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.

Coalition for Women in Journalism (CFWIJ) points to 12 SLAPPs initiated against women journalists covering such gender issues as sexual abuse and harassment, workplace misconduct, and broader issues (like child abuse) around the world. Türkiye is becoming a hotspot for such cases, with other countries being Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, the US, Lebanon, France, and Greece. Legal actions – on defamation charges most frequently – are often initiated by state officials or individuals and institutions with ties to the government. Women reporters who cover feminist events have been accused of “participating in unlawful assemblies,” “spreading misinformation,” or “violating religious sentiments.” The authorities, in Türkiye especially, often detain women journalists during feminist events and damage their equipment.

A new UNESCO issue brief outlines a growing trend in allegations of financial wrongdoing as tools to silence journalists. Based on 120 relevant cases dated between 2005 and 2024, the brief detects a significant increase in cases between 2019 and 2023 – 60% of those reviewed. The most frequent charges are extortion, tax evasion, and money laundering; among other allegations identified are blackmail, embezzlement, and foreign funds obtained illegally. Regionally, more cases occur in Asia and the Pacific, and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. As a tactic to target journalists, the misuse of financial laws has features different from other ways of silencing critical voices: accusations of financial wrongdoing almost exclusively come from state actors; unlike defamation charges, such accusations do not require an established connection between journalists’ published work and the charge; facing the complexity of alleged financial crimes, journalists and media outlets need tax and other legal expertise, which they often do not have access to.

In this policy brief published by UNESCO, Joan Barata, Senior Legal Fellow for The Future of Free Speech, focuses on the right to information and one specific aspect within the realm of exceptions to this right – the so-called “public interest override.” The policy brief cites the relevant international law provisions and national and international case law as courts have used the public interest override to balance the public’s right to know with other competing matters and interests, like national security, privacy, commercial confidentiality, or law enforcement. Among the principles and recommendations listed, the first one reminds states and other relevant actors that any restrictions imposed on the right to information “must respect the three-part test established under international and regional human rights standards (legality, legitimacy, and proportionality).”

In a report on transnational repression targeting women journalists outside their home countries, the Coalition for Women in Journalism (CFWIJ) has recorded a dramatic increase in states’ attempts to silence those abroad – from 19 cases in 2023 to 49 in 2024. The perpetrators are Iran, Russia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Türkiye, Ethiopia, Malaysia, and Venezuela. These states have resorted to intimidation, threats, and legal harassment, while Iran, Azerbaijan, and Russia have also employed such tactics as physical attacks, abductions, and assassination attempts against journalists in exile. One of the major cases the report highlights is that of journalist Sima Sabet: “[Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’] attempt to assassinate me through hired criminals on UK soil is an unequivocal act of terrorism,” Sabet told CFWIJ.

This report, prepared by Human Rights Watch, Belarusian Association of Human Rights Lawyers, and Right to Defence and published in May 2024, focuses on the lawyers who represented politically prosecuted Belarusians and shed light on the egregious human rights violations in detention – until the authorities came for them, too. The result of this retribution campaign is the “nearly complete takeover of the legal profession in Belarus”: the regime has resorted to criminal prosecution of lawyers, harassment, intimidation, arbitrary revocation of their licenses, and subjection to abuse while in detention. Amendments to the Law on the Bar and Practice of Law, along with public statements of Belarusian officials, eliminate the independence of lawyers and assign them the roles of “statesmen.” The sentences of six lawyers – Maksim Znak, Aliaksandr Danilevich, Vital Brahinets, Anastasiya Lazarenka, Yuliya Yurhilevich, and Aliaksei Barodka – range from six to ten years.

The latest report by the Human Rights Center “Viasna,” published over the summer, provides an updated review of the crackdown on rights and freedoms in Belarus, covering the period from March 2023 to March 2024. The report shows that, under the pretext of tackling extremism and terrorism, the Belarusian authorities have been amending legislation and using it to ramp up repression. The report outlines applicable international standards, surveys national legislation, explains the practice of designating individuals and legal entities as “extremist” and “terrorist,” and unpacks criminal prosecution practices employed to restrict free speech – on charges from the dissemination of fakes to “insulting government officials” to hooliganism, among many others.

In this newly released report, part of the Engaging Tech for Internet Freedom initiative, ARTICLE 19 focuses on tech companies and their corresponding human rights obligations in authoritarian states – in this issue, China, Myanmar, and Vietnam. Zooming in on freedom of expression and privacy, the report unpacks how tech companies have been responding to oppressive legal and political conditions. Case studies show that companies have often referred to domestic laws in explaining their collaboration with the authorities, thus allowing for censorship, propaganda, breach of data privacy, and surveillance. ARTICLE 19 calls on companies to employ a human-rights-centered approach in decision-making and comply with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The report lists recommendations for the states in the region and tech companies operating within them. Find more relevant ARTICLE 19 publications on China, Myanmar, and Vietnam here.

This report, published by Access Now and prepared by Franco Giandana Gigena, Latin America Policy Analyst, serves as a reference book for policy-makers in Latin America by systemizing examples of and recommendations on AI-tailored public policy. The report underlines the best practices that can pave the way to human-rights-based regulatory approaches without forestalling innovation; in addition of the fundamental rights focus, Access Now singles out four more minimum standards for regulating AI: transparency, effective monitoring mechanisms (studies of impact on fundamental rights specifically), enforcement and applicable sanctions, and consideration of local contexts.

Director of the UNESCO Chair on Freedom of Expression at the Universidad de Los Andes, Co-Chair of Meta’s Oversight Board, and Former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression of the IACHR, Catalina Botero-Marino contributed this chapter to the volume on The Impact of the Inter-American Human Rights System: Transformations on the Ground (New York, 2024). The chapter lays out how the current freedom of expression standards – including those on speech about the issues of public interest and prohibitions of prior and indirect censorship, among others – came to be established within the Inter-American Human Rights System. The chapter then focuses on the transformative influence that two of those standards have had on domestic legal systems: “the standard regarding the limits of criminal law and the standard regarding the scope and nature of the right to access public information.”

Commissioned by the UN Department of Peace Operations and the UN Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, this recently published report delivers a conceptual analysis of the three major challenges of our time – hate speech, misinformation, and disinformation – and their similarities and differences. Written by Claire Wardle, PhD, Brown University, the report focuses on the contexts of conflict and high risk. Wardle provides an overview of relevant human rights law and international humanitarian law, stressing the “need for responses that respect freedom of expression while addressing harmful speech.”

This summer, the UN launched Global Principles for Information Integrity, which tackle the main information challenges of our technological era – misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech. Grounded in international law and consultations with Member States, scholars, media, civil society, and private sector representatives, the principles serve as a framework that invites “multi-stakeholder action for a healthier information ecosystem.” There are five principles: 1) Societal Trust and Resilience, 2) Healthy Incentives, 3) Public Empowerment, 4) Independent, Free, and Pluralistic Media, and 5) Transparency and Research. The recommendations follow the principles’ descriptions and address technology companies, AI actors, advertisers and other private sector actors, news media, researchers, civil society, states, other political actors, and the UN.

Published by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) and prepared together with co-founders of the Freedom for Media, Freedom for All network, the report starts with a warning: the scale of the damage done to press freedom in the Philippines under President Rodrigo Duterte has yet to be known. From July 1, 2022, to April 30, 2024, 135 attacks and threats against journalists have been documented; 45 of those cases are instances of “red-tagging,” and 19 are cases of unlawful surveillance. Alarmingly, 37% of all the cases recorded allegedly bear links to government agents. Eight journalists received charges of libel and “cyber libel.” Three reporters – Rey Blanco, Percy Lapid, and Cresencio Bundoquin – have been killed during that time. Calling for more media to cover human rights issues, the CMFR stresses, “Press freedom is designed to create a society where citizens are continually educated, learning what they must know, helping them develop the judgment to choose good leaders, and committed to democratic development so citizens can exercise their rights without fear.”

This report, published by Human Rights Watch in collaboration with Florida Rising and Rule of Law Impact Lab at Stanford Law School, argues Florida’s school curriculum distortions constitute censorship and are inconsistent with “international human rights standards on education, access to information, and discrimination.” The report outlines the legal framework that contributes to harassment and discrimination based on race, sex, and gender in Florida classrooms: House Bill 7, or the Stop WOKE Act; House Bill 1557, or the “Don’t Say Gay or Trans” law; and House Bill 1069, an extension of the “Don’t Say Gay or Trans.” What adds to the laws are state education policies, one of which forwards a “patriotic” curriculum with incorrect facts about the history of slavery in the US. The report’s “International Human Rights Law Analysis” section lists Florida’s obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, namely: upholding the rights to education free of discrimination, culturally appropriate education, free expression, and health.

ARTICLE 19’s newly published report is a three-part series on Queer Resistance to Digital Oppression in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). It is based on the experiences of more than five thousand LGBTQI+ people from Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Sudan, and Tunisia. The research, conducted in cooperation with The De|Center and local experts, tackles two overarching questions: How do the authorities in the MENA region weaponize technology – from messaging and dating apps to social media – to target the LGBTQI+ community? And how can tech companies help protect the community and other marginalized groups? Part I of the report reviews the regional context, pointing to the laws that have enabled the oppression. Part II includes the findings from interviews, surveys, and focus groups and analyzes the “harrowing evidence of tech-enabled police and state violence against the LGBTQ community.” Part III lists recommendations for tech companies, outlining concrete ways through which the companies can fulfill their human rights obligations. 

The Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) published a thematic report on the digital age challenges to inclusion and public debate, focusing specifically on digital literacy and content moderation processes. Premised on the international human rights principles, the report offers normative guidance – in essence, a content governance framework – to states and other relevant actors “​​in promoting an internet that is truly accessible to all persons, without discrimination.” The report concludes with a list of recommendations, one of which urges states to adopt policies that tackle “hate speech or disinformation coming from public figures” but warns that “[s]uch policies should be aligned with international human rights standards, especially the three-part test of legality, legitimate aim, and necessity and proportionality.”

The Gender Apartheid Inquiry, conducted by a Panel of UK Parliamentarians and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, seeks to investigate the situation for women and girls in Afghanistan and Iran and join the conversation on codifying gender apartheid. The Inquiry’s recently published report argues that while the Rome Statute includes the crime of gender persecution, “the experience of women and girls in Afghanistan and Iran, although different in some respects, requires a more accurate representation in law” due to the institutionalization and scale of oppression. The report reviews the states of education, employment, movement, expression, assembly, association, and access to justice for women and girls in the two countries. The Inquiry then examines the gender apartheid concept and considers legal avenues for codifying it.

The report, funded by the Earth Journalism Network at Internews, interrogates the global state of climate and environmental journalism in the context of rapidly spreading mis- and disinformation, jurisdictions repressing media freedom, lack of resources and access to data, and risks that accompany climate reporters and cause self-censorship. The study includes a literature review, methodology outline, and results based on the multi-language survey and semi-structured interviews, totaling 744 survey respondents and 74 journalists interviewed. Half of the respondents said they had experienced verbal threats, almost a third of them had been subjected to legal threats or lawsuits, while another third had received threats from governments – and these are only some of the alarming findings. The report concludes with recommendations for funding organizations, newsrooms, journalists, and further research.  

The study, published by Access Now, analyzes the UN Security Council resolutions between 2001-2023, focusing on digital, cyber, and human rights and the language used to refer to them. The findings show that when it comes to including digital rights in the broader human rights and security agenda, the UN Security Council is falling behind if compared with “more digitally aware” UN bodies. The report emphasizes that the UN Security Council “is overlooking the overall advancement of international law protecting people, peace, and security in the digital age, focusing on operational and physical security at the expense of human rights and human security.” The paper concludes with recommendations for the Council’s Member States.

How can media freedom literacy (MFL) be strengthened in the participating states of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)? Establishing the not-so-often-emphasized connection between media literacy and media freedom, this report, commissioned by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media (RFoM), offers practical tools for government bodies, scholars, media organizations, civil society, and digital platforms. Chapter 4 defines and explains MFL, while Chapter 5 reviews key legislative and regulatory frameworks at international and national levels, including the European Media Freedom Act and Digital Services Act, among others, and approaches developed in Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, UK, US, and Canada. Chapter 7, a broader review of MFL projects and interventions, is followed by recommendations to various stakeholders and case studies of projects that promote MFL.

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.

The Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi, LIRNEasia, and the School of Law at BRAC University published a report that outlines the social media regulation frameworks and trends in Sri Lanka, India, and Bangladesh. South Asia is an understudied region in terms of platform regulation, even though the three countries in focus have seen a public debate on the matter unfolding for the past few years. The report aims to fill that research gap, analyzing “(a) the intermediary liability framework governing social media platforms; (b) the relevant cybersecurity and other information and communication technology (ICT) regulations; and (c) key speech laws (mostly penal) applicable to end-users.” Case studies show that in Sri Lanka, India, and Bangladesh, social media governance relies on control of the online information flow, with its practices being internet shutdowns, content blocking, and online speech criminalization. There is a growing centralization of power in all three countries and an absence of functioning parliamentary and court oversight over executive decisions that restrict speech.

How should states approach the regulation of AI to ensure the new technologies strengthen democracy rather than undermine it? Addressing this question, the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) drafted an AI policy framework tailored for the states in the region. The document centers on the right to freedom of expression, drawing from Article 9 of the ACHPR, Article 19 of the UDHR, Article 19 of the ICCPR, and the right to privacy as it is enshrined in Article 12 of the UDHR and Article 17 of the ICCPR. MISA structures the framework in five parts, concluding with “Operationalisation of Human Rights and Ethics,” which breaks down several steps for states and companies to undertake for the protection of users’ rights.

PEN America has been documenting book banning in the United States since 2021 and recently recorded a staggering number – 4,349 instances of book bans took place between July and December 2023, a leap from 1,841 recorded in the preceding semester. This new report, however, goes beyond the numbers. Providing data, the authors also focus on what often stays hidden behind it: the stories in the books under attack and of librarians, teachers, students, and writers affected. The most targeted narratives are those on sexual violence, LGBTQ+ themes (transgender identities in particular), and race and racism. But despite the gravity of the situation, there is hope. The report shows resistance to book banning is growing nationwide, and students are at the forefront.

Access Now published the annual report of the #KeepItOn coalition on internet shutdowns in 2023. The coalition unites more than 300 civil society organizations, rights and advocacy groups, think tanks, media outlets, and other groups from around the world working to end internet shutdowns. In bright visuals easy to grasp, the report shows 2023 has been the worst year in internet access disruptions since 2016, when the #KeepItOn campaign was launched. The coalition recorded at least 283 internet shutdowns in 2023 (compared with 201 in 2022), and at least 80 of them affected entire regions or countries. The year’s leading trigger for internet shutdowns (at least 74 recorded ones in 9 countries) was conflict; at least 173 internet shutdowns corresponded with violence.

The report, released by SMEX, a non-profit advancing digital rights across West Asia and North Africa (WANA), examines the moderation of content on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) on social media in the WANA region. In this context, the study looks at content moderation policies and their practical application by Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X/Twitter, and YouTube. The authors turned to desk research, internal consultations, a survey in which regional SRHR organizations and activists participated, in-depth interviews with some survey respondents, and policy assessments based on the Ranking Digital Rights methodology. Documenting multiple episodes of SRHR content censorship, the report builds its critique on several levels – from the absence of SRHR-tailored policies to the “vague grounds” for posts’ removal and content in Arabic being subject to stricter restrictions than comparable content in English. The report concludes with recommendations for platforms.

PEN America has published the fifth edition of its Freedom to Write Index, an annual report on the detention and imprisonment of writers globally. The number of writers behind bars reached its highest – at least 339 – in 2023. The top jailers are China, with 107 writers in prison, and Iran, with 49 writers deprived of liberty, detaining more female writers than any other country. Amidst war and freedom of expression crackdown, Israel and Russia made it to the top 10 jailers’ list for the first time. Analyzing changes in trends since 2019, the Index registered an increase in online commentators as a targeted professional designation: bloggers and other writers publishing their work on social media make up the majority of those detained. The report concludes with recommendations to the 10 most expression-restrictive governments, states that commit to upholding freedom of expression, donors, and UN special procedures.

7amleh, the Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, published a study on Palestinian digital rights and the global impact of EU legislation - the Digital Services Act (DSA) in particular. The study tackles the following questions: How does the DSA’s approach to hate speech and other harmful content affect the digital rights of Palestinians and advocates for Palestinian rights? What are the potential consequences of the DSA’s politicization by the EU in the Israel/Palestine context? What are the advantages and risks of the DSA for Palestinian digital rights? The study explains the DSA, interrogates its relevance for Palestinian digital rights, includes a case study of events that “​​worryingly point to the DSA having been applied with bias” in the timeframe starting from October 7, and concludes with recommendations addressing the EU institutions, civil society, and online platforms.

The report, published by ARTICLE 19, interrogates digital influence in Cambodia, Malaysia, Nepal, and Thailand. As China broadens the scope of its technology and partnerships in normalizing the “authoritarian approach to digital governance,” the study sets out to understand China’s digital superpower aspirations by unpacking its regional strategies. “This report shows that dual infrastructure and policy support from China, in the hands of authoritarian states, has contributed to increasing restrictions on freedom of expression and information, the right to privacy, and other acts of digital repression,” Michael Caster, ARTICLE 19’s Asia Digital Program Manager, comments. Defining the Digital Silk Road as an umbrella term for digital policies that are part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the report explains China’s domestic digital landscape, outlines the evolution of the country’s domestic and foreign digital policies, and offers case studies on the digital infrastructure and governance in each of the four focus countries. The report concludes with recommendations to governments, the internet freedom community, and the private tech sector.

A collaboration between the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), the paper interrogates political communication and media trust in the age of AI, along with possible technical and policy solutions. ISD Research Fellows Christian Schwieter and Milan Gandhi start by explaining generative AI systems and survey ways through which political actors have been resorting to AI tools. The report builds on the empirical analysis and tailors its insights for policymakers. One of the recommendations is to “[r]aise awareness of how seemingly non-political uses of generative AI can be exploited for politics, in particular the creation of non-consensual intimate content.” After evaluating emerging solutions, including legislation, the authors conclude with an emphasis on the importance of “restoring citizens’ trust in democratic institutions” and stress that technology regulation and reduction of disinformation are solutions of only a partial nature.

The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) published guidelines tailored for the use of digital platforms at the time of elections. They aim to both mobilize the platforms’ positive potential and combat the spread of disinformation, hate speech, and online gender-based violence, among other possible harms. The Guidelines were adopted by the General Assembly of the Association of African Election Authorities in Cotonou, Benin, on 3 November 2023 and represent a “crucial normative framework” for the continent. Emphasizing obligations to preserve the rights to equality and non-discrimination, free and fair elections, freedom of expression, access to information, freedom of assembly, rights to privacy and remedy, protection of women’s rights, as well as ethnic, cultural, and linguistic rights, the Guidelines directly address states, election management bodies, social media, regulatory bodies, political parties, “African traditional institutions and religious bodies,” civil society, and journalists. The Guidelines are in Arabic, English, French, and Portuguese.

The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) presents its submission to the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (IE SOGI). The IE SOGI’s thematic report for the UN Human Rights Council’s 56th session will explore how freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association rights “relate to protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” The APC submission focuses on the digital sphere and includes inputs from civil society activists and organizations that review the following countries: India, Paraguay, Uganda, Botswana, Rwanda, South Africa, Indonesia, and Türkiye. Underscoring that “violence and discrimination initiated offline can be aggravated and perpetrated online, and vice versa,” the submission concludes with recommendations to governments and tech companies.

Published by Masaar, a community of lawyers and technologists advancing digital rights in Egypt, the article explains “the Fediverse” as a challenge to the concentration of Internet power in the hands of few tech companies. Two core ideas build the Fediverse: 1) decentralization and 2) federalism. The article dives into those and gives an overview of the Fediverse’s technological foundation, its philosophy, objectives, first application and evolution. The article also lists some of the networks currently running - Mastodon, PeerTube, Diaspora, and Pixelfed - and discusses the Fediverse’s future along with the challenges it entails, such as difficulty in attracting users, lack of sustainability guarantees, and security threats. The paper concludes on an optimistic note, encouraging Internet users to try a Fediverse application: “Building a free Internet is the only way for it to support its users’ rights and freedoms. Thus, tools like the Fediverse are very important for the future of the Internet and accordingly for the future of us all.”

The report, written by Nic Newman and published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism with the support of the Google News Initiative, starts straightforwardly: it declares 2024 as “another challenging year ahead for journalism.” Artificial intelligence, the disruptions it delivers to the media sector, critical elections taking place around the world, and the continuing wars force journalists and media outlets “to rethink their role and purpose with some urgency.” Journalism content will face radical distribution changes due to Search Generative Experiences and AI-driven chatbots that will reduce media outlets’ audiences. The report includes findings from a survey conducted between November and December 2023 in which over 300 digital leaders from more than 50 countries and territories participated. Despite the grim forecasts, the report still offers ways for journalists and media to adapt, “Embracing the best of AI while managing its risks will be the underlying narrative of the year ahead.” In this podcast episode of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Nic Newman discusses the report’s findings and more.

The Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF) published a study of the so-called “news deserts” - areas that lack “sufficient, reliable, and diverse information from trustworthy media sources” - in Europe. The report results from an all-EU research project that assessed challenges and opportunities faced by local and community media outlets in the 27 Member States. The CMPF methodology includes such indicators as economic and political conditions, local journalists’ safety, the degree of media’s inclusiveness towards minorities and marginalized groups, and engagement with the audience. The report concludes with recommendations for the EU, Member States’ national and local authorities, media organizations, journalists, scholars, and other stakeholders. CMPF highlights an urgent issue to address - “the lack of data related to the economic and financial information for both local and community media, as well as locally focused audience measurements and more detailed research on trust, audience perspectives, perceptions and engagement within local media markets.”

Access Now published a report that explains what role internet shutdowns and service disruptions play in the investigations of international crimes. With the case law on international criminal liability in relation to internet shutdowns and service disruptions being meager, Access Now highlights one ruling only - the 2011 ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I decision in the Situation in Libya case - and marks the decision’s significance as the ICC acknowledged shutdowns' relevance. Yet, the report notes the decision is “insufficient to deter authorities from shutting down internet and telecommunications services during conflicts and civil unrest.” Access Now calls on “courts with jurisdiction over international crimes (i) to examine the precedent set by the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I in the Situation in Libya, and (ii) to give due consideration to shutdowns and disruptions of internet and telecommunications services in evaluating the cases brought before them.

The report, published by the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) in December 2023, examines the state of democracy in five West African countries - Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, and Niger - analyzing how the democratic erosion affects their press freedom. The report explains the main drivers of democratic recession in the sub-region and highlights “military coup d’états, terrorism and violent extremism, and economic misgovernance.” The three bring crises into the countries’ politics and security, resulting in a shrinking space for media outlets to operate. Among the challenges that the press faces are new repressive legislative projects, the existing laws misused to persecute the media, and extreme economic precariousness. On top of those, journalists are forced to work in unsafe conditions, facing verbal abuse, physical attacks, arrests, and incarceration. MFWA calls for the restoration of democratic governance and offers recommendations for the ECOWAS Commission, governments, regulatory authorities, media organizations, and their owners.

Cartooning for Peace and Cartoonists Rights - network organizations with missions to defend the rights of cartoonists globally - published a report on the challenges of censorship that cartoonists face today. Based on the monitoring and case studies from between 2020 and 2022, the report reviews increased censorship in authoritarian states, hate speech, online trolling, disinformation, and manipulation that targets press cartoonists. The report also looks at criminalization and displacement and how the two became the new normal for many cartoonists. “When you question authority, when you hold up a mirror to authority, that’s what makes you a satirist or a cartoonist,” says Rachita Taneja, a cartoonist from India. “And it is essential that in any healthy democracy that satirists should not face censorship [...]. [O]nly a very insecure and very authoritarian government would silence satirists.” Concluding with recommendations for cartoonists’ organizations, governments, and social media, the report’s authors intend to follow up with a more detailed analytical report in 2025. 

The Future of Free Speech and The Dangerous Speech Project developed an interactive toolkit on the use of counterspeech. The toolkit starts by explaining counterspeech through its various definitions and introducing the phenomenon of “counternarrative” with examples of NGOs’ and activists’ campaigns. The toolkit asks, “To what content does counterspeech respond?” and follows with counterspeech goals, strategies, and practical considerations. The examples of counterspeech analyzed by the authors include #iamhere, an international collective counterspeech network; Mirrors of Racism, a Brazilian campaign; the work Hasnain Kazim, a German journalist; Reconquista Internet (RI), a counterspeech group created in response to hate group Reconquista Germanica (RG); and the story of Megan Phelps-Roper, the author of “Unfollow: A Memoir of Loving and Leaving Extremism.”

Published by Masaar, a community of lawyers and technologists advancing digital rights in Egypt, this paper explores the interdependence of freedom of information and freedom of the press and media. Noting that more than fifty constitutions around the world recognize the access to information right, the paper explains how significant freedom of information laws are and what positive impact they have on press freedom: freedom of information enables journalism - investigative journalism in particular. Other areas directly impacted by freedom of information that the paper explores are protection against censorship, public trust, accountability of those in power, media pluralism, and democracy in general. “[T]he right to information can enable media to challenge dominant narratives and offer a platform for marginalized voices,” the paper argues. “[...] media freedom is essential for a healthy and vibrant democracy, protecting human rights, promoting public discourse, and informing the public.”

The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) offers a guide to the registry and court users - East Africans and everyone interested in the EACJ. Arranged in a Q&A format, the guide provides answers to more than forty questions, such as “Why is the East African Court of Justice needed?”, “Who may appear or be represented before the Court?”, and “What are the Form and Content of the Court’s Judgments, Rulings, Decisions, Decrees and Orders?”. The guide starts by explaining the Treaty that established the East African Community (EAC), the Treaty’s objectives, and principles. The guide then covers the EACJ’s structure, the scope of its jurisdiction, and the court’s access, trial, and appeal procedures. The guide concludes with a glossary of legal terms as per the meanings assigned to them by the EAC Treaty.

Africa’s ICT think-tank - the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) - published a report documenting the trends of the last decade in internet freedom in Africa. CIPESA has been releasing its annual State of Internet Freedom in Africa report since 2014; the 2023 publication celebrates the report’s 10th anniversary. Thematically reflecting on the past years of research and advocacy for digital rights in Africa, this special edition offers a clear look at the future. The featured essays discuss “Digital Democracy Vs. [Digital] Authoritarianism,” internet shutdowns, social media content regulation, data governance, online activism, new forms of internet censorship, gender dynamics online, state accountability for digital rights, disinformation, media literacy, and surveillance. “[W]hile the essays in this series largely paint a grim picture of where Africa stands today, not all is doom and gloom,” writes Dr. Wairagala Wakabi, CIPESA’s Executive Director. “Each essay in this report offers suggestions for how these authoritarian roadblocks can be navigated to ensure that the great majority of citizens in Africa can enjoy their online rights and for digital democracy to flourish.”

In this report, Irene Khan, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, unpacks gendered disinformation - a phenomenon that, Khan argues, demands more clarity and research. The Special Rapporteur builds on her earlier reports on disinformation and gender inequality in freedom of expression, as well as her conversations with individuals who experienced online abuse and consultations with regional civil society representatives, governments, and companies. Defining and analyzing the concept of gendered disinformation, the Special Rapporteur turns to a feminist framework and applies an intersectional approach. The report stresses the “dual nature” of gendered disinformation, explaining it as “a strategy to silence women and gender-diverse voices” and noting it can be “a form of online gender-based violence in some situations.” Three more parts follow the phenomenon’s framing: “Survivors, harm, actors and vectors,” “Roles, responsibilities and responses: States,” and “Roles, responsibilities and responses: companies and civil society.” The report concludes with recommendations for states, social media companies, and other relevant actors.

"The Next 25" is a collection of essays published by Article3.org to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to look forward to the next 25 years leading up to its 100th Anniversary. "This digital collection, created in collaboration with HRD@75 Partners, aims to enhance awareness and underscore the importance of the ongoing pursuit of freedom, justice, dignity, and equity for all. The essays offer uniquely positioned perspectives on how to effectively "future-proof" human rights for present and future generations, providing a blueprint for human rights stakeholders to use, reference, and build upon."

In collaboration with Jonction, a Senegalese digital rights group, and the Media Foundation for West Africa, the International Press Institute (IPI) developed a toolkit that outlines the legal frameworks guaranteeing press freedom, the right to access information, and journalists’ safety in Senegal. The toolkit examines 1) relevant international treaties and standards (UDHR, ICCPR, Universal Periodic Review, and others); 2) regional press freedom commitments (African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption,  The Windhoek Declaration among others); 3) human rights situation in Senegal; 4) regional and sub-regional courts; 5) Senegal’s national frameworks, legislation, and regulatory bodies impacting press freedom; and finally, 6) local resources that offer support to journalists. Ahead of the February 2024 elections in Senegal, "IPI hopes that the stakeholders working to protect and defend media freedom in [the country] and beyond can benefit from this toolkit as a resource to improve the operating environment for journalists in Senegal." The toolkit is available in English and French.

The article published in Digital Journalism, responds to the variety of threats that journalists are subjected to - surveillance, cyberattacks, gendered targeting, hate speech, and many others. The article offers an interdisciplinary framework of journalists’ safety, summarizing it in a conceptual model. The authors look at journalists’ safety through two dimensions: 1) personal (physical, psychological) and 2) infrastructural (digital, financial). The authors see safety on objective and subjective levels and argue “[i]t is moderated by individual (micro), organizational/institutional (meso), and systemic (macro) risk factors, rooted in power dynamics defining boundaries for journalists’ work, which, if crossed, result in threats and create work-related stress.” The article then examines the consequences of work-related stress: While in an ideal scenario stress leads to resilience, compromised safety can provoke journalists’ “exit from the profession” and thus undermine journalism as an institution. 

The United Nations Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity is a significant framework aimed at creating a safe environment for journalists and media workers. This comprehensive approach addresses the growing concerns about the risks that journalists face in their line of work. Here are the key elements of the Plan:

1. Awareness-Raising: Increasing public awareness about the critical importance of protecting journalists in ensuring a free and informed society.

2. Prevention: Implementing strategies to prevent attacks and threats against journalists, including safety training and creating a safer working environment.

3. Protection and Prosecution: Developing mechanisms to protect journalists who are at risk and ensuring the prosecution of those responsible for violent acts against them. This includes combating impunity for those who attack or murder journalists.

4. Partnerships: Encouraging collaboration among various stakeholders, including governments, media houses, non-governmental organizations, and UN agencies, to improve the safety of journalists.

5. Monitoring and Reporting: Setting up systems to monitor and report on attacks against journalists, which is crucial for understanding the scope of the problem and devising effective responses.

6. Supporting Victims: Providing support and assistance to journalists who have been attacked, and to the families of those who have been killed.

7. Policy and Legal Frameworks: Promoting the development of national laws and policies that safeguard journalists, in alignment with international human rights standards.

The Plan emphasizes the importance of a free, independent, and pluralistic media in a democratic society and seeks to ensure that journalists can perform their work without undue interference or fear of violence. Its successful implementation requires a commitment from all stakeholders, including states, media organizations, and civil society, to work collectively towards creating a safer environment for journalists around the world.

The ECtHR’s Press Service published an updated factsheet that includes the Court’s case law and pending cases grouped by themes on hate speech. The factsheet explains two approaches used by the Court in considering such cases: 1) “the approach of exclusion from the protection of the Convention,” based on Article 17; and 2) “the approach of setting restrictions on protection,” based on paragraph 2 of Article 10. The two approaches structure the first part of the cases’ list, which is not exhaustive; each case is marked by a narrower corresponding theme (“Threat to the democratic order,” “Racial hate,” “Incitement to violence or hatred against people because of their sexual orientation,” “Incitement to ethnic hatred,” and “Extremism” among many others). The factsheet’s second part contains two big groups of cases sorted as “Online hate speech” and “Hate speech and right of others to respect for private life.” The most recent cases highlighted in the factsheet include Lenis v. Greece and Rivadulla Duró v. Spain (both are decisions on admissibility), Ossewaarde v. Russia, Fragoso Dacosta v. Spain, Sanchez v. France, and Valaitis v. Lithuania. 

The Commission's proposal for the Regulation aims to safeguard media independence and promote media pluralism across the EU, in addition to establishing specific requirements for Very Large Online Platforms as defined under the Digital Services Act.

For the thirteenth year in a row, there has been a drop in internet freedom worldwide, with digital repression causing the largest decline in Iran. Myanmar was found to have the worst internet freedom conditions in the world, while President Rodrigo Duterte's use of an antiterrorism statute to restrict news sites critical of his administration made matters worse in the Philippines. After a presidential candidate whose campaign manager employed internet trolls to intimidate media outlets was elected, Costa Rica's reputation as a champion of internet freedom came under danger. Attacks on the right to free speech have become more widespread; out of the 70 nations that Freedom on the Net covers, 55 have reported facing legal consequences for online speech, and 41 have executed or killed individuals for their comments posted online.

With 47 governments using commenters to sway online debates, generative artificial intelligence (AI) poses a serious challenge to online disinformation tactics. Disinformation strategies have intensified as a result of the increased sophistication, accessibility, and ease of use of AI-based technologies. Governments have also improved and honed their online censorship strategies; in 22 countries, laws have been passed requiring or rewarding digital companies to use machine learning to filter out objectionable social, political, and religious content.

The defenders of democracy must apply the lessons they have learnt from previous internet governance issues to AI to preserve online freedom. AI has the potential to be a powerful tool for digital repression, increasing the efficiency, speed, cost-effectiveness, and ease of censorship, surveillance, and the production and dissemination of false information.

"The Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles presents the EU’s commitment to a secure, safe and sustainable digital transformation that puts people at the centre, in line with EU core values and fundamental rights."

The Guidelines aim to promote freedom of expression and information access while addressing illegal and harmful content. They call for states to apply regulation in accordance with international human rights standards and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Guidelines serve as a resource for policymakers, regulatory bodies, digital platforms, and civil society in their advocacy and accountability efforts. They will inform regulatory processes for digital platforms, leading them in an open, transparent, multistakeholder, and evidence-based manner. The Guidelines will contribute to UN-wide processes, such as the Global Digital Compact, the UN Summit of the Future, and the Code of Conduct for public information integrity.

The Global Expression Report 2023 provides a comprehensive analysis of the state of freedom of expression worldwide. It assesses 161 countries using 25 indicators to assign each a score between 0 and 100, categorizing them into various levels of expression freedom: In Crisis (0-19), Highly Restricted (20-39), Restricted (40-59), Less Restricted (60-79), and Open (80-100).

Key findings include:

1. **Decline in Global Expression**: There has been a significant decline in freedom of expression globally. The Global Expression Score, the mean average of country scores, has dropped by 6 points since 2012. Even more concerning is the Human Score, weighted by population, which shows a 13-point decline over the same period.

2. **Widespread Repression**: Around 80% of the global population now lives with less freedom of expression than a decade ago, affecting over 6 billion people in more than 80 countries. The 21st century has seen an increase in repression for the majority of the world's population.

3. **Disproportionate Impact**: The report highlights that more countries are experiencing declines in freedom than those witnessing improvements. Notably, countries with declining freedoms tend to have larger populations. For instance, 95% of countries that have seen advances in the last decade have populations under 50 million, whereas only 74% of countries with declining freedoms have populations of that size.

Overall, the report paints a concerning picture of the current state and trends of global freedom of expression.

Global freedom declined for the 17th consecutive year.  Moscow’s war of aggression led to devastating human rights atrocities in Ukraine. New coups and other attempts to undermine representative government destabilized Burkina Faso, Tunisia, Peru, and Brazil. Previous years’ coups and ongoing repression continued to diminish basic liberties in Guinea and constrain those in Turkey, Myanmar, and Thailand, among others. Two countries suffered downgrades in their overall freedom status: Peru moved from Free to Partly Free, and Burkina Faso moved from Partly Free to Not Free.

The struggle for democracy may be approaching a turning point. The gap between the number of countries that registered overall improvements in political rights and civil liberties and those that registered overall declines for 2022 was the narrowest it has ever been through 17 years of global deterioration. Thirty-four countries made improvements, and the tally of countries with declines, at 35, was the smallest recorded since the negative pattern began. The gains were driven by more competitive elections as well as a rollback of pandemic-related restrictions that had disproportionately affected freedom of assembly and freedom of movement. Two countries, Colombia and Lesotho, earned upgrades in their overall freedom status, moving from Partly Free to Free.

While authoritarians remain extremely dangerous, they are not unbeatable. The year’s events showed that autocrats are far from infallible, and their errors provide openings for democratic forces. The effects of corruption and a focus on political control at the expense of competence exposed the limits of the authoritarian models offered by Beijing, Moscow, Caracas, or Tehran. Meanwhile, democratic alliances demonstrated solidarity and vigour.

Infringement on freedom of expression has long been a key driver of global democratic decline. Over the last 17 years, the number of countries and territories that receive a score of 0 out of 4 on the report’s media freedom indicator has ballooned from 14 to 33, as journalists face persistent attacks from autocrats and their supporters while receiving inadequate protection from intimidation and violence even in some democracies. The past year brought more of the same, with media freedom coming under pressure in at least 157 countries and territories during 2022. Scores for a related indicator pertaining to freedom of personal expression have also declined over the years amid greater invasions of privacy, harassment and intimidation, and incentives to self-censor both online and offline.

The fight for freedom persists across decades. When Freedom House issued the first edition of its global survey in 1973, 44 of 148 countries were rated Free. Today, 84 of 195 countries are Free. Over the past 50 years, consolidated democracies have not only emerged from deeply repressive environments but also proven to be remarkably resilient in the face of new challenges. Although democratization has slowed and encountered setbacks, ordinary people around the world, including in Iran, China, and Cuba, continue to defend their rights against authoritarian encroachment.

The UN resolution acknowledges that some new and emerging technologies may not be compatible with international human rights law. Evidence shows that emotion recognition technologies are fundamentally incompatible with human rights, and future resolutions should ban these technologies. The resolution also introduces stronger language on remote biometric surveillance systems, such as facial recognition, which raises concerns about their proportionality. The increasing use of biometric technologies has chilling effects on freedom of expression and behaviour, deterring people from participating in public assemblies or expressing their ideas or religious beliefs. Governments are called to prohibit remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces and mass surveillance. However, the core group failed to address new challenges for privacy, such as social media monitoring. The resolution is urged to include strong recommendations to ensure social media intelligence collection, analysis, and sharing strictly conforms with human rights standards and data protection frameworks.

This paper aims to identify practical measures to ensure beneficial cross-border data flows continue while addressing the risks they pose. It emphasizes the importance of commercial privacy and trusted government access in achieving trust. A trusted framework for cross-border data flows must be open to democracies operating under the rule of law, rights-protective, practicable, and scalable. The framework should provide meaningful privacy safeguards enforced through effective accountability mechanisms, be achievable by democracies that respect the rule of law, and be scalable to keep up with rapid global change. The paper suggests stakeholders should initiate a multilateral, transparent process that focuses on commercial privacy and trusted government access.

The toolkit is designed to assist digital rights activists in understanding the complexities of digital identification systems. It provides a framework for understanding these systems and breaking them down into distinct parts, especially for non-experts. The toolkit functions as a "choose your own adventure" game, where players select a Persona and navigate through the System, Harm, and Mitigation stages based on their circumstances. It can also be used to holistically analyze a specific digital ID system by selecting the System cards that apply to the system.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights' Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression (RELE) has released a report titled "Disinformation, pandemic and human rights". The report examines the impact of disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, the challenges of collective understanding, internet moderation practices, and the impacts of state measures on human rights. The RELE recommends States respect and guarantee human rights, including freedom of expression, and address the risks of violations during future health emergencies. The report emphasizes the importance of valuing public information and promoting digital debate during emergencies.

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.

This 2021 Policy Paper published by ARTICLE 19 provides a detailed overview of the potential harms of Biometric technologies, including violations of the fundamental rights of privacy and freedom of expression as well as “data protection, human dignity, non-discrimination, self-determination and the right to access an effective remedy.” Further, abuse of these technologies by law enforcement and other state bodies can result in discrimination from profiling of marginalized and at-risk communities. The Policy Brief provides case studies on the use of facial recognition and emotion recognition technologies, and offers a broad range of recommendations. Based on the gathered evidence, ARTICLE 19 calls for “a moratorium on the development and deployment of all biometric technologies until vital human rights safeguards are in place.” 

The document underscores the significant negative impact such technology can have on media freedom within the OSCE region.

"The Representative concluded that the implementation of stringent measures is vital. This includes mandating effective and binding prior authorization of any surveillance on a journalist granted by an independent authority under judicial control. Additionally, such surveillance must be limited in duration and scope, and applicable only to the most severe offenses. Utilizing digital surveillance technology should be carefully justified and integrated into a robust rule-of-law framework, accompanied by a meaningful redress mechanism."

In a follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women, the Commission on the Status of Women issued these conclusions. They emphasize the importance of promoting human rights in the development, deployment, evaluation, and regulation of technologies, ensuring adequate safeguards to create an open, secure, stable, accessible, and affordable information and communications technology environment for all women and girls. The Commission acknowledges that technology can enhance women's and girls' rights, but it can also perpetuate gender stereotypes and negative social norms, perpetuating inequalities. It emphasizes the need to address structural barriers to achieving these rights. The Commission further calls for women's equal participation in decision-making and leadership positions for gender equality, empowerment, and human rights. To reach those goals, new policies and programs are required to promote digital technology use and address potential negative impacts.

"Offering a concise overview of the current state of content moderation on the largest social media platforms and the impacts on freedom of expression, the practical handbook seeks to dissect the complex intersection of freedom of expression, content moderation, and the business models of these tech giants.

The handbook, produced by ARTICLE 19 under the UNESCO project Social Media 4 Peace funded by the European Union, includes numerous concrete examples and cases to illustrate the questions raised by different standards, practices and policies pertinent to content moderation. It builds upon ARTICLE 19’s policies and expertise in content moderation and platform regulation and reflects ARTICLE 19’s long-standing calls that measures responding to problematic content including ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ must always conform with international standards on freedom of expression and other human rights."

"In the present report, the Special Rapporteur explores the linkages between the right to freedom of expression, including the right to information, and sustainable development. She introduces a paradigm shift in looking at sustainable development through the lens of freedom of expression. While recognizing important progress made in normative standards for access to information, the Special Rapporteur highlights that more is needed to ensure that the voices of those most disadvantaged in society are heard. She argues that only when both access to information and the effective participation of youth, Indigenous communities, the media, human rights defenders, civil society actors and others are fulfilled will the promise to leave no one behind be realized. As world leaders prepare to gather at the United Nations Headquarters in September 2023 to review progress on meeting the Sustainable Development Goals, the Special Rapporteur calls for renewed political commitment to uphold freedom of expression, an enabler of sustainable development."

The 2021/2022 World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development report focuses on journalism as a public good, analyzing trends in media freedom, pluralism, independence, and journalist safety. The findings are based on data-driven analysis by UNESCO and Data-Pop Alliance, as well as original research by Economist Impact. The report highlights the importance of understanding journalism as a public good and its role in the wider conceptualization of information as a public good.

"This paper considers the impact of digital transformation on internationally recognised human rights, legal and constitutional rights, and domestically protected interests. It considers specific case studies, and provides a brief overview of international and domestic initiatives to protect ‘rights in the digital age’. Developed in the context of the 2022 Ministerial meeting of the Committee on Digital Economy Policy, this paper sets the scene for further discussion and supports policy makers in designing and achieving a rights-oriented and human-centric digital transformation."

In May 2023 the Council of the European Union issued this compromise text of a Directive of the European Parliament and Council to protect human rights defenders and journalists who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings, also known as strategic lawsuits against public participation or SLAPPs. The compromise text was issued based on a lengthy consultative process including input from the SLAPP Working Party and Member States. Overall, Member States support “the aim of the directive to eliminate obstacles to the proper functioning of civil proceedings, while providing protection for the right to freedom of expression and media freedom.” However, they also “stressed that the procedural safeguards provided in the directive should be carefully targeted and in line with the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, in order to eliminate the risk of abuses by those the directive aims to protect.” At the same time, the Directive should not prevent legitimate claims from benig heard. The compromise text must be approved by the relevant parties before it can form the “basis for the negotiations with the European Parliament in the framework of the ordinary legislative procedure (Art. 294 TFEU).”

"A new report entitled Free to Create: Artistic Freedom in Europe examines the challenges European artists and cultural workers face in the practice of their right to freedom of artistic expression. These range from laws that curtail creative freedom, attacks from non-governmental groups and online threats to the “under-the-radar” pressures that contribute to self-censorship. Artistic freedom is a core human right requiring protection and it has worsened recently under multiple challenges – political extremism, economic collapse, a global pandemic, threats from digitisation, an emerging environmental catastrophe, and the return of war within Europe – all crises with major impacts on human rights across society."

Freedom of expression and access to information is an essential human rights right that enables public engagement and participation in decision-making. It is integrated into the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and is incorporated into Goal 16, which aims to promote peaceful societies, justice, and effective institutions. However, the world still has a long way to go to meet the SDGs by 2030, particularly Goal 16, which concerns freedom of expression. This briefing assesses the progress of achieving Goal 16 and its contribution to achieving all SDGs, identifies gaps in international processes, and provides recommendations for the effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The briefing aims to contribute to discussions at the SDGs Summit in September 2023 and help States and the international community determine what must be done to make the most of this stocktaking moment.

"The present report is submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution 76/227. In it, the Secretary-General describes the challenges posed by disinformation and the responses to it, sets out the relevant international legal framework and discusses measures that States and technology enterprises reported to have taken to counter disinformation. The Secretary-General notes that countering the different manifestations of disinformation requires addressing underlying societal tensions, fostering respect for human rights, online and offline, and supporting a plural civic space and media landscape."

Law enforcement agencies face challenges in balancing freedom of expression with maintaining public order. They must manage safety issues, manage elections, natural disasters, and health emergencies while promoting respect for freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Political, social, and economic factors contribute to these difficult situations. Journalists' freedoms are increasingly threatened, with 1,088 journalists killed in the past 12 years. In 2022, 45 media professionals were killed, prompting governments and law enforcement agencies to address public order issues, work with journalists, and communicate effectively with the public.

"Through the seven modules in this toolkit, officers and trainers can better appreciate how to equitably balance their public safety and order duties while enabling freedom of expression, and its associated freedoms, through better communications, provision of information, supporting the legal process, and enabling journalists to work safely."

"The Note provides an overview of the three main approaches to professional regulation – namely self-regulation, co-regulation and statutory regulation – and then delves in more detail into the key features of self- and co-regulation before describing the benefits of these systems and the different roles they can play beyond merely deciding on complaints about professionalism. The final section looks at a number of practice issues regarding the establishment of a self-regulatory system for independent media focusing on Myanmar, the only option given the current situation."

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).

"Este kit de ferramentas foi criado pelo International Senior Lawyers Project (ISLP) para partilhar estratégias de defesa da liberdade dos meios de comunicação social na era digital com advogados e defensores dos direitos humanos. O Grupo de Trabalho de Direito dos Media do ISLP tem, nos últimos 20 anos, protegido a liberdade de expressão apoiando jornalistas e organizações não governamentais de vigilância que investigam, relatam e litigam assuntos que envolvem o direito à liberdade de expressão. O Grupo de Trabalho de Direito dos Media do ISLP também fornece aconselhamento jurídico relacionado com telecomunicações, liberdade de informação e leis de privacidade. O ISLP acredita que a liberdade de expressão é necessária para um governo transparente, responsável e democrático e é a base de uma sociedade livre. Este kit de ferramentas foi desenvolvido a partir da experiência dos editores em trabalhar com advogados, jornalistas e defensores dos direitos humanos na África Austral e Oriental. O ISLP tem trabalhado com as secções locais do Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) na formação de advogados e defensores dos direitos humanos do Malawi, Moçambique, Zâmbia e Zimbabué sobre a protecção da liberdade de expressão utilizando argumentos do direito internacional. A informação prática fornecida neste kit de ferramentas foi concebida para permitir que os defensores locais utilizem o direito internacional em órgãos regionais para defender a liberdade de expressão e argumentar a favor de uma maior protecção dos direitos humanos na SADC. Este recurso centra-se em argumentos de direito internacional para defender contra acusações criminais de difamação e ciberdifamação apresentadas contra jornalistas e bloguistas."

"This toolkit was created by International Senior Lawyers Project (ISLP) to share strategies for defending media freedoms in the digital age with lawyers and human rights defenders. ISLP’s Media Law Working Group has, for the past 20 years, protected freedom of expression by supporting journalists and watchdog non-governmental organizations that investigate, report on, and litigate matters involving the right to freedom of expression. ISLP’s Media Law Working Group also provides legal advice on telecommunications, freedom of information, and privacy laws. ISLP believes that freedom of expression is necessary for a transparent, accountable, and democratic government and is the foundation of a free society. This toolkit was developed from the publishers’ experience working with lawyers, journalists, and human rights defenders in Southern and Eastern Africa. ISLP has worked with local Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) chapters to train lawyers and human rights defenders from Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe on protecting freedom of expression using international law arguments. The practical information provided in this toolkit is designed to enable local advocates to use international law in regional bodies to defend freedom of expression and argue for stronger human rights protections in SADC. This resource focuses on international law arguments to defeat criminal defamation and cyber libel charges brought against journalists and bloggers."

Culture and creativity are crucial economic sectors, accounting for 3.1% of GDP and 6.2% of employment. In 2019, exports of cultural goods and services doubled, reaching $389.1 billion. However, the creative economy faces challenges, including the pandemic, which led to over 10 million job losses. Public investment in culture has declined, and creative professions remain unstable and underregulated. Gender equality remains distant, and only 13% of voluntary national reviews acknowledge culture's contribution to sustainable development.

Disparities between developed and developing countries are significant, with developed countries leading the trade of cultural goods and services. The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need for countries to protect and promote diversity within their territories and beyond. Culture's global public good must be preserved for the benefit of present and future generations.

This report "offers insightful new data that shed light on emerging trends at a global level, as well as puts forward policy recommendations to foster creative ecosystems that contribute to a sustainable world by 2030 and beyond". Also published is a new video on the importance of protecting artists and defending artistic freedom.

"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".

This report is the result of in-depth research and the conclusions from 20 interviews with professionals with expertise in media freedom, artistic freedom, and the defense of human rights advocates and artists. It compares the safeguards and procedures in place to defend the legal rights of journalists and artists in urgent situations. The study's overarching objective is to promote collaborations between groups that support the safety of artists and journalists. While highlighting ways in which cooperation could be advantageous to both the advocacy communities focused, respectively, on artistic and media freedom, it suggests concrete action to expand protection for artists' safety in crises, learning from the advanced movement for the protection of journalists. 

The aim of this handbook is to educate civic information providers about coordinated deceptive campaigns and serve as a resource on how to flood the zone with trustworthy civic information.

"This handbook will function as a media literacy tool, giving readers the skills and opportunity to consider who is behind networked information campaigns and how they spread their messages. Its focus is limited to how information spreads on social media, but modern networked information campaigns work across an entire ecosystem of on- and offline tactics. Information campaigns use radio, mail, email, print media, television, and face-to-face communication"

The authors have submitted a Joint UPR Submission that gauges the worsening situation of freedom of expression in Russia, for the 44th Session of the Working Group. The submission examines the persecution of media workers and media outlets; criminalisation of speech and assembly and association; the use of war propaganda and incitement of hatred and violence; the use of internet shutdowns; website blocking; the use of surveillance in violation of Russia’s obligations enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Declaration, adopted by the specialized mandates tasked with protecting Freedom of Expression at the UN, OAS, OSCE, and African Commission, was drafted in cooperation with ARTICLE 19 and the Centre for Law and Democracy. The Declaration “outlines the interrelationship and interdependency of media freedom and democratic values, and the critical role of media freedom in enabling and sustaining democratic societies.” In the three sections that follow, the Declaration focuses on the role of states, calling for state actors to protect journalists and media diversity, refrain from press freedom violations, and provide economic support to the media. In its recommendations for online platforms, the Declaration emphasizes human rights standards, transparency, risk mitigation, and fair compensation. Finally, it addresses the media sector and stresses the importance of professional and ethical conduct.

The Recommendation places itself among the current rules and procedures for addressing hate speech as well as in the larger context of European and international human rights law. It draws on the substantial body of case law from the European Court of Human Rights. The recommendation offers states and a variety of various players, including politicians and political parties, internet platforms, media, and civil society organizations, useful advice as well as a complete legal and policy framework to address hate speech, both offline and online.

This report has been supported by the TrialWatch program at the Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute. TrialWatch is an initiative by the Clooney Foundation for Justice which advocates for justice through accountability for human rights abuses around the world. This report looks at the movement to change sedition laws, the reasons for such change and the abuses that continue where changes are attempted. The report is in three parts: a brief overview of the sedition laws at their criticisms faced at different levels; an update on the progress made by the Commonwealth States to reform these laws and lastly, an overview of examples where prosecuted have used sedition laws to stifle dissent, including case studies by TrialWatch's monitoring. 

In this document, Rosario Soraide for UNESCO notes that there has been a gradual trend towards decriminalising defamation, with 160 countries who have not criminalised it. However, The use of criminal defamation offences to restrict online expression has increased worldwide.

Several States have enacted laws to address cybersecurity, "fake news" and hate speech, which have had a chilling effect on freedom of expression and journalists' work. There has also been a rise in abusive practices such as "forum shopping" and SLAPPs, which have increased the vulnerability of journalists, artists, human rights defenders and bloggers. International courts have reaffirmed that speech about public officials is specially protected and must receive a proportional treatment under civil law.

ENGLISH  

In this report, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) systematizes the applicable standards regarding the right to access information and the scope of the exemptions that States can raise "to protect national security". This document identifies several challenges in the implementation of laws that guarantee access to information in the region. The rapporteur held, for example, that "many States in the region have introduced legislation that reinforces secrecy and information classification in matters related to national security, under conditions that are not compatible with Inter-American standards on the right to access information. The report underscores judicial decisions and information about good practices regarding access to information, and acknowledges The Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information, also known as the Tshwane Principles, as a tool that "offers the right balance to protect national security and guarantee personal freedoms". 

SPANISH 

En este reporte, la Relatoría Especial para la Libertad de Expresión de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) presenta de manera sistematizada los principios aplicables respecto a la protección del derecho al acceso a la información y el alcance de las excepciones que los Estados puede plantear "amparados en la preservación de la seguridad nacional". Este documento identifica varios retos relevantes en lo que respecta a la implementación de leyes que garanticen el acceso a la información en la región. La Relatoría sostuvo, por ejemplo, que "diversos Estados de la región han venido incorporando a su ordenamiento jurídico normas que disponen o refuerzan la clasificación y el secreto de información en asuntos vinculados a la seguridad nacional, bajo definiciones o condiciones incompatibles con los estándares interamericanos sobre el derecho de acceso a la información". El informe destaca decisiones judiciales e información sobre buenas prácticas en lo que se refiere al derecho al acceso a la información y acoge los Principios globales sobre seguridad nacional y el derecho a la información, conocidos también como los Principios de Tshwane, como una herramienta que "propone un equilibrio correcto para asegurar la capacidad del Estado de proteger la seguridad y las libertades personales" 

"The Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information were developed in order to provide guidance to those engaged in drafting, revising, or implementing laws or provisions relating to the state’s authority to withhold information on national security grounds or to punish the disclosure of such information.

They are based on international (including regional) and national law, standards, good practices, and the writings of experts. They address national security—rather than all grounds for withholding information. All other public grounds for restricting access should at least meet these standards. These Principles were drafted by 22 organizations and academic centres (listed in the Annex) in consultation with more than 500 experts from more than 70 countries at 14 meetings held around the world, facilitated by the Open Society Justice Initiative. This process culminated in a meeting in Tshwane, South Africa, which gives them their name."

This guide prepared by Peter Noorlander for UNESCO offers “practical information and guidance to civil society organisations considering intervening in cases before national or international courts as so-called ‘amicus curiae’ or ‘third party intervener’. It is focused on interventions concerning freedom of expression and the safety of journalists." While the focus is on freedom of expression cases, the principles could be applied to human rights cases more broadly. The guide consists of six sections covering the most important aspects of preparing interventions, such as  strategic consideration and technical requirements, recommendations on how to monitor cases and communicate with parties, and examples in the form of case studies.

"The Centre for Law and Democracy and the Institute for Research, Advocacy and Development have submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Islamabad High Court on behalf of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists.The case involves a constitutional challenge to Pakistan’s criminal defamation provisions, which provide for sanctions of up to two years imprisonment. The main argument is that criminal defamation laws are not justified as necessary restrictions on freedom of expression because civil defamation laws exert less of a chilling effect on speech and provide adequate protection for reputations.

Our brief outlines international standards in this area, showing how criminal defamation and imprisonment for defamation have been addressed by international and regional human rights courts, as well as in authoritative statements by official actors. It also reviews countries which have either repealed their criminal defamation rules or had them struck down by courts. In addition to these arguments against criminal defamation in general, the brief also highlights a number of specific ways in which the Pakistani rules in this area fail to conform to international standards. These include by providing for a defence for statements about officials only where those statements were made in good faith, and limiting the defence of truth to cases where the statements were also “for the public good”."

Modern liberal-democratic nations are divided over whether the right to freedom of expression should extend to hate speech, which abuses, degrades, or promotes violence or discrimination against others based on traits like race, nationality, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Most liberal democracies outlaw certain forms of public hate speech in order to protect the dignity, equality, and security of the targeted groups. At the same time, the United States rejects this position and holds that public hate speech generally should receive constitutional protection.

This essay argues that bans on public and private hate speech can contradict liberal principles. It focuses on the writings of John Locke, which laid the theoretical foundations of the modern liberal state and addressed the problem of speech that denies the equal status and rights of others. Locke's thought offers a valuable starting point for considering how liberal principles should apply to hate speech.

This essay presents a theory of free expression based on liberal humanism, which argues that free speech is based on respect for human freedom and dignity, but does not entitle one to infringe on the rights of others. It uses this approach to grapple with the problem of hate speech, which may be restricted on the grounds that it violates the most basic right of all: the right to be recognized and treated as a human being and a member of the community. Locke argued that expression that sought to deny freedom and equality to religious minorities should not receive legal protection because it invaded its targets' rights and undermined society's foundations. The essay also responds to two of the leading liberal arguments against hate-speech bans: that they violate individual autonomy and undermine democratic legitimacy.

"ARTICLE 19 published a briefing on the role access to information plays in achieving women’s empowerment and tackling gender inequality, providing recommendations for governments and civil society. Access to information is fundamental for women’s empowerment. Access to information enables women to exercise their human rights and overcome gender inequality. Under international human rights law, states are responsible and obligated to promote and protect both gender equality and access to information and to ensure that barriers blocking these rights are eliminated. These obligations are part of states’ commitments under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Goals 16 and 5, respectively. The goals are closely interlinked and are instrumental for the full enjoyment and exercise of a range of human rights – such as freedom of expression – and for the achievement of the SDGs as a whole."

"The focus of the Guidelines on challenges related to freedom of expression and access to information complement the Organization’s work in the areas of education, the sciences, and culture. The aim of the Guidelines is to support the development and implementation of regulatory processes that guarantee freedom of expression and access to information while dealing with content that is illegal and content that risks significant harm to democracy and the enjoyment of human rights. They call for States to apply regulation in a manner consistent with international human rights standards and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

"This Guide is part of the series of Case-Law Guides published by the European Court of Human Rights o inform legal practitioners about the fundamental judgments and decisions delivered by the Strasbourg Court. This particular Guide analyses and sums up the case law under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It covers the period from 1957 to 31 December 2020."

Readers will find key principles in this area and the relevant precedents. The case laws cited have been selected among major judgements. However, it does not include cases concerning Article 10 where an admissibility decision was given as a result of their exclusion from protection by the Convention as per grounds under Article 17 and cases where the Court found no violation of Article 17.

In this factsheet, the Council of Europe discusses the judgement of Halet v Luxembourg, where "the European Court of Human rights reiterated that the protection enjoyed by whistle-blowers under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was based on the need to take account of features that were specific to the existence of a work-based relationship: on the one hand, the duty of loyalty, reserve and discretion inherent in the subordinate relationship entailed by it, and, where appropriate, the obligation to comply with a statutory duty of secrecy; on the other hand, the position of economic vulnerability vis-à-vis the person, public institution or enterprise on which they depended for employment and the risk of suffering retaliation from them. The Court also pointed out that, to date, the concept of “whistle-blower” had not been given an unequivocal legal definition and that it had always refrained from providing an abstract and general definition. Thus, the question of whether an individual who claimed to be a whistle-blower benefited from the protection offered by Article 10 of the Convention called for an assessment which took account of the circumstances of each case and the context in which it occurred. In this connection, the Court decided to apply the review criteria defined by it in the Guja v. Moldova judgment delivered by the Grand Chamber on 12 February 2008 in order to assess whether and, if so, to what extent, an individual who discloses confidential information obtained in the context of an employment relationship could rely on the protection of Article 10 of the Convention. In addition, conscious of the developments which had occurred since the Guja judgment was adopted in 2008, whether in terms of the place now occupied by whistle-blowers in democratic societies and the leading role they are liable to play, the Court considered it appropriate to confirm and consolidate the principles established in its case-law with regard to the protection of whistleblowers, by refining the criteria for their implementation in the light of the current European and international context."

"

These Model Training Materials have been developed as part of an ongoing project by the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) to foster the formation of national media lawyers’ networks, supported by UNESCO’s Global Media Defence Fund. They are designed as a resource for professional networks of media lawyers, freedom of expression organisations and other groups which are working to build the capacity of lawyers to defend media freedom and freedom of expression. The materials provide a template for an introductory workshop on the basic principles of freedom of expression under international human rights law. They include, a Background Reading section which can be distributed to participants; a set of exercises which can be done during a workshop or a training; sample discussion questions; and sample agendas for a 1.5 hour or one-half-day workshop based on these training materials.

Executive Summary: This Guide provides an overview of how international law can be used to inform domestic litigation, with a focus on the issue of freedom of expression. After providing a brief overview of the sources of applicable international law norms, it provides an overview of how different jurisdictions give effect to international norms while offering practical tips for deciding how and when to invoke those norms. The Guide then describes the ways international standards can be used as a tool to inform statutory and constitutional interpretation. The Guide concludes that although different legal traditions have adopted varied approaches to incorporating international norms domestically, regardless of how this is done, international standards can play a meaningful role in domestic human rights litigation.

This report produced by UNESCO provides an assessment of the achievements and best practices derived from the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity over the last decade, and it offers recommendations to combat emerging challenges going forward. The UN Plan of Action for the Safety of Journalists arose out of a multi-stakeholder process to strengthen “peace, democracy and development worldwide” as part of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The UN Plan seeks to “create a free and safe environment for journalists and media workers online and offline and both in conflict and non-conflict situations.” The report details the results of the consultative process in 2022 which included “five regional and sub-regional consultations (for Africa, South Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Arab States and Europe), two thematic consultations (on the safety of women journalists, on risk management and transparency of digital platforms), and a crosscutting academic consultation [which] brought together governments representatives, civil society organizations, academia, journalists, news organizations, IGOs and tech companies.”

These training materials prepared by The Centre for Law and Democracy focus on three commonly applied restrictions on freedom of expression under international human rights law. They are designed as a resource for professional networks of media lawyers and other organisations working to build the capacity of lawyers to defend media freedom. The Materials consist of: 1) a Background Reading document describing core standards for each type of restriction; 2) sample exercises that can be used during training programmes; 3) discussion questions, also for use during trainings; and 4) sample agendas for a one and one-half hour or one-half-day workshop based on the materials.

The Declaration jointly developed by Access Now, ARTICLE 19, Mnemonic, the Center for Democracy and Technology, JustPeace Labs, Digital Security Lab Ukraine, Centre for Democracy and Rule of Law (CEDEM), and the Myanmar Internet Project, sets out guidelines to help platforms protect human rights before, during, and after a crisis. The motivation for the Declaration stemmed from an understanding that “[i]n situations of armed conflicts and other crises, people use social media and messaging platforms to document human rights abuses or war crimes, access information, mobilize for action, and crowdsource humanitarian assistance. But governments and other actors leverage these same platforms to spread disinformation and hate speech, incite violence, and attack or surveil activists, journalists, and dissidents.” The partner organizations hope that the Declaration will help “advance consistent and rights-respecting principles for companies to respond appropriately to crises and meet their obligations and responsibilities under international human rights law.”

This Guide aims to provide practical information and guidance to civil society organizations considering intervening in cases before national or international courts as so-called 'amicus curiae' or 'third party intervener'. It focused on interventions in cases concerning freedom of expression and the safety of journalists. Still, the information it provides broadly applies to other human rights cases.

This Guide is divided into six parts:

• A discussion of the main strategic considerations that organizations are thinking of intervening in a case should consider. This includes questions on how an intervention fits into a broader campaign, the type of cases to intervene in, and whether to intervene alone or as part of a coalition;

• A section providing case studies, each chosen to illustrate interventions before different types of court and in different scenarios;

• A section discussing practicalities, including how to monitor cases, engage lawyers and communicate with parties in the case;

• A section discussing technical legal requirements before international human rights courts as well as at the national level;

• Some recommended ‘do’s and don’ts’ in writing amicus curiae briefs, discussing what tone to strike and how to remain objective yet firmly set out the Organization's perspective.

• How to follow up on a judgment, including monitoring implementation and engaging in post-judgment advocacy.