Freedom of Expression Online

In this submission to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Egypt in January 2025, Amnesty International assesses the country’s human rights framework and its implementation of previous UPR’s recommendations. “Since Egypt’s third UPR in 2019, the country has remained in the throes of a protracted human rights and impunity crisis,” the group states. Evaluating the current state of freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly on the ground, Amnesty underscores that thousands of people – journalists, activists, and protesters among them – have been arrested arbitrarily and/or faced unjust persecution, while at least 600 websites, including news, politics, and human rights platforms, have been blocked since 2017. On the occasions of rare protests, Amnesty stresses, the Egyptian authorities have resorted to unlawful force in their crackdown and mass arrests.

“Digital companies are enabling politicians, political parties and voters to communicate in unprecedented ways, and expanding opportunities for seeking, receiving and imparting political information and ideas. Alongside positive developments, there also growing concerns about emerging and increasing threats to the integrity and credibility of elections, as well as the media’s contribution to free, fair, transparent and peaceful electoral processes. This report highlights three converging trends in media and elections in digital times: 1) the rise of disinformation, 2) intensifying attacks on journalists, and 3) disruptions linked to the use of information and communication technology in electoral arrangements. Offering possible responses to the challenges at hand, this study is a tool for governments, election practitioners, media organizations, journalists, civil society, the private sector, academia and individuals.” This issue brief on ‘Elections and Media in Digital Times’ is part of the UNESCO In Focus series ‘World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development’.

"The proposed Regulation includes safeguards against political interference in editorial decisions and against surveillance. It puts a focus on the independence and stable funding of public service media as well as on the transparency of media ownership and the allocation of state advertising. "

"The key objectives of the legislative initiative would be to: ensure that media companies can operate in the internal market subject to consistent regulatory standards, including as regards media freedom and pluralism, ▪ ensure that EU citizens have access to a wide and varied media offering both offline and online, ▪ safeguard the editorial independence and independent management of the media, which is a precondition of media freedom and of the integrity of the internal market, ▪ foster undistorted competition between media companies by ensuring a transparent and fair allocation of state resources".

“The International and national laws recognize that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures. This means that certain fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of expression and opinion and the right to seek and impart information, may be restricted to address the current health crisis as long as governments apply basic democratic principles and a series of safeguards, and the interference is lawful, limited in time, and not arbitrary. Governments, companies, NGOs, and individuals alike have a responsibility to do their part to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 health crisis and to show solidarity and respect for each other. In this paper, we provide recommendations for protecting freedom of expression and opinion and the right to impart and receive information to enable governments​ to fight the COVID-19 health crisis in a rights-respecting manner. There will be an aftermath to the COVID-19 outbreak and the measures governments put in place right now will determine what it will look like. The recommendations outlined below will help ensure that the rule of law, and the rights to freedom of expression and opinion, as well as the right to receive and to impart information, are protected throughout this crisis and in the future. Under no circumstances should any government allow people’s fundamental rights to fall victim to this pandemic.” 

The article, published by Media Defence, reviews some of the written submissions – third-party interventions and expert opinions – that the organization filed before domestic courts in 2024, striving to foster press freedom at national levels. The list of countries includes Albania, Angola, Brazil, Cambodia, Colombia, Mexico, Romania, Serbia, and Thailand. The cases vary in the issues considered: Media Defence filed arguments on source confidentiality, sedition laws, satire, incitement, restriction of information access, artistic expression, respect for private life, data protection, and surveillance.

The report “aims to shed light on how intermediaries – services that mediate online communication and enable various forms of online expression – both foster and restrict freedom of expression across a range of jurisdictions, circumstances technologies, and business models."

Balkin argues that the conception of free speech which characterized the 20th century is inadequate to protect free speech and expression in the 21st century due to the transition from a dualistic model of speech regulation with two players to a pluralist model of speech regulation with multiple players. In this essay, he frames free speech as operationalizing as a triangle, with States and the European Union at one end, internet-infrastructure companies at another, and different kinds of speakers at the third end. He analyses the three problems which this triangle creates: 1) new-school speech regulation which produces collateral censorship and digital prior restraint, 2) the absence of due process and transparency in the manner in which privatized bureaucracies govern end-users, resulting in abuse and arbitrariness, and 3) the vulnerability of end-users to digital surveillance and manipulation. He discusses the ways in which States should or should not regulate the digital ecosystem in order to align with the values of freedom of speech and proposes reforms which can be implemented by Governments in consonance with the Constitutional guarantees of free speech and the press as long as they are properly-designed. These reforms are: 1) structural regulation with the aims of promoting competition and preventing discrimination by basic internet services and payment systems, 2) guaranteeing curatorial due process, and 3) the treatment of social media companies as information fiduciaries towards their end-users, who are responsible for upholding duties of trustworthiness and good faith.

Scholars at Risk (SAR) released their latest annual report on the state of academic freedom globally. The findings are alarming and go beyond authoritarian countries – liberal democracies have also been culpable of undermining higher education. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, SAR identified 391 attacks on scholars, students, and academic institutions in 51 countries and territories, highlighting troubling developments in 18 of them, namely Afghanistan, China, Colombia, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Iran, Israel, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Palestine, Russia, Türkiye, Sudan, Ukraine, the UK, and the US. Over the reporting period, SAR documented the devastating impact of military conflicts on entire education systems, crackdowns on political dissent with arrests and prosecution of professors and students, silencing and dismissal of those criticizing officials, and new laws and policies eroding university autonomy. The report put a spotlight on campus protests prompted by the Israel-Gaza conflict and the now-limited freedom of expression spaces at universities in several countries, including the US.