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.
Ten minutes after midnight last Friday, WhatsApp messages flooded Yaman Akdeniz’s phone. A decree had just been published in Türkiye’s official gazette. It revoked the license of Istanbul Bilgi University, where Akdeniz, a CGFoE expert, had taught for 17 years. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan shut down the university overnight, by a one-sentence decision he signed. No one seemed to know much else.
Hundreds of students showed up on campus to protest. Police followed. Clashes ensued. The students spent the night at the university, while the police barricaded them. In the meantime, rumors spread: people wondered what could have provoked the closure. As the weekend drew to a close, word had it that another decision was coming. At midnight this past Monday, President Erdoğan reversed the shutdown.
This week, the CGFoE Team met Yaman Akdeniz in New York City. He sat down for an interview to discuss these recent events and what they may mean. “I see this as a liquidation process,” Akdeniz told Senior Communications Manager Marija Šajkaš. Find an excerpt below. Read the full interview on our website.
Marija Šajkaš: In Türkiye, which is often described as an autocracy, Bilgi University is usually described as liberal. Could this be part of the problem?
Yaman Akdeniz: This year marks the 30th anniversary of our university. It is one of the first private universities in Turkish history. It was always on the liberal side. I don’t think that any other university in the country would offer me a job. When I returned to Türkiye from England, where I studied and worked, this was my only option. Although there were complaints from the government regarding my work, the university never interfered.
For instance, when we were challenging the blocking of YouTube, back in 2010, the president of the university board of trustees called to say that we needed to meet. I didn’t know him personally, but I knew of him. He told me, “Yaman, you are giving me a lot of headaches. I am receiving a lot of calls from the transportation minister.” (In Türkiye, this ministry is responsible for the Internet.) He said, “I am not going to interfere with your work, but I want to know why they are calling me. What are you doing?” So I told him about our project and that this particular case had been taken to the European Court of Human Rights. At that time, we only made an application. The court would decide after five years. But the authorities called and said that I am taking cases against our government to Strasbourg. And I replied, “Look, there are 30-40,000 applications against Türkiye, and I made only one of them.”
Read the full interview on our website.
United States
U.S.A. v. Carey
Decision Date: January 20, 2026
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that federal regulations governing fires applied to the defendant’s conduct but allowing further inquiry into a claim of vindictive prosecution. The case arose after Jan Carey (the defendant) burned an American flag in protest near the White House following an executive order targeting such conduct, and was subsequently charged under content-neutral park regulations prohibiting uncontained or dangerous fires. The Court rejected the argument that the regulations did not apply, finding that the general fire restrictions governed the conduct and could be enforced even where the act had expressive elements, emphasizing that such laws target harms “unrelated to expression.” At the same time, it recognized that prosecuting Carey “because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do” would be unconstitutional, holding that the defendant raised a colorable claim of vindictive prosecution, supported by evidence including an executive directive to prosecute flag burning and statements suggesting it influenced enforcement decisions. While not resolving the issue definitively, the Court permitted further factual development, concluding that the defendant may proceed in seeking to prove that the prosecution was motivated by retaliation for protected speech.
Austria
FPÖ v. Die Tagespresse
Decision Date: January 21, 2025
The Austrian Supreme Court ruled that a satirical online magazine violated the name rights of a political party by sending letters, which falsely appeared to originate from the party. The case arose after the magazine sent a mass mailing to restaurant owners, using the party’s name, logo, and official style of documents to parody one of the party’s political proposals. While the Court affirmed that satire and freedom of expression are constitutionally protected, it held that these rights do not extend to deliberate deception of the public about the authorship of a communication. It found that a significant number of recipients could reasonably believe the letter was genuinely issued by the party. The Court therefore held that the conduct constituted an impermissible appropriation of the party’s name and identity, granting the party’s request for an injunctive relief and authorized the publication of the judgment.
Rapid Wien Ultras Fan v. Land Wien
Decision Date: June 18, 2019
The Austrian Constitutional Court overturned a fine imposed on a football fan who had waved a large banner bearing the acronym “A.C.A.B.” during a match in the presence of spectators and on-duty police. This abbreviation is widely understood in the football community to mean “All Cops Are Bastards.” The Court found that the fan’s conduct was a protected expression of opinion under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, even though the message criticized the police in a sharp and offensive manner. The Court held that such a general, institutional critique of the police must be tolerated in a democratic society, particularly when expressed in a football stadium where provocative displays are a customary part of fan culture. Punishing the fan under a vague legal provision on public decency was disproportionate and violated the fundamental right to freedom of expression.
● Türkiye: Council of Europe Commissioner Calls for Reforms to Protect Freedom of Expression, Peaceful Assembly, and Judicial Independence. Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Michael O’Flaherty published a memorandum, calling on Türkiye to comply with international human rights standards. The Commissioner stressed, among other things, that domestic courts interpret Criminal Code and Anti-Terrorism Law provisions too broadly to restrict speech and called for revisions of Law Nos. 5651 (Internet), 6112 (Broadcasting services), 3713 (Anti-Terrorism), and 7262 (“on preventing financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction”).
● Belgium: Parliament Approves Anti-SLAPP Directive Transposition Bill. Last Thursday, May 21, Belgium’s federal parliament approved the government bill transposing the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive fully, introducing protections against manifestly unfounded or abusive claims, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. The International Federation of Journalists welcomed the news as “a major step forward for protecting journalists against gag lawsuits.” The bill will become law after the King’s signature and publication in the official gazette.
● African Commission: Protect Digital Freedom and Right to Protest in Kenya. At the 87th Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ARTICLE 19 flagged Kenya’s systematic police brutality, arbitrary arrests, and use of excessive and lethal force at protests, along with multiple violations of digital rights. The organization urged the Commission to hold Kenya accountable under the Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa. Last week, CGFoE spotlighted Kenya’s latest crackdown on the right to protest as part of our Protest Monitor—find it here.
This Week in Protests
Across Bolivia, mass anti-government protests continue, with over 100 arrests; miners, teachers, farmers, and opposition supporters block roads and march to the presidential palace in La Paz. On Thursday, May 21, in Jaipur, India, a protest demanded the Education Minister’s resignation over a medical exam paper leak affecting millions; clashes broke out; police deployed water cannons. On Saturday in Madrid, Spain, thousands marched, demanding that Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez resign over corruption allegations against his family and allies. On Sunday in Bilbao, Basque Country, around 2,000 gathered to condemn police violence against Gaza aid flotilla activists who returned from Israel’s detention. That day in Barinas, Venezuela, inmates staged a demonstration on a prison roof after their peaceful protest had been met with fire by prison staff. On Wednesday in Vienna, Austria, thousands protested the planned austerity measures—billions in cuts—affecting universities.
Serbia: November 2024—ongoing
On Saturday, May 23, in Belgrade, Serbia, tens of thousands demanded an early election and respect for the rule of law, many wearing T-shirts saying, “Students win.” The student-led anti-government movement—the largest wave of unrest in the country’s modern history—has now exceeded 18 months.
Background & Demands: On November 1, 2024, a concrete canopy collapse killed 16 people at the railway station in Novi Sad. The tragedy sparked anticorruption protests, forcing Prime Minister Miloš Vučević to resign. A state crackdown followed, with President Aleksandar Vučić and other officials branding critics as “terrorists” and “foreign agents.” Protesters’ demands today include accountability, reforms, and snap elections.
Significance: The Archive of Public Gatherings estimated the Saturday turnout at around 190,000 people, assessing it as Serbia’s second-largest rally in decades, which indicates that despite the severe crackdown, the public’s dissent remains strong.
Some results: Last Thursday, President Vučić announced plans to hold early parliamentary elections between late September and mid-November this year.
State Response: In an apparent attempt to obstruct Saturday’s assembly, Serbia’s state railway company cancelled all trains to and from Belgrade. In an Instagram video, President Vučić said protesters “have shown their violent nature and that they cannot stand political opponents.” While the rally was largely peaceful, some groups clashed with Vučević’s loyalists and police, who deployed pepper spray and detained 23 people. Throughout the past 18 months, authorities have repeatedly used excessive force and face allegations of deploying a sonic weapon for crowd control in early 2025. Physical and online attacks on journalists have surged in a climate of unprecedented surveillance and pressure on universities and civil society.
FoE Violations: Last week, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement on the deteriorating state of freedom of expression in Serbia. Human rights groups continue to document a deepening crisis for independent reporters amid widespread impunity for crimes against the press.
“Anger, Curiosity, and Hope”: A Planet of Protest—in Pictures. Photographer Matthew Connors released a new book, The Axe Will Survive the Master. It documents the world’s confrontation with authoritarianism—from Hong Kong to Kyiv, Cairo to New York. “I set out to photograph […] what happens when governments and their citizens come into conflict,” Connors writes. The Guardian published some of the encounters he had captured—those of despair, but also of hope.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.