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 December in Kathmandu, Nepal, dozens of protesters chanted, “Down with Sushila Karki!” That is: “Down with the interim-government”—the government some of them, including those now on crutches, had helped bring to power in a nationwide revolt. Anti-riot police broke up the protesters, detaining several with force.
Digital censorship became the match that started a blaze—Nepal’s revolution—last September. Today, out of global headlines, the country remains in crisis.
On September 4, 2025, 26 major social media platforms were blocked in Nepal for their failure to register locally per the government’s order citing the Supreme Court’s decision, which we are featuring this week. The public discontent had been simmering by then. With the #NepoBaby hashtag trending across platforms, the lavish lives of politicians and their children provoked outrage: Where does all this money come from?
On September 8, the protest against corruption, dubbed “Gen-Z uprising,” began peacefully in the capital. Some young Nepalis skateboarded their way through the crowd marching toward the Parliament. When a few dismantled a police barricade, security forces responded with quickly escalating force. At least 19 protesters were killed. Hundreds were injured. The ban on social media was soon lifted—but too late.
Over the following days, protests—and violence—spread. Mobs burned the homes of top politicians. Nepal’s Prime Minister resigned as flames engulfed the Parliament. Dozens more died before the army brought order to the streets. In an unprecedented vote on a Discord channel, former Chief Justice Sushila Karki was chosen as Nepal’s Interim Prime Minister, the country’s first female head of state.
In a recent briefing, Amnesty International revealed a pattern of unnecessary and excessive force used against the overwhelmingly peaceful assembly on September 8—water cannons, tear gas, and live ammunition aimed at heads, chests, necks—in violation of international human rights law. Victims still await justice.
“We are back here in the street because the government has failed to live up to their promise,” a man told the Associated Press at a recent protest against the interim authorities. “There are so many families of those who lost their lives, and many who were injured, but what has the government done? Nothing.”
Nepal will head to the polls soon, with elections set for March 2026. The people, including those on the streets again, continue to reel in anger, division, uncertainty—until accountability replaces impunity.
An anti-government rally in Kathmandu, Nepal, December 2025. Photo credit: Narendra Shrestha/EPA
Australia
Lattouf v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2)
Decision Date: June 25, 2025
The Federal Court of Australia held that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation unlawfully terminated journalist Antoinette Lattouf’s employment for reasons including political opinion. The case arose from the removal of the journalist from her role after reposting a Human Rights Watch report critical of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which led to a coordinated complaint campaign pressuring her employer. The Court found that the termination contravened a statutory provision protecting employees from dismissal on grounds including political opinion. The Court reasoned that employment law protects both the holding and expression of political opinion, and that an employer cannot dismiss an employee for such reasons, even if citing concerns about impartiality. The Court further found that the employer breached its enterprise agreement by denying procedural fairness before taking disciplinary action. The Court awarded Ms Lattouf AUD 70,000 in compensation for the non-economic loss suffered as a result of the unlawful termination.
Nepal
Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court v. Sidhakura.com
Decision Date: September 29, 2024
The Supreme Court of Nepal considered that the publication and dissemination of videos by an online platform, uncovering alleged acts of corruption within the judiciary, merited prison sentences for contempt against the publisher, editor, and creator of the contested content, as well as fines against the platform itself. Sidhakura.com, an online media platform, broadcast a series of sting operations that claimed to uncover covert collusion between the judiciary and government officials to dispose of corruption cases pending before the Supreme Court of Nepal. The content, which attracted widespread public attention, was circulated through the platform’s own website, as well as YouTube and other media platforms. The Supreme Court took cognisance of the matter, following which the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court submitted a report to the Court asserting that the content being disseminated was fabricated and intended to interfere with judicial processes. A full bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal initiated contempt proceedings against Sidhakura.com, along with its publisher (Yubraj Kandel) and editor (Nabin Dhungana)—and the content’s primary source, Raj Kumar Timilsina—for disseminating fabricated content. Relying on the investigation report, as well as submissions made by parties to the case, the Court considered that the content lacked authenticity and was distributed with the intent of obstructing the administration of justice. The defendants were held guilty of contempt and sentenced to imprisonment, and a fine was imposed on Sidhakura.com. Moreover, the Court ordered the takedown of the impugned content from all media platforms and issued a directive to the Government of Nepal mandating registration of online platforms, both foreign and domestic, operating within Nepal, to ensure regulatory oversight over content being published online.
CGFoE thanks Ashwin Upreti, Assistant Director of Cyril Shroff Centre for AI, Law & Regulation at Jindal Global Law School, for his indispensable contribution to the case analysis.
Brazil
Office of the Prosecutor-General v. TSE Resolution No. 23.714/2022
Decision Date: December 19, 2023
The Brazilian Supreme Court found that a Resolution issued by the Superior Electoral Court to address fake news during the electoral period was constitutional, holding that the electoral judiciary may adopt regulatory measures to protect the integrity and normality of elections in the digital environment. The Office of the Prosecutor-General had challenged the Resolution on the grounds that the Electoral Court had exceeded its authority. The Court found that ensuring electoral legitimacy, preserving access to reliable information, and preventing manipulative digital practices are responsibilities assigned to the Electoral Court by the Constitution, and that the Resolution falls within this institutional role. It also emphasized that freedom of expression during elections operates within the constitutional requirement that electoral outcomes remain protected from the abusive influence of economic power, and that the resolution functions as a means of safeguarding this condition. Although one Justice expressed concerns about the scope of certain enforcement mechanisms and voted for a partial finding of unconstitutionality, the majority of the Court maintained the resolution in full.
FEB 5: Disinformation and Freedom of Speech in the Euro-Mediterranean Region. CGFoE expert Joan Barata, Senior Legal Fellow at The Future Free Speech, Vanderbilt University, will give a lecture on disinformation at the European Institute of the Mediterranean (IEMed). Barata will discuss the regional specifics of the phenomenon, as well as the role of states, institutions, and the media. In person (IEMed campus, Barcelona) and online. 12:30 PM New York / 6:30 PM Barcelona. Join the livestream here.
● Israel: Supreme Court Hearing on International Journalists’ Access to Gaza. Before the Israeli Supreme Court on January 26, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemned the ongoing ban on international journalists’ unrestricted access to Gaza as a violation of international law. An amicus curiae participant in the case, RSF argues in defense of the public’s right to information and considers Ukraine’s zoning system to be an alternative approach. (The Committee to Protect Journalists joins RSF in this case.) RSF underscores that under the two-year blanket media blockade in Gaza, more than 220 Palestinian journalists have been killed by the Israeli army since October 7, 2023.
● US: Trial Evidence Reveals Concerted Effort to Deport Noncitizens for Political Speech. Newly released internal documents flagged by the Knight First Amendment Institute show that US immigration officials singled out students and faculty for deportation over constitutionally protected pro-Palestinian advocacy. Made public by the court as part of American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, the records include dossiers on Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Bader Khan Suri, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Yunseo Chung, and rely on unsubstantiated claims from pro-Israel groups such as Canary Mission accusing them of antisemitism or pro-Hamas views. In related news, at a recent hearing in the case, Judge William G. Young referred to President Trump as an “authoritarian” ruler who fails to uphold the First Amendment.
● Special Report: 2025 Journalist Jailings Remain Stubbornly High. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) published its annual report on the number of journalists imprisoned globally. For the 5th consecutive year, over 300 journalists were behind bars worldwide by the end of 2025, CPJ reports. Rising authoritarianism and armed conflicts drive these record numbers, with many reporters held in life-threatening conditions—one freed Palestinian journalist described them as “a cemetery of the living.” With the 10 worst country-jailers holding nearly 75% of all jailed journalists, China, Myanmar, and Israel top CPJ’s 2025 Prison Census, detaining 50, 30, and 29 journalists respectively.
This Week in Protests
Georgia: November 2024—ongoing
Daily protests have been taking place in Tbilisi and other cities in Georgia continuously since November 29, 2024, after the Moscow-aligned authorities halted the country’s EU membership bid (although mass anti-government protests had begun earlier). In response, the state has dramatically restricted civic space.
Demands: Citizens register their frustration with the 2024 election, widely seen as stolen, and the ruling Georgian Dream party’s further political alignment with Russia, including through such repressive tactics as the “foreign agent” law, protest-related restrictions, the anti-LGBT law, and persecution of journalists, among others.
Significance: Protesters—tens of thousands of them in the streets at the beginning—have sustained a daily effort to resist authoritarianism despite growing risks.
State response: Police have deployed water cannons, tear gas, pepper spray, conducted arbitrary arrests, and attacked journalists. A BBC investigation revealed that, back in November 2024, the authorities used a chemical weapon to disperse the protesters. This January, following amendments to the law on demonstrations, a court issued detention sentences to protesters for standing on the pavement.
FoE Violations: The European Court of Human Rights recently held that Georgia violated a protester’s rights to a fair trial and peaceful assembly after convicting him during the March 2023 demonstrations. Human Rights Watch stresses that the ruling “confirms structural deficiencies in Georgia’s administrative offenses system that undermine fair trial guarantees and enable abusive protest policing.”
● New Academic Freedom Course by SAR & Amnesty. Scholars at Risk and Amnesty International have launched a 90-minute course, “Dangerous” Questions, Why Academic Freedom Matters. Enroll in this free, self-paced online class here.
Lastly, friends, have a look at this video, created by Index on Censorship, marking the birthday of imprisoned Belarusian journalist Andrei Aliaksandrau. It is a tribute to him—and to freedom.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.