Amnesty International uses WordPress for global human rights campaigns

In Ilareva and Others v. Bulgaria (application no. 24729/17), the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed that “human rights obligations to act in order to protect fundamental rights apply as much online as they do offline”   FACTS: Human rights defenders and lawyers working to protect refugees’ and minorities’ rights became targets of violent online hate. A Facebook post about one of their nominations for “Person of the Year” triggered a wave of hostility, including death threats and incitement to violence, amplified by others online. Despite filing complaints, the applicants were denied recognition as victims, and the investigation was repeatedly suspended on technical grounds. Courts held their appeals inadmissible, while prosecutors downplayed the seriousness of the threats. Over two years, no meaningful investigative steps were taken. The harassment persisted, culminating in a physical attack on one applicant after he publicly spoke out against anti-immigrant hate speech - an attack that remains unresolved. FINDINGS: The Court found that although the applicants’ complaints concerned death threats and incitement to hatred punishable under domestic law, the authorities restricted the scope of the investigation, failed to recognize the applicants’ victim status, and repeatedly suspended proceedings without taking meaningful investigative steps. Prosecutors downplayed the seriousness of the explicit and violent online hate speech, relied excessively on technical limitations concerning digital data, and neglected other investigative avenues such as seeking account data from Facebook, examining suspects’ devices, or pursuing international cooperation. In light of the public interest at stake, the applicants’ professional exposure, and the broader societal context of intolerance, the Court concluded that the investigation was inadequate and ineffective, failing to properly address the discriminatory motives behind the threats. HOLDING: Violation of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention

Claudio captures something here that has been central to many conversations we’ve had at Global Partners Digital: the need for stronger connective tissue across the digital rights ecosystem. If we want to future-proof digital rights, we can’t keep operating as isolated organizations chasing short-term wins. We need to build networks that share capacity, expertise, and infrastructure—so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This really echoes the conversation we co-hosted with Global Network Initiative and European Center for Not-for-Profit Law Stichting at the #IGF earlier this year on the future of digital rights. One of the strongest findings from that discussion was precisely the need to invest in infrastructure, trust, and shared capacity to build a resilient field. Claudio’s piece makes that case eloquently, and it’s worth a read for anyone thinking seriously about the future of our movement!

Human Rights Review Tribunal issues sweeping restrictions, FSU files to intervene The Human Rights Review Tribunal imposed sweeping restrictions on details of a case between Lesbian Action for Visibility in Aotearoa (LAVA) and the Wellington Pride Festival. But this is inconsistent with open justice and sets a dangerous precedent for other cases. The Free Speech Union has filed to intervene, says Jillaine Heather, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. “Members of the public in the viewing gallery made a social media post about the hearing, which was then reshared. The Tribunal considered several comments on this post to be disrespectful, offensive, and not fair or temperate. “As a result, they tightened the control of the hearing, banning notetaking in the public gallery by the general public, prohibiting phone use, and making an interim non-publication order stopping anyone except accredited media from publishing reports of the evidence until further notice. But this is not how open justice works. The Tribunal’s order is unduly restrictive of freedom of expression and open justice and is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. “We have filed to intervene in the proceedings to challenge the Tribunal’s interim non-publication order. This order sets a dangerous precedent by restricting citizens’ rights to report and discuss what happens in a public hearing. Open justice is a cornerstone of democracy, and tribunals should not limit public accountability or undermine Kiwis’ confidence and participation in the justice system.”

🇵🇭 Bulatlat, an independent news outlet focusing on human rights reporting, is the first newsroom in the Philippines to obtain the Journalism Trust Initiative certification ➡️ https://lnkd.in/ekmfDCpS 💬 “The JTI [certification] affirms that Bulatlat’s human rights journalism adheres to the highest global standards and ethics in running a newsroom,” said Ronalyn Olea, Bulatlat’s editor-in-chief. “Bulatlat remains dedicated to its mission of amplifying the voices of the marginalized and oppressed sectors amid disinformation and digital authoritarianism.” cc: Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Asia-Pacific Bureau , Cédric Alviani, Aleksandra Bielakowska, Yu-Wen Chien

73% of women in journalism face online abuse. From rape threats to coordinated harassment campaigns, women reporters are forced into silence, self-censorship, or even exit from the newsroom. Add unequal pay and institutional apathy, and journalism risks losing half its truth-tellers. GMMP + IFJ data show the scale. Media houses: silence isn’t neutrality, but complicity. Read the full breakdown & our take: https://lnkd.in/dtYTch9q #WomenInJournalism #PressFreedom #DEI #OnlineAbuse #EqualPay #ChangeInContent

Jonny Harris and Simkins LLP's Dionne Clark consider the rise of influence court reporting in the US for high profile trials and important considerations and protections from UK court reporting perspective. #reputationmanagement #litigationPR #courtreporting

I’ve been thinking a lot about “rights stress testers”—those individuals or groups who deliberately push the limits of free expression to see how far the law will stretch. In the U.S., the First Amendment provides them enormous room to maneuver; in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms creates a similar legal buffer, though with more built-in limits. What fascinates me is that even when these acts remain within legal boundaries, they shape public perception and directly impact how photojournalists and documentary photographers like myself operate. Unlike rights stress testers, whose goal is often provocation or boundary-testing and online virality, my work depends on building trust with the people and communities I photograph. When communities see their rights “tested” in ways that feel like exploitation or harassment—even if technically lawful—it can make them more wary of outsiders with cameras. For example, in the U.S. there have been activists who film inside government buildings simply to provoke a reaction from police, citing the First Amendment. In Canada, similar confrontations happen when individuals film public officials or Indigenous blockades, later defending themselves under the Charter. Legally, these actions may be protected, but socially they create an atmosphere of suspicion and defensiveness. The legal implications are complex: courts often side with the testers because precedent protects expression, but those rulings ripple into the spaces where we work. For us, the goal isn’t to test the limits of the law but to foster relationships that allow deeper, more respectful storytelling. Yet we inevitably inherit the skepticism created by others who use cameras in more adversarial ways. That tension—between law and trust, rights and relationships—defines much of the contemporary terrain for visual journalism. #CharterOfRights #FirstAmendmentRights #Photojournalism

Journalists for Human Rights (JHR) is proud to partner with Unifor on their Fact Checked campaign -- a powerful initiative to combat #misinformation and remind Canadians of the vital role that fact-based journalism plays in protecting #democracy. “The Canadian news media remains under attack, and all of us are bearing the brunt of this upheaval. When journalists are silenced, truth is silenced, and when trust in media is eroded, misinformation fills the void,” said Unifor National President Lana Payne. “We’ve created a campaign that reaches out to every Canadian, reminding them of the value of high-quality, fact-checked news.” Learn more about the campaign here: factcheckhere.ca

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧? ⚖️The European Court of Human Rights addresses disinformation primarily under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression. At the same time, Article 17 of the Convention could be used where the spread of information aims to undermine the very principles of the Convention, notably if the discourse constitutes hate speech. However, it is unclear whether disinformation could reach such a threshold. The ECtHR has however dealt with such challenges in some cases : One of the most significant recent cases is 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐲𝐚 𝐆𝐚𝐳𝐞𝐭𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐯. 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚 (Application No. 46808/20). Russia had criminalised “discrediting the military” and spreading “fake news” about its war in Ukraine. The Court found these measures violated freedom of expression for such restrictions were part of a wider pattern of suppressing dissent and were not necessary in a democratic society. Another important case is 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐯. 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 (Application No. 15653/22). Several former MPs argued that the UK government’s failure to investigate Russian disinformation campaigns around elections violated their rights. The Court held that states enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in how they respond to disinformation. As long as measures taken are not manifestly inadequate. In 𝐁𝐫𝐳𝐞𝐳𝐢ń𝐬𝐤𝐢 𝐯. 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 (Application No. 47542/07), the Court examined restrictions imposed on an opposition candidate who had distributed a booklet criticising local authorities during an election campaign. Polish courts claimed the booklet contained false information. The ECtHR held that these restrictions violated Article 10, stressing that political speech, especially during elections, enjoys the highest protection, and even statements containing inaccuracies are protected. 𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐯. 𝐀𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚 (Application No. 9815/82), illustrates how the Court distinguishes between factual allegations and value judgments. While false factual statements can be restricted, value judgments, opinions, criticism, even harsh or exaggerated remarks, are more strongly protected. ➡️Across these cases, several themes emerge. States enjoy a margin of appreciation to regulate false or harmful speech, but restrictions must always be proportionate and narrowly defined. Political expression receives the highest level of protection, meaning attempts to suppress criticism of authorities under the guise of combating “fake news” are especially suspect. ⚠️At the same time, the ECtHR recognises that states face genuine challenges with disinformation, especially in contexts such as elections and armed conflicts. However, obligations are not yet fully clear and the Court has not gone so far as to require states to investigate or counter every disinformation campaign.

AI and human rights - Using AI as a weapon of repression and its impact on human rights - European Parliament