International System of Protection

In this segment of the MOOC created by Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, Agnès Callamard focuses on the ECtHR Jurisprudence on Incitement

As Open Society Foundations summarizes this incisive and timely report, “This publication from the Open Society European Policy Institute, the Brussels-based policy and advocacy branch of the Open Society Foundations network, and authored by Professor Laurent Pech, examines whether it is possible to use the chilling effect to promote and protect democracy, rule of law, and fundamental rights. In its negative form, the chilling effect is used by some governments to create a climate of self-censorship that deters democratic actors such as journalists, advocates and judges from speaking out. To stop autocratic-minded authorities from achieving their goal of inspiring self-censorship among democratic actors, this report recommends systemically integrating the concept of chilling effect into the EU’s infringement framework of analysis. This will establish a foundation to better allow the EU to protect freedom of association, judicial independence, and media freedom.”

In this segment of the MOOC 'Freedom of Expression in the Age of Globalization' created by Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, Agnès Callamard starts looking at how the systems of protection for human rights and freedom of expression in particular have been established at regional level, beginning with Europe.

“This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, aims at finding the balance between regulatory measures to tackle disinformation and the protection of freedom of expression. It explores the European legal framework and analyses the roles of all stakeholders in the information landscape. The study offers recommendations to reform the attention-based, data-driven information landscape and regulate platforms’ rights and duties relating to content moderation.” 

“Around the world, disinformation is spreading and becoming a more complex phenomenon based on emerging techniques of deception. Disinformation undermines human rights and many elements of good quality democracy; but counter-disinformation measures can also have a prejudicial impact on human rights and democracy. COVID-19 compounds both these dynamics and has unleashed more intense waves of disinformation, allied to human rights and democracy setbacks. Effective responses to disinformation are needed at multiple levels, including formal laws and regulations, corporate measures and civil society action. While the EU has begun to tackle disinformation in its external actions, it has scope to place greater stress on the human rights dimension of this challenge. In doing so, the EU can draw upon best practice examples from around the world that tackle disinformation through a human rights lens. This study proposes steps the EU can take to build counter-disinformation more seamlessly into its global human rights and democracy policies.”

"Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights has become a crucial instrument to stimulate and compel the national authorities of the 47 member states not only to abstain from interferences restricting media freedom and investigative journalism, but also to promote transparency, media pluralism and internet freedom. This paper explores some of the characteristics and developments of the European Court’s case law regarding media, journalism, internet freedom, newsgathering, whistleblowing and access to information. The perspective of the analysis is that effectively guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression and information helps developing the quality of democracy, the protection of other human rights and ultimately contributes to realise a more sustainable, and hence a better, world to live in"

"This article examines the ‘Joint Declarations on freedom of expression’ from a critical perspective. Since 1999, these Joint Declarations have been adopted annually by the four intergovernmental mechanisms on freedom of expression with the assistance of two non-governmental organisations. This article identifies the factors which contribute to the Joint Declarations’ value, with a specific focus on the collaborative process leading up to their adoption, their progressive content and their demonstrated influence upon courts and other actors. It also acknowledges the limitations of the texts, including their non-binding nature as soft law, their limited impact and lack of visibility. Notwithstanding these issues, this article contends that the Joint Declarations constitute a distinct and potentially influential body of international soft law on freedom of expression, one whose relevance to policy debates deserves broader recognition."

The EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) as of August 25, 2023, mandates large online platforms and search engines to assess systemic risks to fundamental rights arising from their services. A policy paper by the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL) and Access Now emphasizes the implementation of Article 34(1)b of the DSA, terming it "fundamental rights impact assessment" (FRIA). The paper highlights the absence of harmonized rules for conducting FRIAs and advocates for grounding assessments in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. It proposes harmonizing existing methodologies globally, focusing on mitigating risks to freedom of expression and information through meaningful and effective evaluations, with recommendations aiming to guide both the European Commission and the platforms in identifying and addressing the impacts of their services.

“In this report, [the authors] identify some policy options available for the European Commission and for European Union member states should they wish to create a more enabling environment for independent professional journalism going forward. Many of these options are relevant far beyond Europe and demonstrate what democratic digital media policy could look like. [They] argue that, to thrive, independent professional journalism needs freedom, funding, and a future. To enable this, media policy needs (a) to protect journalists and media from threats to their independence and to freedom of expression, (b) to provide a level playing field and support for a sustainable business of news, and (c) to be oriented towards the digital, mobile, and platform-dominated future that people are demonstrably embracing – not towards defending the broadcast and print-dominated past. The report identifies a number of real policy choices that elected officials can pursue, at both the European level and at the member state level, all of which have the potential to make a meaningful difference and help create a more enabling environment for independent professional journalism across the continent while minimising the room for political interference with the media. [It is hoped that] it can serve as a useful starting point for a discussion of the role of media policy in European democracy (and beyond) going forward and thus help ensure we develop twenty-first- century media policies for a twenty-first-century media environment.”