The Growing Threat of Lawfare: Defending Journalists and Independent Media

The global use of lawfare—where governments and powerful actors weaponise legal systems to silence journalists—is increasingly on the rise. Combatting lawfare has been central to Media Defence’s mission since our founding in 2008. As a serious threat to journalists and freedom of expression, addressing lawfare continues to be a strategic priority for our work.

How Lawfare Operates

Democracy, at its core, thrives on dissent, the free exchange of ideas, and active participation. Governments must safeguard and foster the conditions necessary for public debate. However, the past decade has seen a troubling rollback of freedoms across the globe, threatening democracy through the strategic use of legal mechanisms.

Increasingly, governments and powerful actors engage in so-called lawfare as a means of silencing the messenger and suppress critical reporting. Lawfare involves the use of legal tools to achieve political or ideological goals. This includes filing frivolous lawsuits, exploiting vague or overly broad laws, and using legal processes to drain the resources and morale of targeted individuals or organisations.

These tactics create a chilling effect on civil society and the press, as they are used to control public participation and “legally” suffocate critical oversight. Not only is it used to harass the messengers, but it is also a way of delegitimising them in the eyes of the public.

Media Defence’s Role

Media Defence is at the forefront in supporting journalists to challenge lawfare cases. A recent report published by the World Association of News Publishers on using spurious economic charges to silence journalists cited five leading cases which Media Defence supported as key examples of this type of judicial harassment. With the support of Media Defence, journalists can challenge spurious lawsuits and avoid self-censorship.

Over our years of work in this area we have witnessed lawfare becoming more sophisticated with states and powerful individuals using a range of tactics from foreign agent laws, overly broad counter-terrorism laws to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) and completely trumped-up criminal charges.

Foreign Agent Laws

The proliferation of so-called foreign agent laws exemplifies the strategic use of legal systems to suppress dissent. These laws are designed to label and restrict organisations and individuals receiving foreign funding or engaging in activities deemed by authorities to be influenced by foreign entities.

Russia pioneered such legislation in 2012, setting a precedent that other authoritarian regimes have since followed. Countries like Georgia, Hungary, India, Kyrgyzstan, Nicaragua, Türkiye and Venezuela have since implemented similar measures to curtail civil society. These laws typically impose excessive and burdensome registration requirements, often necessitating government approval for foreign funding. They also mandate onerous reporting and auditing measures, with severe criminal penalties for non-compliance.

The impact of these laws is profound. They create an environment where civil society is gradually suffocated by expanded government regulation and interference. Independent media outlets and critical journalists are often targeted in an effort to silence them, consolidate state power and weaken public participation in democratic processes.

Media Defence supports journalists and several organisations who work in countries with foreign agent laws, or laws which restrict civil society. In Russia, Media Defence supported litigation and intervened before the European Court of Human Rights challenging the country’s foreign agent law.

We are also providing support in Kyrgyzstan. Once regarded as an ‘island of democracy’ in Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan has increasingly embraced authoritarian tendencies, with clampdowns on freedom of expression and independent journalism. The Foreign Representatives Law, adopted in April 2024, is the most recent step in coordinated government efforts to restrict civil society.

The Foreign Representative Law closely mirrors laws in Russia, including requirements for NGOs designated under the law to label publications as produced or distributed by a foreign representative, an annual submission of an independent audit report and granting the Ministry of Justice the right to conduct inspections of organisations and suspend operations at its own. We will continue to support MPI as they navigate these new laws.

Our Partner, the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA) in Türkiye have also spoken with us about the foreign agent law there. Their co-Director Veysel Ok, explained the impact on civil society organisations and journalists in the country.

By continuing to support organisations and journalists in these countries, we can help stem the tide against civil society and sustain civic space.

Counter Terror and National Security

National security laws are often used to muzzle critical voices around the world. There is an increasing reliance on “catch-all” national security offenses to convict journalists, moving beyond their legitimate purposes and what is permitted under international legal standards.

This is particularly acute in Türkiye, which has been governed by a State of Emergency regime since 2016. Although officially abolished in 2018, it was de facto made permanent through a number of regulations including the Anti-Terrorism laws, which are used to restrict rights and silence independent voices.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) estimate that 20 journalists in Türkiye were prosecuted under Article 6 of the terrorism laws in 2023. This provision criminalises the disclosure of information about government officials involved in counterterrorism activities. Over the past few years, this law has been extensively used against journalists who name prosecutors or judges in their reports, despite these individuals not being counterterrorism officials in any capacity.

Türkiye’s anti-terror laws disproportionately affect Kurdish journalists. In 2022, the Committee to Protect Journalists estimated that nearly half of the country’s imprisoned journalists were Kurdish, although they constitute around 20% of Türkiye’s population. In 2024, Media Defence supported eight emergency defence cases of Kurdish journalists prosecuted under anti-terror laws. We also support two partners in the country.

Russia has expanded its use of anti-terror and anti-extremist laws in attempts to silence dissent, which has escalated since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In 2018, journalist Svetlana Prokopieva faced criminal proceedings for “justifying terrorism” in an article that criticised the authorities in connection with a suicide bomber’s attack on a Federal Security Service office. The article discussed how government policies were radicalising the youth, and nothing in her publication appeared to approve of or call for similar actions. In 2019, prosecutors requested a 6-year prison term and ban from journalism for four years. She was found guilty and fined 500,000 Rubles (£6,250 at the time) but avoided imprisonment. Media Defence financially supported Prokopieva throughout the proceedings, as well as appeals at the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court upheld the original ruling, Media Defence supported an application to the ECtHR on the basis that the Russian Federation had violated her right to a fair trial and freedom of expression. Prokopieva continues to report and be a vocal critic.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)

There has been a steady increase in strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), a phenomenon also known as “judicial harassment,” or “judicial censorship”. We have seen the growing misuse of criminal, civil, administrative, and constitutional lawsuits by powerful actors to evade scrutiny, pressuring public interest journalists into self-censorship and stymieing open debate. SLAPPs are designed to drain journalists’ time and resources, ultimately deterring and silencing them.

In 2021, Media Defence submitted a third-party intervention to the Colombian Constitutional Court in a case that challenged a law which stated that where a person stood accused of causing harm through a publication, they could be required to pay damages unless they could demonstrate that they had acted in good faith. The constitutional challenge was brought by Colombian organisation El Veinte on the basis that the law violated freedom of expression, due process, and the protection of journalistic sources. The brief argued that the application of this law placed a disproportionate burden on journalists and media outlets, thus facilitating SLAPPs and producing a chilling effect on anyone who reported on public interest issues. The intervention was successful, and the Court ruled that the application of the law was disproportionate, caused a chilling effect and could hamper journalists’ ability to work.

In 2023, our partner Centre for Freedom of Expression (CFE) submitted an amicus brief in the case of Karyn Maughan. Former South African president Jacob Zuma attempted to privately prosecute journalist Karyn Maughan for reporting information already in the public domain. CFE’s amicus highlighted how the case was intended not to pursue justice but to intimidate and harass the journalist. Pietermaritzburg’s High Court ruledin favour of Maughan, stating that the private prosecution was a SLAPP and therefore constituted an abuse of process. It was considered a landmark ruling for press freedom in South Africa, and the decision highlights the importance of upholding the rights of journalists and protecting their ability to report without fear of reprisal.

While the range of laws weaponised through SLAPP suits continues to expand, defamation laws—both criminal and civil—remain the most used basis for such cases. Defamation—both civil and criminal—accounts for around 50% of our lawfare-related grants, with Brazil leading in case numbers. Journalist JP Cuenca faced 144 nearly identical lawsuits from evangelical pastors across Brazil. These were filed in nearly every state except the one in which he lived. With Media Defence’s support, 138 have been successfully defended or dismissed. In response, the National Justice Council has passed two recommendations focusing on repetitive lawsuits and abuse of due process.

Our partner ABRAJI filed a case at Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court on judicial harassment of journalists, with Media Defence intervening in a public hearing. In 2024, the Court issued a landmark ruling defining the filing of multiple lawsuits across jurisdictions to harass and hinder defence as “judicial harassment.” The ruling aims to protect journalists from this type of lawfare experienced by Cuenca. It allows defendants to request case consolidation in their city of residence and limits civil defamation liability to cases with clear evidence of malicious intent or serious professional negligence.

In addition to our individual and partner work, Media Defence is a member of the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE). CASE is a coalition of non-governmental organisations from across Europe, working to expose SLAPPs, build resilience and advocate for law reform to prevent their use.

Trumped Up Charges

Trumped up charges are false or exaggerated accusations made with the intent to deceive or manipulate. These charges are often used to target journalists to silence dissent and suppress freedom of expression. Trumped up charges are frequently employed by authoritarian governments or corrupt officials to stifle investigative reporting and criticism. Common tactics include accusing journalists of unrest, spreading false information and endangering national security. Baseless economic crimes charges like money laundering, currency smuggling, fraud, and tax evasion are also increasingly used to silence journalists and media outlets.

One prominent example we have worked on is that of Khadija Ismayilova, one of the few remaining independent journalists in Azerbaijan. After repeatedly exposing corruption, she faced relentless harassment and, in December 2014, was arrested on politically motivated charges, including tax evasion, “illegal entrepreneurship,” and abuse of power. She spent nearly 18 months in pre-trial detention. In 2020, the ECtHR ruled that her arrest and detention were baseless, aimed at silencing and punishing her as a prominent investigative journalist—a tactic emblematic of the state’s broader repression of free media. Despite this ruling, two of her convictions remained. In 2016, Media Defence filed a case at the ECtHR challenging these convictions, which remains ongoing.

More recently, Khadija was ordered to pay over €23,000 to the state due to her tax evasion conviction. As a result, she remains under a travel ban, and her bank accounts have been frozen. On 7 February 2020, Media Defence, alongside Azeri human rights lawyer Yalchin Imanov, filed a further application to the ECtHR challenging these additional violations of her rights. This case is also ongoing.

Strategic Impact

Media Defence plays a crucial role in combating lawfare against journalists through a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach that includes emergency defence, strategic litigation, local legal capacity building. Our efforts are both grassroots and immediate: we provide direct emergency support to journalists threatened by lawfare.  We also train lawyers to independently support journalists facing these challenges and bolster local legal organisations to do the same.

Our strategic litigation efforts aim to reshape the legal landscape, fostering long-term change in regions where lawfare is used to suppress freedom of expression. This commitment to addressing lawfare is a cornerstone of our 2025-2029 strategy, reflecting our dedication to this critical issue.