A transgender activist in Peru filed a criminal complaint against Olga Izquierdo for discrimination after she took to TikTok to criticize Lima airport signs that opened the women’s restroom to “anyone with a female identity,” prompting investigation by state prosecutors.
Continue reading
UPDATE 21 September 2024: In a win for free speech, the Irish government dropped “hate speech” from proposed legislation. ADF International briefed Irish lawmakers on the dangers and, in June, gathered free speech advocates in Dublin to oppose the draconian “hate speech” bill.
Censorship. It’s an elusive term animated throughout history with growing relevance today. “Hate speech” laws loom large over Western political and social conversations. Blasphemy laws criminalize faith-based speech and belief in countries like Nigeria and Pakistan. By now, almost everyone is aware of censorship.
Some may think of George Orwell’s 1984; others, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. Censorship takes many forms – like book burning and imposing “newspeak” – but Ireland now leads the dystopian cause with its hotly debated “hate speech” bill.
And so, as the state-driven tide of censorship sweeps the world, Europe stands at the forefront of the ongoing conversation. Why? Because almost every Western nation has introduced “hate speech” laws enabling authorities to enforce penalties for certain speech they deem unpopular or unorthodox.
These laws are introduced under the guise of combatting “a rise of hate”, or offensive speech that can make people feel insulted or uncomfortable. But criminalizing speech is not the answer. Rather, allowing more robust speech that facilitates open debate instead. That’s why we stand against so-called “hate speech” laws like the proposed one in Ireland.
Thankfully, the Irish government has indicated it will not proceed with the most censorial elements of the proposed “Hate Speech” Bill.
With the world watching, the people of Ireland said ‘no’ to state censorship, and it’s working.
The Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill 2022, currently stuck in the Irish Senate, will proceed without the draconian speech elements that had previously been advanced. Remember, incitement to hatred remains illegal under existing law.
Minister for Justice Helen McEntee has recognized that there is a lack of consensus on the proposed bill’s “hate speech” restrictions.
The Minister for Justice is reported as saying: “The incitement to hatred element [of the bill] does not have a consensus, so that will be dealt with at a later stage.”
Pro-censorship actors may seek to bring in a separate new law in the future.
By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more
The Irish “hate speech” bill seeks to criminalize the possession of material “likely” to incite hatred. This includes memes and photos saved on devices, with up to five years of jail time. Yes, photos on personal devices. Yet, there is no clear definition of what “hate” entails.
Therefore, this is a dangerous trajectory. ADF International highlights the dangers of the “hate speech” bill while briefing Irish lawmakers on how to uphold freedom of speech.
So-called “hate speech” laws are ambiguously worded laws that criminalize certain speech beyond what is acceptable in a democratic society.
Despite having no basis in international law, all European Union Member States have vague and subjective “hate speech” laws. The United Nations, EU, and Council of Europe concur that “hate speech” lacks a universally agreed-upon definition. Nonetheless, the European Commission seeks to make “hate speech” an EU-wide crime on the same list as trafficking and terrorism.
These laws, with the wrong police and prosecutor, can be weaponized against any person and any form of speech. Thus, explicitly violating the state’s obligation to protect free speech.
The short answer is no. But because “hate speech” laws rely on vague terms such as ‘insult,’ ‘belittle,’ and ‘offend,’ they are inconsistently interpreted and arbitrarily enforced. Oftentimes, the threat of serious criminal penalties accompanies charges.
Rather than combat hate, the criminalization of speech based on subjective criteria creates a culture of fear and censorship.
An offence is considered hateful in reference to the hearer or reader, making it subjective with little to no regard for the content of the speech itself. They are incompatible with free societies.
The Irish “hate speech” bill would move the needle further. If passed, we could expect commonplace prosecutions like Päivi Räsänen’s for posting a Bible verse on “X” in 2019 about her biblical worldview on marriage and sexuality. In fact, Ireland’s censorial law would go even further than Finland’s.
We’re ramping up public advocacy to expose the unprecedented dangers of what the Irish government is doing. All have the right to live and speak the truth without fear of censorship or retaliation. That’s why we’re asking Irish lawmakers to uphold their obligation to protect free speech under international human rights law.
This means “misgendering” someone could land you a criminal prosecution, fine or worse. If the Irish “hate speech” bill becomes law, Irish police would have the power to search phones, camera rolls, and emails for prosecutable content.
It’s paramount that we all spread awareness about the dangers of this bill.
The Irish government claims that the law is necessary following rising incidents of violence in the country, which many tie to uncontrolled migration. But peace and security on the streets do not require “hate speech” laws suppressing peaceful speech.
With key terms deliberately undefined, how are we to know what kind of speech could be subject to prosecution? “Hate speech” laws are Western blasphemy laws by another name; both are state driven.
The thought of Irish police raiding homes and phones to seize banned books and memes invokes thoughts of Orwell and the darker moments of the last century.
Our right to freedom of expression is protected by numerous international human rights treaties. The European Court of Human Rights even affirmed that the right to freedom of expression protects not just popular ideas but also those that shock, offend, and disturb.
Yet, some argue that unpopular speech should be censored by the state. But where is the logical stopping point?
“Hate speech” laws are detrimental to a society seeking to protect freedom of speech or thought. In Finland, we’ve supported Päivi’s defence for almost five years with two unanimous acquittals. She was charged with three counts of “hate speech” because of her “X” post, a pamphlet she authored for her church, and comments she made during a radio programme.
In January 2024, the state prosecutor appealed her case to the Finnish Supreme Court. On 19 April, the high court agreed to hear the appeal, so Päivi will face her third criminal trial in three years. However, the legal process is Päivi’s punishment because the state has unlimited funds to prosecute offenders of their “hate speech” laws. Prosecutions cost taxpayer funds, while reputations sometimes become irreparably harmed.
If Päivi’s now famous “hate speech” case took place in Ireland, she could be prosecuted for simply possessing the pamphlet she wrote for her church congregation on the biblical definition of marriage, even if it was never published online.
Ireland should be a place where important conversations about issues that matter – even about controversial and sensitive topics thrive. When these conversations are shut down, we all lose out.
In summary, “hate speech” laws leave the door wide open to state censorship and oppression. And yet, the Irish government has been moving forward with a new bill to criminalize “hate speech” since 2022.
This could be one of the most far-reaching clampdowns on free speech by a modern democracy. It implicates memes, jokes, and books. Instead of protecting free speech and public safety, this law is poised to set a draconian precedent of intolerance against those who express beliefs outside the state-approved orthodoxy.
Unpopular speech needs the most protection, and in a free society, free speech is required. Individuals should be able to express their beliefs without fear or oppression. The Irish “hate speech” bill is a far cry from the liberal democratic ideals the Irish government claims to profess.
The Irish government has chosen to uphold freedom of speech.
This story originally appeared in Alliance Defending Freedom on 6 September 2024
When Elon Musk bought Twitter (now known as X) in 2022, he did so with the stated purpose of restoring free speech on a platform that had been credibly accused of censoring disfavored views. And no matter whether one agrees with everything Musk has said or done since then, it is clear he has taken meaningful steps toward achieving that goal.
Unfortunately, many in the United States and around the world have opposed Musk’s attempt to advance free speech. This opposition has become painfully apparent in Brazil, where the country’s highest court is engaging in blatant and unacceptable censorship against Musk and X.
In 2019, the Brazilian Supreme Court gave itself the power to carry out criminal investigations into “fake news,” defamation, slander, and threats against the honor of the Court. This was a dangerous abuse of power, and the consequences of such a draconian measure have now been laid bare.
Fast forward five years, and Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes and Musk have been engaged in a dispute stemming from de Moraes’s demands that X censor messages the justice disfavors. On Aug. 28, 2024, de Moraes gave Musk 24 hours to name a legal representative for X in Brazil.
Musk declined to name a representative because Brazil had threatened the previous representative with jail time. On Aug. 30, de Moraes officially suspended X nationwide in Brazil. In addition, he froze the bank accounts of Starlink, another company partially owned by Musk that provides internet via satellite.
In his order suspending X, de Moraes said the platform presented a “real danger” of “negatively influencing the electorate in 2024, with massive misinformation, with the aim of unbalancing the electoral result, based on hate campaigns in the digital age, to favor extremist populist groups.”
In other words, the suspension was not solely motivated by X’s lack of legal representation. It was motivated, at least in part, by de Moraes’s fears that allowing certain speech on X might lead to an electoral result he personally would not like.
Despite de Moraes’s clear violation of free speech, the full Brazilian Supreme Court upheld the order on Sept. 2. Under the ruling, Brazilians who attempt to access X using a VPN will face a fine of around $9,000.
It takes only a basic understanding of free speech to see the major problems with this order. Once the government begins censoring or pressuring others to censor messages based on vague criteria and subjective terms like “misinformation,” it opens the door to widespread suppression of any views the government doesn’t like.
For this reason, national and international law protect free speech in Brazil, and the Brazilian Supreme Court clearly violated both.
First, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice.”
X is certainly a medium through which many Brazilians wish to express, think about, and discuss ideas. Recent estimates prior to the shutdown said roughly 40 million Brazilians use the social platform. By suspending X because it refused to censor information that they disliked, de Moraes and the rest of the court violated those users’ rights to engage in free expression on the platform.
In addition, Article 220 of the Brazilian Constitution states that “any and all censorship of a political, ideological, and artistic nature is forbidden.” But given de Moraes’s reasoning that X could “negatively” affect elections in 2024 to “favor extremist populist groups,” it’s hard to read the justice’s order as anything other than censorship of a political and ideological nature.
Brazilians, just like Americans, have the fundamental right to free speech, which is why ADF International did not sit idly by when the Brazilian Supreme Court issued its dangerous decision.
Following the illegal order, ADF International worked around the clock to respond. Within 24 hours, attorneys submitted a petition asking the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (which has jurisdiction over Brazil) to intervene and defend free speech.
“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas,” said Tomás Henriquez, ADF International’s Director of Legal Advocacy for Latin America. “Intervention by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is key because without free speech, all human rights are jeopardized.”
Musk himself even thanked ADF International for the quick and important work to defend free speech.
While Brazilian officials may claim to protect democracy, they are actually undermining it by manipulating what information citizens can share and access. Free speech is a fundamental right for all people worldwide, and we must continue defending it when it comes under attack.
WASHINGTON, DC (2 September 2024) – In light of the unfolding censorship crisis in Brazil, legal advocacy organization ADF International has called on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to urgently intervene to protect freedom of speech.
“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas."
On Friday, Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered the “immediate, complete and total suspension of X’s operations” in the country after the platform refused to comply with government orders to shut down accounts which it had singled out for censorship.
The decision imposes a daily fine of R$50,000 (£6,800 / almost $9,000) on individuals and companies that attempt to continue using X via a virtual private network (VPN).
The same Justice has also issued an order to freeze the assets of the company Starlink, a satellite internet provider. The company is a subsidiary of SpaceX, an entirely different company in which Elon Musk is a minority shareholder, following X’s refusal to comply with the censorship orders.
On Monday 2 September, the Brazilian Supreme Court upheld the decision to ban “X” nationwide, further suspending the right to free speech online.
Appealing to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to uphold freedom of expression, lawyers from free speech-supporting legal advocacy group ADF International petitioned the body – which has jurisdiction over Brazil under the American Convention on Human Rights– to intervene in the “dire” situation:
“The blocking of X in the country is symptomatic of an endemic problem…it has dragged on for more than six years and has caused real damage to Brazilian democracy, producing a chilling effect on the majority of the population who, according to recent surveys, are afraid to express their opinions in public.”
Musk thanked ADF International for its intervention.
The orders to censor online content are based on a pretext of combatting disinformation and fake news. Based on this pretext, the state has targeted conservative voices for censorship, including blocking pro-life messages during the 2022 election campaign, which contained a message contrary to the pro-abortion position held by then-candidate Lula da Silva.
"Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere.
Other targeted speech included repudiations of the Nicaraguan government’s suppression of religious freedom and the concern it could happen in Brazil, and criticism of Lula’s promotion of sexually explicit content in school curricula.
Various journalists and public figures including journalist, Paulo Figueiredo, and bestselling American author, Michael Shellenberger, have already been targeted with secret criminal investigations for reporting on the authoritarian drift of the Brazilian courts and their censorship efforts.
Tomás Henriquez, ADF International’s Director of Legal Advocacy for Latin America, stated:
“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas. Intervention by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is key because without free speech, all human rights are jeopardized. We are particularly concerned that the Brazilian state is targeting Christian expression, including pro-life views and other faith-based speech.”
Michael Shellenberger, founder of Public, author, and professor, stated:
“I am being criminally investigated by Brazilian authorities for exposing their attempts to censor. Brazil has reached a crisis point where a lone Supreme Court judge could wield his authority to shut down X in the country.
Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere. It’s not only bad policy and bad politics, it’s a blatant violation of basic human rights for authorities to ban the speech of their own citizens. It’s inconceivable that human beings should be censored and silenced by other human beings simply because they disagree with their speech. As the situation continues to deteriorate, my hope is that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will intervene rapidly in defense of the right of all to speak freely in Brazil”.
Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil, said:
“The attempts by Judge Alexandre de Moraes to censor and silence the people of Brazil simply cannot stand. Our constitution specifically prohibits all censorship and guarantees the right to freedom of expression; these are not only constitutionally-protected rights, but basic, human rights that should be guaranteed and preserved for all Brazilians. Censorship has no place in a free society, and I implore all who are able to join me in vehemently opposing these kinds of restrictions.”
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
Pictured: Michael Shellenberger; Tomás Henriquez
This story originally appeared in The Federalist on 8 August 2024
Legal Communications Director
The world has been shocked to see riots erupt throughout the United Kingdom following an appalling stabbing in Southport, England, last week, where three children died.
But we should be alert to how the response of Britain’s new Labour government to the disorder is creeping beyond a crackdown on violence. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said on Monday that social media companies should address “misinformation,” which suggests this crisis could be exploited to censor peaceful speech online.
The fear is that the unrest in the UK will be used as an excuse to further infringe on free speech online in the country. In fact, there are many parts of the world where a perfectly peaceful tweet could land you criminal charges or even a prison sentence.
For example, take note of what happened in 2022 to congressman Gabriel Quadri in Mexico. Quadri was prosecuted for his Twitter posts on the dangers of transgender ideology, including comments about keeping female sports safe and fair.
As millions opine freely on the myriad controversies at the Olympics, this should give us pause. Both Quadri and civil society leader Rodrigo Iván Cortés were convicted for “gender based political violence,” including “digital violence,” and punished in an absurd and demeaning manner for peacefully expressing the truth about biological reality online.
A testament to the pound of flesh the state demands from those who dare to speak against its orthodoxies, Quadri and Cortés were ordered to publish a court-written apology on X every day at set times and placed on an offender’s registrar. Having exhausted all avenues for justice in Mexico, ADF International is appealing their cases to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
Look too to what has transpired over the last five years in Finland, a country with deep roots in the rule of law. Longstanding parliamentarian and grandmother Päivi Räsänen is being criminally prosecuted for a Bible verse she tweeted in 2019.
Quoting from the book of Romans, Räsänen objected to her church’s decision to sponsor a pride parade. For this, she endured hours of police interrogation, three criminal charges, and two onerous trials. Despite being unanimously acquitted at both, she soon will be tried again at the Supreme Court of Finland, where ADF International is backing her legal defense.
Räsänen’s case, in a supposedly free country, demonstrates that the censorial vigor of the state knows no bounds when it comes to silencing expressions of truth that expose the ideological falsehoods of the day.
Räsänen stoked no violence and evinced no hate, and yet she is being prosecuted for “hate speech” under the “war crimes and crimes against humanity” section of Finland’s criminal code, which carries a potential prison sentence of two years. You better believe that if a much loved, and oft re-elected, civil servant of more than 20 years can be tried for a tweet, then the citizens of Finland are going to think twice before they hit post.
In Australia, street advocate Billboard Chris was censored for tweeting the truth that trans-activist Teddy Cook should not serve on a World Health Organization panel for children’s transgender policy given Cook’s aberrant sexual practices.
Chris posted a Daily Mail article on X entitled, “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED: Australian activist plugs bondage, bestiality, nudism, drugs, and tax-funded sex-change ops – so why is he writing health advice for the world body?” Australia’s “E-Safety Commission” tried to force X to take the post down.
When X refused, they forced the platform to geo-block it, and now, Chris, supported by ADF International, and alongside X, is suing in defense of his right to speak freely.
The Irish parliament is currently debating a “hate speech” law, which, if adopted, could criminalize the possession of “hateful” material with up to five years in prison. And in April, Scotland passed a law criminalizing “stirring up hatred” against protected categories, including transgender identity, with a possible seven-year prison sentence.
As is always the case where these laws take root, “hate” is undefined. Consequently, it’s open season for a “hate crime” when such a transgression could be literally anything under the sun perceived as hateful by an offended party.
Brazil is undergoing a crisis of extreme censorship, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas. Earlier this spring, a Supreme Court judge threatened to wield his authority to shut down X in the country.
Journalists, including American author Michael Shellenberger, are being criminally investigated for exposing the state’s censorial crimes. Now X is deploying its legal team to preserve free speech on the platform in Brazil.
At the international level, the European Commission is advancing efforts to make “hate speech” an EU crime, on the same legal level as trafficking and terrorism. Most recently, the European Commission has accused X of violating the EU Digital Services Act, triggering the promise of legal action from Elon Musk, who claims that X resisted an “illegal secret deal” to comply with EU rules to censor “misinformation.”
Everyone must be free to peacefully debate the issues of our time, online or wherever they may find themselves, without fear of government punishment. But across the world state-driven censorship is proving to be one of the most insidious problems of our age. And it is not by accident that the brunt force of the state is often leveraged to silence expressions of basic truth, in particular in the digital space.
Next time you reflexively exercise your free speech rights by firing off a tweet, remember those who have incurred the wrath of the state simply for doing the same. We must vigilantly resist the rising tide of censorship, and also the urge to self-censor, instead raising our voices to advocate for those silenced and sanctioned for nothing more than a tweet.
MELBOURNE (10 July 2024) – ‘Billboard Chris’ – the activist known for wearing a sandwich board reading “children cannot consent to puberty blockers” and engaging in conversations in viral videos across the world – has mounted a legal defence of free speech in Australia, with support from ADF International.
Chris Elston, known as Billboard Chris, a Canadian father of two, took to “X” (formerly Twitter) on 28th February 2024 to share a Daily Mail article titled “Kinky secrets of a UN trans expert REVEALED”.
The article, and accompanying tweet, criticised the suitability of transgender activist Teddy Cook to be appointed to a World Health Organization “panel of experts” set to advise on global transgender policy.
"As a father, I have grave concerns about the impact of harmful gender ideology on our children’s wellbeing...we need to be able to discuss it."
Cook complained about the post to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, who requested that “X” remove the content. The social media platform owned by free speech advocate Elon Musk initially refused, but following a subsequent formal removal order from the Commission, later geo-blocked the content in Australia. X has since also filed an appeal against the order at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Melbourne.
Billboard Chris, with the support of ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, and alongside X, is appealing the violation of his right to peacefully share his convictions.
Members of the public are invited to join in supporting Chris’s legal case here: https://adfinternational.org/campaign/supportbillboardchris
“No child has ever been born in the wrong body. As a father, I have grave concerns about the impact of harmful gender ideology on our children’s wellbeing. This is a serious issue with real world implications for families across the globe and we need to be able to discuss it.
“Children struggling with distress regarding their sex deserve better than ‘guidelines’ written by activists who only want to push them in one direction,” Billboard Chris, engaging in a legal battle for free speech with support from ADF International.
The legal team representing Elston have filed a statement of facts and contentions, and the evidence which Elston will rely on with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal now awaits the response from the eSafety Commissioner, due August 8th, before moving to set a hearing date.
By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more
“It is vital we challenge the global spread of censorship. We’re used to hearing about governments punishing citizens for their ‘wrong’ speech in parts of the world where strict blasphemy laws are still enforced – but now, from Australia, to Mexico, to Finland, we see Western governments increasingly take authoritarian steps to shut down views they don’t like, often by branding them as “offensive”, “hateful”, or “misinformation.”
“In a free society, ideas should be challenged with ideas, not state censorship. We’re proud to stand with Billboard Chris – and others around the world punished for expressing their peaceful views – in defending the right to live and speak the truth,” commented Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, who is serving as part of Billboard Chris’s legal team.
The Australian case comes at a time of increased suppression of views shared on “X” at the hands of governments across the world.
In Mexico, former congressman Rodrigo Iván Cortés and sitting congressman Gabriel Quadri have been convicted of “gender-based political violence,” and placed on an offenders’ register, for Twitter posts. For expressing their views on biological sex, both have been ordered to publish a court-written apology on X every day for 30 days, 3 times a day, as a form of public humiliation. ADF International is seeking justice for both men at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
In Finland, parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, a former government minister and grandmother, is currently being prosecuted before the Supreme Court, having been criminally charged for “hate speech” for a 2019 Bible-verse tweet. She was charged under the Finnish criminal code’s section on “War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity,” carrying a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment. ADF International is supporting her legal defence.
At the international level, the European Commission is advancing efforts to make “hate speech” an EU crime, on the same legal level as trafficking and terrorism. Initiatives such as the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation could have significant implications for how governments police speech, especially as European Commission VP Věra Jourová singled out X for “the largest ratio of mis/disinformation posts”.
In November 2023, free speech champions across the world signed an open letter to Elon Musk, coordinated by ADF International, requesting he back legal cases against government-enforced censorship of posts on X.
Since 2019, Brazil has been experiencing ongoing censorship and due process violations; the country now has what are likely the worst restrictions on speech in the Americas.
Continue reading
Representatives Jim Jordan and Thomas Massie pen letter to U.S. Department of State, stating “WHO Agreement may contravene the First Amendment”
Continue reading
Everything you need to know about the WHO pandemic treaty and its censorial threat to freedom of speech. Find out what we did about it.
Continue reading
GENEVA (30 April 2024) – The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, a new international treaty due to be adopted in June, has drawn worldwide criticism for its potential crackdown on freedom of expression as part of pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. An earlier version required the “management” of so-called “infodemics,” defined as “too much information … during a disease outbreak” causing “confusion” as well as “mistrust” in health authorities, regardless of the veracity of the information in question. A more recent version of the agreement included language mandating parties to “cooperate, in accordance with national laws, in preventing misinformation and disinformation,” essentially granting individual states the discretion to define which information fits within these categories, and potentially censor it.
Global advocacy efforts to protect free speech yielded fruits as the latest proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement removed the vague mandates for parties to “prevent” misinformation and disinformation. In a significant shift, the current text no longer contemplates the imposition of potentially sweeping restrictions on freedom of speech to address these phenomena. Instead, it recognizes the importance of building trust and ensuring timely, transparent, accurate, science- and evidence-informed information.
"It is vital that the Pandemic Agreement safeguard freedom of expression against potential censorship threats. We commend WHO Member States for acknowledging the critical importance of government transparency and accountability in sharing pandemic-related information, rather than endorsing arbitrary speech suppression."
“Long-awaited development”
“It is vital that the Pandemic Agreement safeguard freedom of expression against potential censorship threats. We commend WHO Member States for acknowledging the critical importance of government transparency and accountability in sharing pandemic-related information, rather than endorsing arbitrary speech suppression. We trust that these advances will be consolidated in the final text without any rollbacks on language protecting fundamental freedoms,” said Giorgio Mazzoli, human rights expert and Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International, who led the legal organisation’s global advocacy effort.
Negotiations continue today
Today marks the resumption of negotiations on the draft text, scheduled to conclude on May 10th. Later next month, the World Health Assembly (WHA) is expected to adopt the agreement, aimed inter alia at strengthening the WHO’s role in preventing, preparing for, and responding to future pandemics.
Over the last months, ADF International warned that the agreement could severely restrict freedom of expression, a fundamental human right that encompasses the right to impart, seek and receive information under international law. ADF International has highlighted the potential human rights implications of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and offered legal advocacy to key stakeholders.
“Freedom of expression, especially during pandemics, is essential to ensure scrutiny and accountability over critical public health decisions. It is imperative that the Pandemic Agreement does not lead to a lowering of existing standards by promoting incursions into free speech in the name of public health, when it is possible for both to be upheld in careful balance. As negotiations near their final stages, Member States must steer clear of any regression in this area,” concluded Mazzoli.
Further information:
