21 August 2023
A Plea for Proportionality
In recent months the burning of the Koran in Sweden has caused headlines and severe anger in many parts of the Muslim world as well as bewilderment across the EU as to why Sweden continues to permit the practice. The Government is currently looking into how the law can be changed to include a ban on the burning of the Koran in the Public Order Act. In this blog post, I explain why it might be wise to do so and how this might be done. Continue reading >>
2 
25 Mai 2023
Strong on Hate Speech, Too Strict on Political Debate
Online hate speech is a topic that has gained importance in recent years. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) made an important ruling in this context on 15 May 2023 in Sanchez v. France. From a democratic theory and individual rights’ perspective, I would endorse the first decision because it tackles the so-called “silencing” and “desensitization effect” of hate speech. The second decision, however, runs the risk of adversely affecting free political debate, especially when individual politicians are called upon to delete comments by third parties. Continue reading >>
0
07 März 2023
Freeing Political Expression
The South Korean parliament is in the midst of an intensive debate on electoral reform. Yet, a crucial element of necessary electoral law reform is missing in these debate: Last year, the Constitutional Court declared a controversial paragraph from the Electoral Act as unconstitutional and unjustly restricting freedom of expression. Failing to revise the targeted paragraph corresponding to the Constitutional Court’s decision in the upcoming legislature periods - by the latest of July 31, 2023 - would inevitably lead to a legal vacuum. In this blog post, I shed some light on the Constitutional Court’s 2022 decision and explain why the ruling could have a major impact on how election campaigns are conducted in South Korea. Continue reading >>
0
02 März 2023
On the Road to Censorship
Freedom of expression is in peril in India. To be fair, the Indian Supreme Court has never been a devout protector of freedom of expression. When presented with the option, it has often leaned towards permitting limitations, so long as the restrictions are properly framed under the language of Article 19(2) of the constitution. Yet, faced with the current illiberal onslaught, there is a possibility that even the few gains that have been made in this area of the court’s jurisprudence will be lost. Situated in this context, this article discusses the recent ban issued by the Indian government on a BBC documentary on India’s prime minister, the jurisprudence of the Indian supreme court on the interception of online material, and the legal measures introduced to regulate freedom of expression on the internet. Continue reading >>
0
30 Dezember 2022
#DefendingTheDefenders – Episode 4: Turkey
In the fourth episode of #DefendingTheDefenders we talk about the situation of lawyers in Turkey with Veysel Ok. He is an attorney in Istanbul and the Co-Director of the Media and Law Studies Association, a non-profit which monitors and defends freedom of expression cases against journalists. Continue reading >>
0
15 Dezember 2022
To Speak, or not to Speak
Several national football federations and their teams had planned to wear a rainbow armband (also called the “One-Love” armband) when entering the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, which symbolizes solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community. Promptly, this simple gesture in favor of respect of human rights and diversity was forbidden by FIFA. The days following the ban, players and teams expressed their unease about FIFA’s strict position and about the uncertainty of the potential sanctions. FIFA’s practice towards freedom of expression lacks consistency, which further highlights the protection gap that exists between the lex sportiva, the rules and regulations governing sports, and human rights law in respect of freedom of expression. How could the differences be reconciled? Continue reading >>15 Dezember 2022
Articulating Legitimacy through Policy Recommendations
On 6 December, Meta's Oversight Board issued a policy advisory opinion on 'cross-check', a content moderation system used by the company to avoid the erroneous removal of content shared by highly influential users on its platforms. Despite the opinion’s directness in calling Meta out for the disproportionate attention paid to corporate interests to the detriment of its human rights commitments, the OB’s decision presents an underlying duplicity, as it criticises policy and design choices replicated in the OB’s own architecture. This curtails the institution's capacity to enhance accountability and legitimacy. Continue reading >>
0
19 Oktober 2022
Sex, God, and Blasphemy
Blasphemy used to be a grave offence once. Now, it is on the decline, making room for freedom of expression. Yet, two judgments of last week show that blasphemy has managed to re-enter the stage through the back door. In this blogpost, I argue that although both cases ended well, i.e. were decided in favour of freedom of expression of artists and activists, both courts erred in their assessment of the role of religion and religious sentiment in European secular democracies. Continue reading >>
0
05 August 2022
The Re-Emergence of the Net Neutrality Debate in Europe
The European online space has been subjected to intensive legal reforms in recent years, and the policy and regulatory debates regarding the role and obligations of tech companies in Europe are far from over. With the rumoured Connectivity Infrastructure Act, the European Commission seeks to compel Big Tech actors to financially contribute to telecommunications infrastructure. This initiative risks opening the pandora's box of net neutrality, and potentially endangers the democratic principles of freedom of expression and pluralism. Continue reading >>
0
28 Juli 2022
Accessing Information about Abortion
The U.S. Supreme Court decision of 24 June 2022 overruled a half century of precedent supporting a constitutional right to abortion across the U.S. established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. Essentially, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization left the decision on abortion to individual states. The ruling, although astonishing, was not necessarily a surprise, after its draft had leaked a few weeks earlier. But to the surprise of many, almost immediately, Facebook and Instagram started removing posts informing about access to abortion pills, the Associated Press and Vice first reported. Continue reading >>
0