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.
Back in 2021, El Veinte, an NGO advancing freedom of expression and digital rights, challenged a provision of a net neutrality law that allowed for zero-rating – a telecom pricing practice where data from certain pre-selected apps or websites doesn’t count against a user’s plan – in Colombia.
Before the Constitutional Court, El Veinte argued that the provision violated pluralism, enabled monopolies, and breached privacy by allowing telecom companies to profile and segment users based on their internet activity. This past May, the Constitutional Court sided with El Veinte, declaring zero-rating unconstitutional.
The decision, however, provoked a wave of online harassment targeting El Veinte’s entire team, who were blamed for the perceived role they played in cutting off “free” access to WhatsApp. In a matter of days, the online attacks amassed 350,000 messages. Some threatened physical violence. “These attacks were very intense and went beyond insults,” El Veinte’s Co-Director Emmanuel Vargas Penagos told Marija Šajkaš, CGFoE’s Senior Communications Manager, in a recent interview.
For September’s edition of Portraits of FoE Defenders, Vargas Penagos spoke on the state of freedom of expression in Colombia and broader Latin America, El Veinte’s recent constitutional court victory, the toll of online harassment, and what gives him strength to continue the work of human rights defense.
Below is an abridged excerpt. You can find the full interview on our website.
Portraits of FOE Defenders
Emmanuel Vargas Penagos is the co-founder and co-director of El Veinte, a freedom of expression NGO in Colombia, and a PhD researcher in AI and Law at Örebro University, Sweden. Photo: Courtesy of Emmanuel Vargas Penagos.
Marija Šajkaš: I was wondering how your work, as well as the work of El Veinte, has changed in the current political climate.
Emmanuel Vargas Penagos: Well, I will give you an example. El Veinte filed a constitutional challenge in 2021 against an article of a law that regulates net neutrality in Colombia. […] In practice, this [article] allowed zero-rating plans in the country. Zero-rating is a very divisive topic within telecommunication discussions, because some people consider that it helps improve connectivity. But at the same time, there are others who think that it doesn’t allow meaningful connectiveness, and I agree with them. So it is a plan that maybe gives you mobile internet access for a short period or a short amount of data. But after that, the only internet access that you have is through these pre-selected applications like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, etc. And this is usually done with a commercial interest, and that’s what happened in Colombia.
We challenged that provision of the law for violating pluralism, constitutional protections against monopolies in the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the right to privacy by allowing companies to profile and segment users based on their internet activity. The case lasted nearly four years before the Constitutional Court – much longer than other high-profile cases.
On May 29, 2025, the Court ruled in our favor, declaring zero-rating unconstitutional and granting one year for the judgment to take effect. The Court issued only a brief statement shared via WhatsApp, after which we announced the decision on social media. This triggered a wave of attacks against Ana Bejarano, El Veinte’s co-director, against our team and me, accusing us of harming Colombians by cutting off “free” access to platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook, even though these zero-rating plans were the very issue under challenge.
Instead of being sold as something that increases the cost for internet access and for meaningful internet access, they are sold as plans that provide free access to WhatsApp. This is something that causes a lot of fear, and it’s a narrative that is very harmful for the sole understanding of people’s rights.
To read the full interview, visit our website.
Argentina
Karina Milei’s Request for Prior Restraints (No. 1)
Decision Date: September 1, 2025
The National Civil and Commercial Federal Court No. 5 of the City of Buenos Aires, Argentina, granted the precautionary measure requested by Karina Elizabeth Milei, Secretary General of the Presidency and sister of President Javier Milei, ordering the cessation of the dissemination of audio recordings attributed to her that were allegedly obtained unlawfully at the Presidential Office. Milei argued that the publication of those audios – announced by a streaming channel and amplified by various journalists – could cause irreparable harm to her honor, reputation, and personal safety, as well as compromise government activity. However, the content of the recordings had not yet been verified. The Court acknowledged that the Constitution of Argentina and international treaties robustly protected freedom of expression and prohibited prior restraints, save in absolutely exceptional circumstances. After analyzing the requirements of “likelihood of success on the merits of the case” (fumus bonis iuris) and danger in delay (periculum in mora), it concluded that, in this case, dissemination of the recordings could cause harm that would be difficult to remedy later and affect constitutionally protected interests such as privacy, honor, and institutional security. Accordingly, it imposed a temporary and exceptional restriction limited exclusively to the contested recordings and ordered the National Communications Authority to notify the measure to all media outlets.
Karina Milei’s Request for Prior Restraints (No. 2)
Decision: September 16, 2025
The National Civil and Commercial Federal Court No. 5 of Buenos Aires, Argentina, lifted a precautionary measure that prohibited the dissemination of audio recordings allegedly involving Karina Elizabeth Milei, Secretary General of the Presidency and sister of President Javier Milei. On September 1, 2025, the Court granted Milei’s request for a precautionary measure to prevent the dissemination of recordings by the streaming channel “Carnaval,” which she claimed were obtained illegally from the Presidential Office and could harm her honor and compromise national security. The actual content of the recordings had not been verified at the time the ban was granted. Journalist Jorge Fontevecchia, represented by a team of constitutional lawyers (including Roberto Gargarella), appealed the order, arguing that it amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of both the Constitution of Argentina and the American Convention on Human Rights. On September 15, 2025, Karina Milei herself requested the Court to lift the measure, stating that the dissemination of the files did not affect her privacy or national security, considering they were already circulated by foreign media outlets. The following day, Judge Alejandro Patricio Maraniello accepted the withdrawal and ruled that the original circumstances justifying the injunction had ended. He emphasized that precautionary measures under national procedural law can only remain in effect while their underlying conditions persist. As a result, the appeal filed by Fontevecchia was declared moot.
United Kingdom
HXZ v. NMX
Decision Date: March 21, 2025
The England and Wales High Court (King’s Bench Division) granted interim injunctive relief in favour of a businessman, prohibiting his former partner from publishing or threatening to publish his private photographs and other confidential information. The Court found that the businessman had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that his rights under Article 8 (right to private and family life) of European Convention of Human Rights outweighed his former partner’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of that same convention. The Court found that the balance struck heavily in the businessman’s favour at this stage and that his former partner could tell her life story without “blackmail style threats” and without disclosing his “private and confidential information.”
European Court of Human Rights
The Case of M.Ș.D. v. Romania
Decision Date: December 4, 2024
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Romania violated the right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) by failing to provide an adequate legal framework and an effective investigation to protect the Applicant’s right to private life. The case concerned an 18-year-old student whose former boyfriend, out of jealousy, non-consensually disseminated her intimate images online and to her family and peers, causing her serious psychological harm. The Court found that Romanian authorities were inactive for long periods despite her prompt complaint and submission of evidence, misinterpreted the law by dismissing liability because she had initially shared the photos voluntarily, and allowed key charges to become time-barred. It emphasized that the prosecutors’ reasoning, portraying the acts as “childish revenge,” suggesting the Applicant contributed to her own victimization, and avoiding prosecution to spare the perpetrator, trivialized the severity of online abuse and reinforced harmful gender stereotypes. The ECtHR underscored that non-consensual sharing of intimate images constitutes a serious form of cyber-violence linked to gender-based violence, requiring clear criminal provisions and prompt, diligent investigations; civil remedies alone are insufficient. By failing to act effectively and promptly, Romania created a climate of impunity, thereby breaching its positive obligations under Article 8. As a result, the Applicant was awarded EUR 700 in pecuniary damages, EUR 7,500 in non-pecuniary damages, and EUR 215 in costs.
● OCT 2: Journalism Under Surveillance in Latin America – Cases, Challenges, and Responses From a Human-Rights Perspective. More on those championing the rights to know and access information in Latin America: CGFoE will host an online discussion about surveillance practices directed at journalists 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. 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.
● OCT 6: Book Launch – Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights. Are you based in NYC? Stop by the Davis Wright Tremaine (DWT) offices for an insightful conversation on hate speech, co-hosted by CGFoE, at 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, highlights inconsistencies in the protection of speech, and explores the challenges of online regulation in Europe today. Aryeh Neier, President Emeritus, Open Society Foundations, will join the panel, along with CGFoE’s Associate Director Hawley Johnson and other leading international experts. October 6, 2025. 4:00-5:30 PM ET. 1251 6th Ave, 21st Floor, New York City. RSVP is required.
● Joint Declaration: Protecting Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, of Association From Criminalization Amid Intensified Existential Threats. In a joint appeal to States and their authorities, human rights experts of the UN, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), condemn the escalating repression of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association globally. Urging the protection and facilitation of these freedoms, the experts call on States to stop criminalizing and stigmatizing – through labels such as “enemies,” “traitors,” “spies,” “terrorists,” or “criminals” – the non-violent actions of those who criticize the authorities. In relevant news from the UN General Assembly this week, the African Union, the EU, and the UN issued a statement decrying “the rising number of instances of lack of respect for international law, international humanitarian law, and human rights law.”
● Brazil: Landmark Law to Protect Children Online. Human Rights Watch (HRW) welcomes Brazil’s newly passed law on the protection of children’s digital rights and underscores the impact of advocacy work. The law’s most robust provisions address the problems exposed by HRW’s investigations and include 1) prohibiting online services from using children’s personal data in breach of their privacy or other rights (see HRW’s 2024 report on Brazilian children’s photos misused to train AI tools); 2) banning online services from profiling children for online behavior-based advertising (see HRW’s 2022 and 2023 reports on the secret surveillance of children). “Brazil has stepped forward as the first country in Latin America to pass a dedicated law to protect children’s online privacy and safety,” said Hye Jung Han, children’s rights and technology researcher at HRW, urging other countries to follow suit.
● Europe/US: Open Letters by Academics on DSA and Censorship. In light of the US House of Representatives’ hearing on “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation,” held earlier this month, more than 30 scholars signed two letters correcting the enduring misconception that the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) is a censorship tool. “The DSA both advances and limits the freedom of expression,” one letter admitted, addressing Rep. Jim Jordan, but stressed that the law “gives the Commission and EU member state regulators no power to moderate lawful content or its amplification in a content-specific way.” The scholars clarified matters concerning the DSA’s risk management framework, lawful content regulation, trusted flaggers, out-of-court dispute resolution bodies, codes of practice, US and EU differences in speech protections, and the issue of extraterritorial application.
● West Africa: Four States Defy ECOWAS Court Over Blasphemy Laws. Citing Media Foundation for West Africa, IFEX reports that four West African States continue to criminalize blasphemy in defiance of their regional legal obligations. This past April, in ENHRI v. Nigeria, the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) held that blasphemy laws violated the fundamental right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 9(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Despite the ruling, Nigeria, Gambia, Cape Verde, and Mauritania still consider blasphemy a criminal offense, with punishments ranging from fines to lengthy prison sentences and the death penalty. For more on blasphemy cases from West Africa, including State v. Muhhammad Mubarak Bala, consult the CGFoE Database.
This section of the newsletter features teaching materials focused on global freedom of expression which are newly uploaded on Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers
Limiting the Use of Criminal Law to Restrict Freedom of Expression: A Guide to CoE Standards. Released by the Council of Europe (CoE) Division for Cooperation on Freedom of Expression, this guide outlines the risks of imposing criminal sanctions on particular forms of expression. The resource reviews relevant human rights standards, namely the European Court of Human Rights’ case law, policy guidance of the CoE bodies, and the European Commission for Democracy through Law. It then zooms in on the criminalization of hate speech, defamation and insult, the dissemination of confidential information, speech that threatens national security and public order, and disinformation. CoE Consultant Peter Noorlander prepared the guide as part of the Project Enhancing Institutional Capacities on Freedom of Expression and Information in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
● Blurred Lines: Death Threats, Hate Speech, and the European Court of Human Rights, by Natalie Alkiviadou. Writing for The Bedrock Principle, Natalie Alkiviadou, Senior Research Fellow at The Future of Free Speech, analyzes the European Court of Human Rights’ recent ruling in Ilareva and Others v. Bulgaria, focusing on the “narrative of hate speech by association.” Alkiviadou argues that the Court has dramatically extended the reach of the hate speech doctrine and risks “eroding the distinction between threats directed at individuals and hate speech directed to the groups themselves.”
● Afghanistan and Iran: Boundaries of Expression Podcast – Gender Apartheid. In this new podcast episode, ARTICLE 19 speaks to Karima Bennoune, Lewis M. Simes Professor of Law at the University of Michigan and former UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights, about the systematic institutionalized oppression of women and girls in Afghanistan and Iran. Professor Bennoune sheds light on the campaign she is leading: for gender apartheid to be recognized as an international crime.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.