Freedom of expression
An overview of the multi-faceted right to freedom of expression and how it is protected under international law.
Browse by theme
Each theme contains useful resources for lawyers on freedom of expression, click below to get started.
Digital rights
Understanding digital rights is crucial to protecting human rights, as little of our lives today is immune from the forces of technology and the internet.
Restricting Internet access & online content
An overview of the ways in which access to the internet and online content are restricted around the world.
Defamation & reputation
An overview of freedom of expression issues in the law, including how defamation is treated in domestic and international law.
Privacy, security & data protection
An overview of the right to privacy, data protection, and protecting freedom of expression in a digital world.
Cybercrimes
Describes the different types of cybercrimes, tracks the trends, and evaluates how cybercrimes are dealt with in international law.
Hate speech
An overview of hate speech and how it is dealt with both under domestic and international law.
Censorship by private actors
An overview of the ways in which access to content and freedom of expression online are restricted by private actors.
False news, misinformation & propaganda
An overview of false news, misinformation and propaganda, including causes and potential solutions..
Litigating freedom of expression
An overview of the various rights and concepts which encompass digital rights.
Browse resource library
results found
Filter by
Close filters
results found
Defending the Media in Satire Cases: Factsheet
Despite such strong support for the protections which should be afforded to satire and the satirist, there is little case law which deals with the subject directly – at least in the international legal sphere – other than a handful of cases heard before the ECtHR.
Steel and Morris v United Kingdom (2005)
The European Court of Human Rights held that although the sum awarded in a defamation case was not objectively large, “it was very substantial when compared to the modest incomes and resources of the . . . applicant . . .”.
10 Human Rights Organisations v United Kingdom (2018)
The European Court of Human Rights was faced with a matter regarding the British government’s power to engage in surveillance and whether its bulk interception regime was a violation of the right to privacy.
UNESCO guide for amicus curiae interventions in freedom of expression cases
The UNESCO Guide for Amicus Curiae Interventions on Freedom of Expression Cases, developed with the support of Media Defence, seeks to equip civil society organizations with the basic tools to file effective amicus curiae interventions, and encourage them to intervene in cases where freedom of expression standards can be advanced or where the right to freedom of expression or the safety of journalists is at stake. The Guide provides practical information on how to file amicus curiae briefs and sets out strategic considerations – as well as do’s and don’ts – with the goal of helping organizations write the most impactful brief possible.
Plaintiff X v PrimaDaNoi (2015)
Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation held that the public interest in an article diminished after two and a half years, and that sensitive and private information should not be available to the public indefinitely.
Gaughran v United Kingdom (2020)
The European Court of Human Rights held that the indefinite retention of data of a man who had a spent conviction was a violation of his privacy rights.
Tamiz v United Kingdom (2017)
The European Court of Human Rights found that although Internet Service Providers (ISPs) perform an important function in facilitating access to information, ISPs should not be obliged to monitor content or proactively investigate potential defamatory remarks posted on their sites.
Explaining the Issues: Internet Shutdowns
In our Explaining the Issues series, we explain legal issues faced by the media – this instalment covers internet shutdowns.
Radio Twist v Slovakia (2005)
The European Court of Human Rights held that a radio station had not violated the rights of persons who were recorded because of the context and content of the conversation being clearly political in nature, and the subject-matter being of general interest, and because of the context of how the recording came to be in…