a significant setback for the protection of women’s freedom of expression and their right to denounce gender-based violence.” See our analysis of the case below.

Mullally co-authored, together with Alejandra Negrete Morayta, CGFoE’s Special Collection paper, How Do Women Experience the Exercise of Their Right to Freedom of Expression? Some Answers from Court Rulings. It is available in English and Spanish.

Argentina
F.C. v. Facebook Argentina SRL
Decision Date: September 23, 2026
The Supreme Court of Argentina ordered Facebook Argentina to remove an anonymous social media post that accused a university student of sexual and psychological abuse, and to hand over the data needed to identify the holders of the accounts that published it. The post appeared on Facebook and Instagram accounts presenting themselves as the gender commission of a faculty of the National University of La Plata, and it named the student, showed his photograph and described intimate details of his relationship with an unnamed fellow student. A federal appeals court had rejected his hábeas data claim on the ground that the post was political speech on gender violence, a matter of public interest, and that his feminist activism made him a public figure. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed. It accepted that gender violence is a matter of clear public interest and that anonymity can be a legitimate starting point for reporting it, but held that the post was a form of online public shaming that left the accused with no way to defend himself, a harm that neither freedom of expression nor the state’s duty to combat gender violence could shelter. It added that taking part in activism does not turn an ordinary citizen into a public figure or strip him of the stronger protection that private persons enjoy. Vice President Carlos Rosenkrantz and Justice Ricardo Lorenzetti concurred in separate opinions.

Colombia
Pinzón v. Administrative Court of Cundinamarca
Decision Date: February 5, 2026
The Constitutional Court of Colombia held that intelligence and counterintelligence bodies must follow the country’s transparency and petition laws, and that they may withhold information only if they show, through a harm test, that disclosure would cause a present, probable and specific harm that outweighs the public interest in access. A journalist linked to the organization El Veinte had asked the Ministry of Defense for yearly figures on the number of people who belonged to each illegal armed group between 1998 and 2023, and the military’s Joint Intelligence and Counterintelligence Department refused, arguing that the law keeps intelligence information secret. The Administrative Court of Cundinamarca ordered the department to hand over the data, but the department challenged that ruling and the Council of State, on appeal, set it aside. Before the Constitutional Court, the department argued that only the intelligence law applied to its information, that secrecy was inherent to its work and that the journalist was not among the officials legally entitled to receive intelligence reports. The journalist argued that the data were anonymous statistics of public interest and that the department had never shown any concrete risk. The Court found that information is not secret merely because an intelligence body holds it, and that the department had relied on hypothetical and general risks that did not meet the harm test. It reversed the Council of State’s judgment, reinstated the disclosure order, annulled a later ruling that had upheld the refusal, ordered the Administrative Court to secure the immediate delivery of the information and to report monthly on compliance.

Calderón v. Petro
Decision Date: October 16, 2025
The Constitutional Court of Colombia held that then-President Gustavo Petro violated women journalists’ rights to freedom of expression, equality, non-discrimination, and a life free from gender-based violence when he referred to “the journalists of power” as “the mafia’s dolls” (muñecas de la mafia) during an official speech. The case arose from two tutela actions that were subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding (T-11.014.611) challenging the President’s remarks, which the lower courts dismissed. On review, the Court considered that the expression reproduced discriminatory gender stereotypes, stigmatized women journalists, and contributed to an environment favorable to online harassment and self-censorship. Applying a contextual analysis that considered the speaker’s institutional authority, the reached audience, the targeted group, and the manner in which the message was transmitted, the Court concluded that Petro’s freedom of expression had to be exercised consistently with his constitutional duties to respect and protect human rights. It reversed the lower courts’ decisions and ordered the then President to retract the statement, issue public apologies, add a clarifying note to the speech’s video and transcript, and refrain from public communications violating women journalists’ rights to non-discrimination and a life free from gender-based violence. The Court also reiterated its call on Congress to address digital gender-based violence.

Why the Balkans? Podcast Featuring CGFoE’s Marija Šajkaš. CGFoE Senior Communications Manager Marija Šajkaš recently joined the Why the Balkans? podcast hosted by Tanya Domi at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy to discuss Serbia’s elections and the shifting political dynamics shaping the country’s future. “This is not only a regime change,” Šajkaš said of the “Student List” victory. “It is a paradigm shift.” Listen on YouTube, Spotify, or Apple Podcasts.

● Brazil: Court Bars Meta from Using Journalistic Content Without Authorization. Citing Portal dos Jornalistas, LatAm Journalism Review reports that last week, a São Paulo court granted a preliminary injunction to several press, radio, and TV associations in a lawsuit against Meta, suspending the company’s new commercial terms and banning “the unauthorized collection and use of content from member outlets, including for developing and training artificial intelligence systems.”

● Colombia: Inspection Order for Casa Macondo Disregards the Guarantees of Journalistic Work. FLIP, the Foundation for Press Freedom based in Colombia, warns that the inspection order against Casa Macondo, an independent investigative media outlet, threatens journalistic confidentiality because it involves reviewing emails, documents, and communications. The order, issued by a local prosecutor’s office in Bogotá, builds up the legal pressure against the media outlet’s co-founder, Juan Pablo Barrientos, who faces 13 active criminal complaints.

● Childhoods and Digital Environments: Regulatory Trends in Latin America. Derechos Digitales, an organization advancing digital rights across Latin America, released a report (in Spanish) analyzing regulatory trends in the protection of children and adolescents in digital spaces in the region’s 11 countries. As criminal and surveillance responses expand, adding to proposed age restrictions, the study also finds some progress in attempts to establish greater accountability for digital platforms.

● Caribbean Coast of Nicaragua: Women from Miskitu Communities in Resistance. The Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) published an illustrated story, Wan iwanka natka: Women of Miskitu communities in resistance (in Spanish). The story tells about the struggle, dignity, and tireless defense of ancestral territory led by Miskitu women on the Caribbean Coast of Nicaragua amidst a human rights crisis and territorial violence, against impunity and persecution.

On November 4 and 6 in Colombo, hundreds protested repressive laws that they argue could lead to abuses by law enforcement.

Background: Protesters demand the repeal of existing anti-terror legislation and the withdrawal of two proposed bills: the Protection of the State from Terrorism and the Prevention of Organized Crimes. Some also demand that the Online Safety Act be repealed. Critics argue the laws could be used to suppress freedom of speech and movement. Some stress the government had promised to abolish such laws while in opposition. Dozens of petitions challenging the bills had been filed.

Significance: Called for by trade unions, the Frontline Socialist Party, and the People’s Struggle Movement, the November 4 and 6 protests drew hundreds in Colombo and forced the government to make concessions.

State Response: Despite heavy security, no use of force or arrests were reported during the protests. But on November 4, police reportedly obtained a court order restricting the protest, which the demonstrators refused to obey.

Some Results: On November 5, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake said the organized crime bill’s 72-hour detention period would be cut to 48 hours, among other changes. The opposition called the concessions “cosmetic.” The president also said neither bill would pass without consultations or broad consensus. On November 12, the Parliament’s Speaker announced that the Supreme Court determined the anti-terrorism bill could be passed by a simple majority, subject to the recommended amendments.

FoE Violations: In their latest statement, UN experts urged more revisions of the anti-terrorism bill, including those that concern the definition of terrorism. Earlier, Free Media Movement activists petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing the terror bill’s vague offenses endanger investigative reporting and confidential sources. Human Rights Watch warned that the organized crime bill would grant police “broad surveillance authority,” among other sweeping powers, noting that Sri Lanka has a long record of targeting human rights defenders and families campaigning for justice.

Athletes’ Freedom of Expression and the Principle of Olympic Neutrality, by Csilla Szomolaiová. The paper, published in Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, analyzes the exclusion of Ukrainian athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych from the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic Games over a helmet depicting Ukrainian athletes killed during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The paper asks: Does the objective of political neutrality justify severe interference with freedom of expression—in matters of significant public interest, such as armed conflict and human loss?

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