Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the development of an integrated and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and information around the world. It maintains an extensive database of international case law. This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments in the field.
This past Monday, September 15, the International Day of Democracy, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) called for the protection of the right to citizen association. The IACHR warned that, as more States in the region adopted regulations that restrict civil society, they risked creating a climate of fear and self-censorship.
“[W]hile States may regulate the registration, supervision and control of organizations, regulatory frameworks should not be misused to silence and intimidate civil society, and legal requirements must not be arbitrary or disproportionate,” the IACHR stressed.
As of lately, Ecuador has joined the negative trend. The Organic Law on Social Transparency, which was passed through an emergency procedure and enacted in August, imposes mandatory government-controlled registration and risk-based audits on the country’s civil society groups. The officials claim the law fights illegal money transfers.
But NGOs disagree. “We fear it will be used to persecute organizations that challenge those in power, particularly those of us who defend human and environmental rights,” Vivian Idrovo, Coordinator at the Alliance for Human Rights Ecuador, told CIVICUS, listing other related governmental measures that weaken democracy in the country.
In a recent interview for CGFoE, Daniela Salazar Marín, former Judge on the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, provided insight into the Court’s several landmark freedom of expression decisions, including the ruling on public interest and private data in Ombudsman’s Office v. Ministry of Public Health.
Salazar Marín told Anderson J. Dirocie De León, Senior Legal and Policy Consultant at CGFoE, that during her tenure (2019-25), Ecuador’s Constitutional Court “had to transform all constitutional jurisprudence on freedom of expression,” which had failed to protect citizens from the authoritarian overreach for over a decade prior.
Yet today, again, limits on power are being challenged as the rule of law and human rights defense are being undermined – in Ecuador, broader Latin America, and globally. “If we want to consolidate the jurisprudential advances achieved in the protection of rights, including the right to freedom of expression,” Salazar Marín told CGFoE, “we should start by protecting the institutions whose function is to protect rights.”
How does surveillance – by state or private actors – impact journalists in Latin America?
On October 2, CGFoE will host an online discussion at the intersection of the right to privacy and freedom of expression. The speakers will address surveillance practices directed at journalists in the region and the relevant protections granted by national and regional courts. The panelists will include Juan Manuel Ospina Sánchez, Senior Legal Editor, CGFoE; Mauricio Weibel Barahona, Journalist, Chile; and Claudia Duque, Journalist, Colombia. CGFoE’s Prize Manager Alejandra Negrete Morayta and Program Coordinator Estefanía Mullally will moderate the conversation.
Mark your calendar:
October 2, 2025. 1:00-2:30 PM ET / 12:00-1:30 PM COT / 2:00- 3:30 PM CLT. Register via Zoom. The event will be in Spanish with simultaneous translation into English.
Ecuador
The case on banning political advocacy in Ecuador
Decision Date: August 29, 2024
The Constitutional Court of Ecuador, in the framework of a public action of unconstitutionality, held that the prohibition on political advocacy under Article 12 of the Organic Law Amending the Organic Law of the Council for Citizen Participation and Social Control (OLCCPSC) on civil society organizations, candidates, and citizens, violated the right to freedom of expression and was therefore unconstitutional. The Court found that banning these groups from expressing political support or opposition restricted the information available to the electorate, limited the exchange of ideas in an electoral context, and undermined democratic deliberation. As a result, the restriction affected both the individual and collective dimensions of the right to freedom of expression; thus, the Court declared the partial unconstitutionality of the contested law. At the same time, the Court upheld the constitutionality of Article 12 with respect to political parties and public officials. It reasoned that, in those cases, the prohibition on political advocacy pursued the legitimate aims of preventing conflicts of interest and ensuring impartiality in the selection of members of the Council for Citizen Participation and Social Control.
Ocaña v. Editores Nacionales
Decision Date: September 2, 2020
The Constitutional Court of Ecuador held that sanctioning Revista Vistazo for publishing an editorial during a referendum violated the right to freedom of expression. The Electoral Court fined the magazine (USD 80,000), under Article 277 of the Code of Democracy, for allegedly engaging in unauthorized electoral advertising. The editorial opposed several referendum questions related to media regulation and judicial reform. The Constitutional Court held that the sanction was unlawful because, at the time of publication, the electoral ban did not apply to the media and the relevant restrictions were introduced only later. The Court emphasized that political speech in electoral contexts is entitled to heightened protection and that vague or retroactive rules cannot justify sanctions. It also rejected the legitimacy of the aim invoked by the Electoral Court, which was to ensure fairness in electoral publicity. The Court ruled that sanctioning editorial content could chill public debate and harm democratic discourse. Therefore, it declared the sanction unconstitutional and ordered restitution measures, including the revocation of the fine and training for electoral officials.
Oversight Board
Oversight Board Case of Metaphorical Statement Against the President of Peru
Decision Date: June 27, 2023
The Oversight Board issued a summary decision finding that Meta should have allowed a Facebook post containing metaphorical political statements about “hanging” then-President of Peru Pedro Castillo, made in the context of public debate on his potential impeachment. The user clarified that the statement was not intended to incite violence but to express support for impeachment proceedings. Meta initially removed the post under its Violence and Incitement policy, but reversed its decision and restored the content after being notified of the appeal, concluding that the statement was metaphorical and not a direct call to harm. The Board highlighted this case as an example of inconsistent enforcement of the policy, particularly in relation to rhetorical or metaphorical political speech.
Oversight Board Case of Statements About the Japanese Prime Minister
Decision Date: March 10, 2023
The Oversight Board overturned Meta’s decision to remove a user’s reply on Threads that included the phrase “drop dead” in criticism of the Japanese Prime Minister. The user posted in response to a screenshot of a news article about a political funding scandal involving the Prime Minister’s Liberal Democratic Party members, who were accused of failing to report fundraising revenues. Meta removed the content under its Violence and Incitement Policy, considering the post’s strong language a violent threat. However, the Board found that in the context of Japanese social media, such language represented a common form of non-literal political expression aimed at exposing alleged political corruption and was unlikely to incite harm. The Board reiterated its concern that Meta’s Violence and Incitement Policy fails to clearly distinguish between figurative language and actual threats of violence. Although two moderators fluent in Japanese reviewed the content, they still misapplied the policy even when they understood the local sociopolitical context. The Board concluded that the removal was unnecessary and inconsistent with Meta’s human rights responsibilities and emphasized the need for clearer additional guidance to help reviewers assess local language and context while aligning internal guidelines with the policy rationale.
CGFoE Publishes Written Responses Following Book Discussion on the Right to Freedom of Thought. Last week, editors of The Cambridge Handbook of the Right to Freedom of Thought, selected contributors, and other experts discussed the groundbreaking publication and regional perspectives on the right to freedom of thought. This week, we are publishing answers to the questions raised at the event. “One of the most important themes of our book is exploring the distinction between the law in action and the law as written,” Bethany Shiner, co-editor of The Cambridge Handbook, wrote. “Even in those jurisdictions where the right seems to have extensive protection in domestic law, we find evidence that more can be done to safeguard the right in practice.”
Read the insights from the speakers under the “Panel Q&A” tab on the event page.
OCT 6: Book Launch – Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights. CGFoE and Davis Wright Tremaine (DWT) will co-host the launch of Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights by Natalie Alkiviadou, Senior Research Fellow, Future of Free Speech, Vanderbilt University. The book traces the Court’s case law, from the landmark Handyside v. United Kingdom decision to subsequent interpretations, highlighting inconsistencies in the protection of speech and exploring the challenges posed by online regulation in Europe today. Aryeh Neier, President Emeritus, Open Society Foundations, will join the panel, along with other leading international experts. October 6, 2025. 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM ET. The DWT offices: 1251 6th Ave, 21st Floor, New York City. RSVP is required – the link is here.
● Americas: Devolving Into a Society Without Watchdogs – Anti-CSO Actions Expand, by Laura Vidal. Writing for IFEX, Laura Vidal surveys the trend of restrictive laws targeting civil society organizations (CSOs) in Latin America. By now, thousands of CSOs have been forced to shut down in Nicaragua and Venezuela. Last year, Paraguay passed a law requiring civil society groups to provide detailed financial reports. This year, Peru drastically expanded the powers of a government agency over the CSOs relying on international funding; El Salvador adopted a “foreign agent” law with hefty penalties for CSOs; and with its Organic Law on Social Transparency, Ecuador seeks tighter control over civil society’s funding and operations. Vidal evaluates the consequences of such measures: “What’s lost isn’t just capacity – it’s the democratic muscle society needs to hold power to account.”
● Peru: New Amnesty Law Could Absolve Military and Police Accused of Crimes Against Journalists, by Silvia Higuera. In an article published by LatAm Journalism Review, journalist Silvia Higuera argues that Peru’s Amnesty Law, enacted in August, obstructs the right to access justice in cases of human rights violations, including those committed against journalists. The law grants amnesty to armed forces, police, and military-backed civilian groups accused of or investigated for crimes during the 1980–2000 internal conflict; it also orders the release of anyone older than 70 convicted of those crimes. On September 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of the immediate suspension of the law. President Dina Boluarte stated the Court was encroaching on Peru’s sovereignty.
● Colombia: Four Years After IACtHR’s Judgment in the Case of Jineth Bedoya, State’s Non-Compliance Persists. Foundation for Press Freedom (FLIP) and Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), winners of the CGFoE 2022 Prize for Excellence in Legal Services, released a statement after a private follow-up hearing in Bedoya Lima v. Colombia. “Four years after the ruling, the Colombian State has failed to comply with the orders of the Inter-American Court,” said Sofía Jaramillo, Director of FLIP. At the hearing, both organizations demanded that Colombia make progress on the delivery of justice concerning all those responsible for the kidnapping, sexual abuse, and assault of journalist Jineth Bedoya. “This failure makes it clear that women journalists still lack real guarantees against gender-based violence and that freedom of expression remains at risk in Colombia,” added Jaramillo.
● Argentina: Legislators of Truth, by Lina Palacios. In a blog for the Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, lawyer Lina Palacios analyzes Argentina’s new legislative initiative that proposes changes to the criminal offenses of false accusation and perjury in the National Criminal Code under the rationale that false allegations of sexual abuse subject the accused to a disproportionately heavy burden. Palacios identifies errors in the bill’s “legislative technique” and argues that the proposal’s narrative operates within stereotypes and inflates the scale of the problem. “[I]f passed,” Palacios writes, “[the bill] could negatively affect the exercise of freedom of expression and access to justice for victims of gender-based violence, as their right to speak out would be subjected to a ‘truth test’ that, as a general rule, does not apply to the debate of matters of public interest.”
This section of the newsletter features teaching materials focused on global freedom of expression which are newly uploaded on Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers
Sexual Violence and Protests: First Regional Report Reveals a Concerning Pattern in the Region. A first-of-its-kind study for Latin America, the report documents how sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) has become a tool of silencing dissent in the context of recent protests across the region: in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, and Venezuela. Prepared by the Academy on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at American University Washington College of Law, REDRESS, and the Latin American Network for Gender-based Strategic Litigation, the study draws from victims’ testimonies and case studies, as well as the work of international and civil society organizations and the Inter-American Commission and Court. The report finds a systematic pattern in the weaponization of SGBV against women, LGBTQI+ persons, and other historically marginalized groups.
● CPJ 2025 International Press Freedom Awards Honor Journalists from China, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan, and Tunisia. This year, among the reporters receiving the 2025 Press Freedom Awards from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) are Elvira del Pilar Nole and Juan Carlos Tito, who had operated the only radio station in the town of Baeza, Ecuador, until they were forced to flee the country due to threats for their investigative work; today, the two are broadcasting from Canada. Learn more about the awardees here. At the upcoming ceremony, CPJ will also pay tribute to journalists killed in the Israel-Gaza war.
● Call for Papers: Navigating Campus Freedom of Expression in Polarized and Turbulent Times. The International Conference on Academic Freedom, Expression Rights, and Institutional Responsibility – to be held on January 6, 2026, at Haim Striks School of Law, College of Management, Israel – welcomes abstract submissions by November 7. Nadine Strossen, Former President of the American Civil Liberties Union, will deliver the keynote address at the conference. Find the details here.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.