International System of Protection

"The paper will begin by setting out the international law backdrop to the UN Plan of Action. It will explain how the interplay of international treaty-based standards and other institutional and political dynamics have ensured powerful traction for the UN Plan of Action. The paper will then proceed with a more detailed focus on how relevant bodies of the Council of Europe engage with the problems and issues addressed by the UN Plan of Action. Particular attention will be paid to the protection afforded to (the freedom of expression of) journalists and other media actors by the European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter: ECHR) and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The translation of the ECHR’s principles of protection into other standard-setting work by the Council of Europe will constitute another important focus. The section devoted to the Council of Europe will explore three main themes: roles and forms of journalism and public debate in democratic society; revisiting rights, duties and responsibilities in the digital age, and new regulatory and policy challenges and directions."

On 30 April 2020, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Representative on Freedom of the Media, and the Organization of American States Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression published the Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Elections in the Digital Age. The Declaration enumerates recommendations regarding communication during elections for both, State as well as non-State actors. In pursuance of the publication of this Declaration, Toby Mendel, Executive Director of the Centre for Law and Democracy, noted, “The Joint Declaration breaks new ground in several respects…Some key areas it addresses include extending certain types of rules which apply to legacy media, such as on spending and transparency, to digital media, respecting the right to privacy when using personal data to micro-target messages and, for digital actors, avoiding measures which limit the diversity of information available to users or the ability of certain parties and candidates to disseminate messages.”

Freedom of expression rapporteurs at the UN, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) endorsed a declaration on freedom of expression, access to information, and media freedom amid the growing ubiquity of AI. The document outlines seven guiding principles – such as “the right to freedom of opinion and expression [...] must be embedded throughout the lifecycle of AI, including its design, development, training and deployment” – and offers recommendations to States, international organizations, the private sector, civil society, and the media.

This Greek version of the HELP Course on Freedom of Expression (in Greek) was launched by the Department for the Execution of Judgments, in cooperation with HELP’s national partner, the Greek National School of Judges. The course discusses European standards on freedom of expression as applied to recent European Court judgments involving Greece finding violations of Article 10. It reviews 2 groups of cases, in particular. The Vasilakis group “concerns violations of the applicants’ freedom of expression due to civil courts’ decisions by which they were ordered to pay damages for defamation, slanderous defamation or insult, through articles published in the press or broadcastings of secretly filmed video-recordings.” The second group, the Katrami group, “concerns violations of the applicants’ freedom of expression due to the criminal convictions imposed on them for insult, defamation or malicious defamation.” Program materials include the online course, a Thematic Fact Sheet on Freedom of Expression (English), and a country fact sheet for Greece (English).

Released by the Council of Europe (CoE) Division for Cooperation on Freedom of Expression, this guide outlines the risks of imposing criminal sanctions on particular forms of expression. The manual reviews relevant human rights standards, namely the European Court of Human Rights’ case law, policy guidance of the CoE bodies, and the European Commission for Democracy through Law. It then zooms in on the criminalization of hate speech, defamation and insult, the dissemination of confidential information, speech that threatens national security and public order, and disinformation. CoE Consultant Peter Noorlander prepared the guide within the Project Enhancing Institutional Capacities on Freedom of Expression and Information in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As the Council of Europe Newsroom reports, “The Council of Europe has launched a Manifesto on the Freedom of Expression of Arts and Culture in the Digital Era. The Manifesto sums up the importance of artistic creation and cultural industry for our democratic societies as well as the protection, which Article 10 of the European convention on human rights extends to the freedom of artistic expression. Freedom of speech is also the freedom to create. The power of art to communicate and open up new perspectives and ideas makes the artist, artistic mobility and artistic freedom strategic resources for society, helping to overcome fragmentation and addressing today's global challenges. Council of Europe Secretary General Marija Pejčinović Burić has endorsed Manifesto on the Freedom of Expression of Arts and Culture in the Digital Era: ‘Freedom of artistic expression is part of freedom of expression, protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Manifesto on the Freedom of Expression of Arts and Culture in the Digital Era is a political commitment to promote the right of artists to express themselves freely even under difficult circumstances. Freedom of artistic expression is facing growing pressure. More and more artists, experts and cultural professionals who hint at problems, spell out uncomfortable truths, make the unseen visible are subject to pressure, censorship, intimidation and harassment. Moreover, the COVID-19 crisis has severely affected the working conditions and income of artists and the cultural and creative sector as a whole. The Manifesto draws attention to these risks and sends a clear political signal to protect openness and creativity, which are essential ingredients of our democracies’.” 

Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) published its annual Europe-focused report documenting press freedom violations in the EU Member States and nine candidate countries between January and December 2024. MFRR recorded a total of 1,548 press freedom violations with 2,567 entities or media professionals involved. The 359 of those violations were online attacks – a significant increase from 266 such cases recorded in the previous year. Legal attacks against journalists also occurred more frequently: 319 cases concerning 556 media workers or organizations. MFRR described demonstrations and protests as “among the most dangerous environments for journalists in 2024”: more than 50% of the 271 protest-related press freedom violations documented were physical attacks on reporters – with police or state security forces often being the perpetrators.

This interview, conducted by Mark Pearson with Dirk Voorhoof, provides insights into the manner in which freedom of expression operates internationally as well as regionally. Pearson and Voorhoof discuss the different levels of and multiple approaches to free expression and their breaches by training on them a comparative lens. Voorhoof’s responses focus on the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, in particular, to highlight the limitative nature of the cases in which the freedom of expression can be restricted, arguing that such jurisprudence urges States to upgrade their freedom of expression, particularly for the media and journalists. They also delve into the explicit recognition of the right to information and its pivotal nature as a tool in democracies, which enables actors such as the media and CSOs to fulfil their duties as public watchdogs.

“There is a widespread desire to tackle online interference with elections and political discourse. To date, much of the debate has focused on what processes should be established without adequate consideration of what norms should underpin those processes. Human rights law should be at the heart of any discussion of regulation, guidance, corporate or societal responses. The UN Secretary- General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation has recently reached a similar conclusion, stating ‘there is an urgent need to examine how time-honoured human rights frameworks and conventions should guide digital cooperation and digital technology’. This paper attempts to contribute to this examination. Chapter 2 of this paper clarifies terms and concepts discussed. Chapter 3 provides an overview of cyber activities that may influence voters. Chapter 4 summarizes a range of responses by states, the EU and digital platforms themselves. Chapter 5 discusses relevant human rights law, with specific reference to: the right to freedom of thought, and the right to hold opinions without interference; the right to privacy; the right to freedom of expression; and the right to participate in public affairs and vote. Chapter 6 offers some conclusions, and sets out recommendations on how human rights ought to guide state and corporate responses.”

As part of the International Press Institute’s World Congress this year, the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media (RFoM) hosted a panel discussion on AI and its impact on media pluralism and public interest information. The list of speakers included Julia Angwin, investigative journalist, David Kaye, former UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and opinion, and Damian Tambini, Distinguished Policy Fellow in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. This outcome report recaps the discussion in the form of colorful post-its and a concise summary of key opportunities and challenges that Generative AI presents. The report concludes with recommendations for the OSCE RFoM, states, and other stakeholders, calling for more “research, analysis and multi-stakeholder engagement” that the rapid technological development demands.