You’re most likely reading this article from a country that is not China. So, naturally, you might think that China’s censorship laws have nothing to do with you. Not so fast. The interconnectedness of global commerce has created crevices for authoritarian censorship to seep in, and the latest news out of the Victoria and Albert Museum offers a perfect illustration of how it unfolds.

Subscribe now

The Victoria and Albert Museum, the United Kingdom’s famed art institution, joins the growing list of institutions that have consented to censorship rules imposed by the Chinese government in order to print goods more affordably in the country. Documents obtained by The Guardian reveal that the museum consented to changes in the catalogue for its new Music is Black exhibition after C&C Offset Printing, its printing partner in China, said a map in the document was flagged by censorship body the General Administration of Press and Publication.

“There is a map on p10 relates to China (there is China border here and we need to use the standard maps from Chinese Government) and GAPP rejected it,” the printer wrote in an email to the V&A. “Our suggestion is to delete this map or use another image.”

An internal email to V&A East director Gus Casely-Hayford complained, “We were aware of sensitivity around contemporary maps but it now clearly applies to historic maps too.” Ultimately, the museum chose to substitute in a different photograph and print the censored version. And this wasn’t the only time they’ve done so. The museum also consented to cut another map from the Fabergé: Romance to Revolution exhibit catalogue as well as a photo of Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin.

Lenin would be too “sensitive” for China’s censorship body, the printers warned.

The V&A defended its decision making process, arguing that it only consents to what it sees as superficial edits. “We sometimes print in China, but maintain close editorial oversight,” the museum said in a statement. “We were comfortable making minor edits, as they did not affect the narrative and we would obviously pull production if we felt any requested change was problematic.”

In isolation, such changes may appear to some as minor or unimportant. But in the aggregate, they add up — and influence in perpetuity how the entire world reads, experiences, and understands material pertaining to China and content it deems politically sensitive. It isn’t just one museum. It’s also book publishers, AI companies, movie studios, hotel chains, fashion houses, and gaming giants. And that’s not to mention the threats made to critics of the Chinese government in countries all around the world, including the United States. Doesn’t seem so minor, does it?

Perhaps worst of all, this influence is operating in higher education on a global scale, introducing both overt and subtle limits on universities and the people who study and teach within them. In the short term, researchers and student dissidents suffer threats and censorship. In the long run, the education, research, and discussion that the entire world relies on for knowledge generation is throttled. I covered this oppressive trend in my book released last year, Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech.

You may be thousands of miles away from the Chinese government, but its censorship is operating much closer than you think.

FIRE’s Free Speech Dispatch covers new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.

Editor’s note: Sarah McLaughlin is going on sabbatical soon, so there may be a bit of a break between future entries. But regularly scheduled content will resume in late June. Stay tuned.

France considers new antisemitism bill

A bill with broad support brought by MP Caroline Yadan is set for debate soon in French Parliament, and it would introduce a broad range of new speech offenses under French criminal law. The bill seeks to expand the existing terror offenses of incitement to terrorism and glorification of terrorism to criminalize “implicit,” rather than just direct, incitement of terror as well as glorification of the perpetrators of terrorist acts.

Subscribe now

It would also punish speech calling for the “destruction of a state recognised by the French Republic” with a €45,000 ($53,080) fine and up to five years in prison. “From the river to the sea” is one of the phrases that would be considered advocacy for the destruction of a recognized country. “It’s not specifically about Israel,” Yadan said about the legislation. “But obviously, today, there is only one country in the world whose criticism takes the form of calls for its destruction, and that’s Israel.” Earlier versions of the bill included language banning comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, but those provisions have since been removed.

France is not the only country to consider banning “from the river to the sea” and similar phrases. The Australian state of Queensland recently banned the slogan, and arrests under the new law have begun. A 70-year-old activist arrested for displaying the slogan at a protest appeared in court this week under the new hate speech laws — and is “pleading insanity.”

“Not that I think I’m insane,” he said. “I think the law is insane.”

Irish media minister targets ‘lopsided’ media

Irish media Minister Patrick O’Donovan said he wants media regulator Coimisiún na Meán to look into the “lopsided” media coverage of recent fuel protests in the country, as well as why he received fewer invites to speak than other officials and commentators. He also objected to comments in the media calling the government’s tone about the protests “lecturing and hectoring.” The National Union of Journalists called O’Donovan’s warnings “sinister and deeply disturbing.”

“One of the things I will be looking at as Minister for Communications is to see if you have a panel discussion, for instance, on a national broadcaster, where there’s three or four from the opposition and one from the government, is that a legitimate debate?,” O’Donovan said. He further added that “in a democracy, all voices should be heard, not just some” — and apparently it’s the role of a government regulator to decide which voices should be heard, and how frequently.

More speech news out of Europe

• France is considering joining the growing list of countries banning social media access for children under 15, with officials arguing the move is necessary to protect young users.

• In Germany, a 67-year-old woman was fined €800 for insulting politician Markus Söder on a sign held during a 2023 protest, but has been acquitted on appeal.

• UK police arrested protesters near a Royal Air Force base used by U.S. forces. Authorities said they were detained “on suspicion of supporting a proscribed organisation” during a demonstration.

Australia’s teen social media ban isn’t working

In Australia, debates over online access and the country’s landmark age-gating legislation continue. Proponents of these laws have argued they are absolutely necessary to protect kids online and the associated risks to privacy and free speech are a price we must be willing to pay. But…what if the laws aren’t even doing what they promise? A new eSafety report finds that among parents with kids on social media before Dec. 10, 2025, about seven in 10 said their child still had an account on Facebook (63.6%), Instagram (69.1%), Snapchat (69.4%), and TikTok (69.3%).

Brazil’s aggressive antiracism laws ensnare tourist

A case in Brazil has drawn international attention after an Argentine tourist was charged with “imitating a monkey and uttering a racist slur” after getting into a dispute with waiters over her bill at a Rio de Janeiro bar. Agostina Páez has since apologized but could face up to two years in prison if convicted. Until recently, Páez was kept under watch by Brazilian authorities and required to wear an ankle monitor, but she was eventually permitted to pay a $20,000 bail and return to Argentina until a judge rules in her case. “Brazil is being painted as this authoritarian country,” prosecutor Fabíola Tardin told The New York Times, “when we are only seeking justice for the harm done.”

Journalists and writers face intimidation, arrest, and imprisonment

• Malaysia convicted blogger Papagomo of sedition for a social media post deemed to have “incit[ed] hatred against the King,” sentencing him to a RM 4,000 fine or jail time. The court ruled the defense had “failed to raise a reasonable doubt,” reinforcing how speech involving the monarchy remains tightly controlled.

• In Iraq, American journalist Shelly Kittleson was kidnapped by unidentified gunmen but has fortunately since been freed.

• Egypt arrested political commentator Ahmed Douma over an article and social media posts. Authorities accused him of spreading “false news and rumors…that would disturb public order,” a charge often used in cases involving dissent.

• Kuwaiti authorities arrested American-Kuwaiti journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin on charges of “spreading false information, harming national security, and misuse of a mobile phone. Some of the charges reportedly relate to “footage of a US F-15 fighter jet crash near a base in Kuwait during a reported friendly fire incident earlier in March.” Such arrests have been common lately in the Middle East amid war with Iran. In the UAE, authorities arrested 375 people for filming incidents and sharing what officials described as “misleading information.”

Russia tightens internet restrictions as VPN access disappears

Russia is expanding its control over online speech, blocking hundreds of VPN services that once allowed users to bypass censorship and access independent information. Authorities say the restrictions are necessary to combat “illegal content” and protect national security, and more than 400 VPNs have already been affected, cutting off one of the last major workarounds to government controls.

The changes are part of a broader effort to reshape the country’s digital infrastructure. Analysts describe the shift as the construction of a “digital iron curtain,” with users pushed toward state-approved platforms and away from global networks. In some areas, disruptions have become so severe that people are turning to landline phones as internet access becomes less reliable.

Russia has also designated Tufts University and its Fletcher School as “undesirable organizations,” effectively banning collaboration and exposing affiliates to legal risk. Officials accused the institutions of acting as “instruments of anti-Russian propaganda” and attempting to “undermine public trust.”

Expanding limits on media, culture, and the internet

• In Canada, proposed changes to Ontario’s freedom of information system have sparked pushback from transparency advocates. They argue the reforms could lead to a more “secretive government,” limiting the public’s ability to access records and scrutinize decision-making.

• India is, yet again, expanding its regulation of online expression. Proposed rules reclassify influencers as publishers, putting them under the same oversight as traditional media outlets, a move critics say could “tighten control over online news.”

• Belarus has introduced a sweeping law banning so-called “propaganda” of same-sex relationships, “gender reassignment,” and “childlessness.” The law defines propaganda broadly as information meant to “influence citizens’ perceptions,” with Human Rights Watch saying it reflects a broader effort to “control public discourse, and suppress dissent.”

Blasphemy prosecutions in Nigeria carry death sentences

A Sharia court in Kano sentenced an Islamic cleric to death for blasphemy after determining his remarks insulted the Prophet Muhammad. In a separate case, a Christian father may also face execution after being accused of possessing “blasphemous material,” which he denies.

As is the case in Pakistan, rights advocates have accused these brutal blasphemy laws of being used as a tool to settle disputes among individuals — the fallout from an accusation alone can be so destructive that alleging blasphemy can be enough to derail another person’s life.

Free speech advocates have long warned that the laws and regulations passed at the state, federal, and international level are chipping away at our ability to speak anonymously online. The latest news out of the European Union has supercharged these concerns as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the rollout of an age verification app, one that will require a passport or ID card, to member states. Meanwhile, Turkey is threatening to gut that right directly, offering a perfect example of the threats online identity verification poses. And the Turkish government says that social media platforms are playing along.

Subscribe now

According to Justice Minister Akın Gürlek, the Turkish government is submitting a proposal to parliament that would require people to provide a national ID number to use social media. Unregistered accounts will be removed by platforms. Gürlek also claims platforms have agreed to implement these terms — though which platforms, and which exact terms, are not entirely clear yet.

Gürlek says ending anonymity is necessary to fight crime on the internet — and personal insults. “If someone insults someone or carries out a character assassination on social media,” he warns, “they must bear the consequences.”

Given that Turkey has prosecuted thousands of people, children included, for insulting President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, this measure will no doubt contribute to the government’s already draconian efforts to obliterate even light-hearted government criticism. (Also, if you weren’t aware of the extent to which the crackdown on presidential insults goes: The trials — plural — over internet memes comparing Erdoğan to the Tolkien character Gollum even have their own Wikipedia page.)

This is exactly what FIRE and other advocates have been warning about: Many of these efforts that erode people’s ability to speak anonymously online are sold as if they are necessary to protect kids from harm, or protect societies from crime and dysfunction. The EU’s new age verification app, which will offer over two dozen countries a streamlined process to verify identities, is promoted under the same guise. But ultimately, they will hand governments yet another tool designed to protect themselves from criticism under the guise of preventing online harms.

Make no mistake: These kinds of regulations are like a bad cold — they spread fast and are hard to shake. Governments and legislators around the world are constantly peeking over the fence at their neighbors to see what policies they’re rolling out and asking themselves whether they, too, can enact such laws.

You shouldn’t be surprised when more nations ask, If Turkey can do away with that pesky anonymous internet speech, why can’t we? In fact, the sentiment already exists in democratic nations freer than Turkey. In February, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called for an end to anonymous posts. “I want to see real names on the internet,” he said. “I want to know who is speaking.” Coincidentally or not, Germany also prosecutes insults to public officials. Not long after Merz’s statements, police investigated a Facebook comment calling Merz “Pinocchio.”

Anonymous online speech is in peril even here in the United States. In 2023, then-presidential candidate Nikki Haley walked back her demand that companies “verify every single person” using their platforms “by name.” The idea was toxic at the time, and she faced backlash among conservatives. But in the years since, that campaign has ballooned. The bipartisan Kids Online Safety Act, which enjoys Democratic and Republican support, as well as the constantly growing list of state-level age-verification bills in red and blue states are putting a real strain on Americans’ ability to remain anonymous, whether they are 16 years old or 60.

And while supporters of age-verification tools argue that their methods are not the same as having to hand your real name and identity directly to the government, it nevertheless saws away at crucial barriers between anonymous speakers and government oppression. Once the link between your account and your identity exists, your anonymity is destroyed no matter what pseudonym you post under, as recent unsettling events make clear.

The Trump administration has waged a campaign to unmask citizens who have used the internet to discuss or criticize their government. A Washington Post investigation from February revealed that the Department of Homeland Security is abusing oversight-free administrative subpoenas to demand online services provide identifying information of users who engage in protected speech, like a man who sent an email about the deportation of an Afghan asylum seeker on humanitarian parole.

We need the ability to speak anonymously online, whether to criticize our leaders, search for embarrassing medical advice, or even just to ask the age-old question: r/AmItheAsshole? What’s happening in Turkey should signal a clear shot across the bow. We need to fight for this right, or we are going to lose it. Fast.

With an act designated as “non-crime,” you might reasonably expect the role for law enforcement to be quite limited. No crime means no cops…right? For years, though, the United Kingdom has allowed a system of police intervention and record-keeping over “non-crime hate incidents” — including legal speech — to flourish. But new Home Office guidance intends to “prevent police from recording lawful free speech.”

Subscribe now

Will this signal a new step forward for the UK? It’s complicated.

Some background: The practice of police recording non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) started as a way to monitor hateful behavior before it crossed into illegal territory. Police would log complaints of perceived hateful but legal acts, which in recent years have often just been social media posts — and sometimes targets of those complaints were logged as offenders without even being told.

Such a system blurs the line between protected and unprotected speech, chills speakers who would rather not be recorded in a government database for entirely legal expression, and recklessly invites police to referee verbal or written disputes. But that hasn’t stopped the growth of NCHIs. In the past decade or so, police departments across the UK have recorded tens of thousands of NCHIs. About 30,000 alone were recorded between 2022-2025.

Things have gone off the rails. And the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing admit it. In their review of NCHI enforcement, they acknowledge:

In some high-profile NCHI cases, policing has not struck this balance effectively. Disproportionate responses have left individuals feeling criminalised for engaging in lawful debate, prompting criticism that police are becoming involved in matters that should not be for the police to deal with.

The report also states that using terms such as “victim” and “suspect” when recording non-crimes contributed to the impression that targets of NCHI recordings were, well, criminals.

These police groups have issued a new set of recommendations regarding NCHIs, which the UK government has said they are accepting. NCHIs “are to be scrapped,” the government said in its press release, admitting that the system simply does not work. Police are not equipped — nor should they be — to respond to complaints concerning the millions of social media posts circulated each and every day, which any citizen may personally find hateful.

So, what’s actually changing?

The Home Office is revising its definition of “incident” to heighten the threshold for when police must record an act reported to them. Previously, police took action over “a single distinct event or occurrence” that “disturbs an individual, group or community’s quality of life or causes them concern.” Disturbs? Causes concern? With language this broad, it’s no mystery why police recorded tens of thousands of complaints.

Going forward, “incident” is defined as “a single distinct event or occurrence which may be relevant to policing for preventing or solving crime, safeguarding individuals or communities or fulfilling other statutory policing purposes.”

This is certainly an improved and narrower definition, and it more closely ties police responsibilities to actual criminal activity. But there are still reasons to question how meaningful the change will be, in part because of the new reliance on the term “anti-social behaviour” (ASB).

Now, “where a report meets the threshold of an incident…it should be recorded as anti-social behaviour” and “with a prejudice qualifier added.” The definition of ASB includes “[c]onduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.” While the tighter definition of “incident” will hopefully limit how many reports get logged as an ASB, the vagueness of the concepts of “alarm or distress” opens the door for some of the same problems present in the prior form of NCHI policing.

“Making ASB the designated opening code category for incidents perceived to be motivated by hate or hostility would give forces a greater ability to search command-and-control systems, to collate data and identify repeat incidents,” the police groups’ report asserts.

All in all, there are improvements here, including the much-welcomed admission from the government that this system is not sustainable or desirable, but there are still reasons to be wary. And while this may help address police involvement over legal speech, don’t forget that the UK criminalizes a wide range of speech just because it’s offensive. Take the Communications Act 2003, which criminalizes “grossly offensive” or “indecent” speech, or the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which targets words that “cause distress or anxiety.”

Ultimately, authorities may still very well have existing reasons to investigate upsetting speech, NCHI or no.

And while the First Amendment protects Americans’ right to engage in speech that some might perceive as offensive or upsetting, Americans should be wary of quasi-NCHI systems brewing here at home. It isn’t just the UK that’s policed legal tweets. For one, “Bias Response Hotlines” have emerged in U.S. cities and states, mirroring the function of NCHIs with U.S. police reporting bias incidents that have not met the threshold of criminal behavior.

But in even more disturbing developments, police showed up to Americans’ homes to investigate them — and even arrest them. In January, Miami Beach police appeared at the door of U.S. Army veteran Raquel Pacheco to question her about her social media posts accusing Miami Beach Mayor Steven Meiner of being anti-LGBTQ and anti-Palestinian. Police claimed they were just there “to have a conversation” — but in a free country, you shouldn’t have to chat with police over your protected speech.

And FIRE is representing Larry Bushart, a retired police officer who recently spent a shocking 37 days in jail on a $2 million bond he couldn’t afford, all because of a meme quoting the president. Perry County police hauled Bushart away on spurious accusations of threats after he posted a meme about Charlie Kirk’s killing that quoted Donald Trump’s response to a different shooting, “We have to get over it.”

Either in the U.S. or the UK, there is no role for police when it comes to legal speech. That’s the whole point of protected speech. Let’s keep it that way.

FIRE’s Free Speech Dispatch covers new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.

Finnish politician found guilty over ‘Male and Female He Created Them’ pamphlet

After a seven-year legal battle, Päivi Räsänen, a member of Finnish parliament and politician from the Christian Democrats, was acquitted last week on one charge of hate speech, but found guilty for a separate charge over a pamphlet she posted twice online. Räsänen was found not guilty over a 2019 tweet criticizing the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland’s decision to support a Pride event and citing Romans 1:24–27. But in a 3-2 decision, Finland’s Supreme Court found Räsänen and her co-author Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola guilty of incitement against a group for reposting their 2004 pamphlet, “Male and Female He Created Them,” on the internet.

The pamphlet shared the author’s view of biblical marriage as well as criticism of homosexuality. The court said that Räsänen “must have understood that, for example, claiming that homosexuality is a disorder of psychosexual development is, in light of the prevailing medical understanding, an incorrect assertion.” Räsänen was fined the equivalent of $2,080. Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Räsänen, says the court also ruled that the offending statements from the pamphlet be “removed from public access and destroyed.”

Subscribe now

“This creates uncertainty, not only for me, but for every citizen who wishes to express their beliefs, or even more concerning for anyone who has expressed their opinions in the past,” Räsänen said. She is considering appealing to the European Court of Human Rights and other Finnish political figures, including Minister of Justice Leena Meri, have objected to the ruling and are calling for reform.

Hong Kong rolls out broader national security law powers. Travelers, Americans included, should be cautious.

Hong Kong expanded powers under its National Security Law to give authorities the ability to require suspects in “national security” investigations — which often focus on pure political speech and government criticism — to reveal passwords to their electronic devices.

The U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong & Macau issued a warning in response, correctly noting that this law applies to anyone and everyone who passes through Hong Kong, including the millions who travel through Hong Kong’s airport each year — and officials weren’t pleased. Beijing officials summoned the U.S. envoy in Hong Kong to express “strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition” to what they called foreign interference.

Hong Kong police also arrested independent bookstore staff for allegedly selling “seditious” publications, including a biography of jailed media figure Jimmy Lai, as authorities expand enforcement of national security laws against printed materials.

Busy week for free speech in the UK, including a new bill addressing the UK’s ever-growing censorship problem

If you read FIRE’s Free Speech Dispatch, then you’ll know the United Kingdom has been in a free speech freefall for some time now, from arresting social media users and peaceful protesters to regularly crafting new regulations harming online expression. Recognizing the UK’s need for codified speech protections, the Adam Smith Institute has written a model Freedom of Speech Bill intended to limit the government’s ability to infringe upon free expression. The bill offers some strong features, like the assumption that speech is protected unless it falls into a specific unprotected category, remedies against strategic lawsuits against public participation, and an analogue of the U.S.’s Section 230. But other provisions would raise new concerns, like amending the Employment Rights Act 1996 to constrain private employers from firing employees based on lawful expression outside of the workplace — a potential challenge to free association rights.

The UK should use this as an opportunity to discuss how to best create reforms to protect free expression, online and off. And that’s not the only free speech news across the pond. Here’s the latest from another busy week:

• Metropolitan Police have reversed their decision to stop arresting pro-Palestine Action protesters in light of the High Court ruling against the government’s proscription of the group. Arrests have resumed while the government challenges the ruling.

• The House of Lords and House of Commons are currently going back and forth over plans to ban teens from social media. Alarmingly, one proposed amendment would grant an official power to target VPN use for teens under 18. Separately, the UK government is rolling out a trial test enforcing bans and “digital curfews” on hundreds of teens. And tech policy developments in the U.S. may even be influencing how the UK acts. Read FIRE’s coverage here.

• Apple’s rollout of mandatory age verification in the UK has sparked backlash after users reported being effectively locked out of full device functionality unless they submit ID or credit card details, with critics warning it forces people to “hand over sensitive personal data or lose functionality.” The system has also faced technical failures and accessibility issues, with some adults unable to verify their age at all and instead being pushed into restricted settings that “block websites” and monitor content.

• Artists accused Bristol City Council of censorship after officials ordered the removal of politically sensitive elements, forcing them to “literally [take] a knife to our art” and cut out “offending” material about local businesses. The council defended the move, saying it must “balance freedom of speech and a duty to prevent harm.”

• A UK school sparked backlash after using AI to flag nearly 200 library books as “inappropriate,” including classics like 1984 and popular titles like Twilight, with critics warning the system treated complex literature as a “safeguarding risk” based on surface level themes. The librarian said she was “gobsmacked” by the directive and faced disciplinary action for refusing to remove the books, as free expression advocates argue the case shows how automated tools can drive overbroad censorship without human judgement.

• Hong Kong dissidents in the UK say they are facing a growing campaign of harassment, surveillance, and violence that they believe is linked to Chinese authorities, with one activist recalling, “I thought I was blinded…Is this the end of my life?” after a brutal attack. Experts warned the effort is “widespread” and aimed at silencing critics abroad, raising concerns about transnational repression and the safety of political speech even outside China’s borders.

Hungary hits investigative reporter with espionage charges for reporting on Moscow ties

Hungary’s government has filed espionage charges against investigative journalist Szabolcs Panyi, accusing him of working “in coordination with a foreign country” amid reporting on ties between Hungarian officials and Russia. Panyi denies the claims, while his outlet warned the move reflects authorities “resorting to authoritarian tactics” to discredit critical journalism.

“Accusing investigative journalists of espionage is virtually unprecedented in the 21st century for a member state of the European Union,” Panyi says. “This is really something more typical of Putin’s Russia, Belarus and similar regimes.”

Political censorship across Asia

• Chinese authorities put dissident artist Gao Zhen on trial over artwork accused of “defaming national heroes and martyrs,” with proceedings held behind closed doors and observers barred from attending. The case centers on satirical sculptures of Mao Zedong created years earlier, and critics say it reflects a broader crackdown on artistic expression, with Gao facing up to three years in prison.

• A prominent Indonesian rights activist was seriously injured when an assailant threw acid at him near his home, calling it a “brutal acid attack” that left him with severe burns. Human Rights Watch is calling for “a fact-finding team independent of the military to fully investigate the acid attack against a prominent human rights activist who has criticized the military.”

• Indonesian authorities arrested a Swiss tourist after he allegedly posted insults about a Hindu holiday. Officials said he could face up to five years in prison for “spreading hate speech online.”

• A Filipino heritage advocate is facing cyberlibel charges after pointing out alleged factual errors in a published book, raising concerns about how defamation laws can be used against critical speech. He questioned the case, asking “what’s libelous about citing errors,” as advocates warn the complaint risks chilling public discussion and academic critique.

• Singapore denied entry to a Malaysian pro-Palestinian scholar, labeling her an “undesirable visitor” and accusing her of promoting “radical advocacy” and involvement in domestic political activity. Authorities said they “will not tolerate any foreigners getting involved in our domestic politics,” while the scholar rejected claims as “false” and argued she was being targeted for her academic work and public positions.

• Activists and digital rights groups say India has seen a noticeable spike in online censorship during the Iran war, with authorities issuing a growing number of takedown orders targeting posts critical of the government’s foreign policy stance and broader geopolitical messaging. Internet watchdogs reported “dozens of removals” in a short period.

• India’s Telangana government has introduced a sweeping hate speech and hate crimes bill that would criminalize a wide range of expression deemed to promote “disharmony” or “ill-will” against protected groups. The law proposes prison sentences from one to seven years, rising to ten years for repeat offenses, and allows authorities to order the removal of online content considered to violate the law.

Hundreds arrested in UAE and Qatar for posts about Iran

Authorities in the UAE and Qatar have arrested hundreds of people over social media posts and videos related to the Iran war, accusing some of spreading “rumors” or content that could undermine national security. The crackdown targets individuals for filming or sharing footage of attacks, with officials warning such posts can “stir public opinion” and create misleading narratives about the situation. In the UAE, the largest number of arrests over social media posts about the war weren’t even for alleged misinformation or lies, but for “publishing true videos of the attacks and their impact.” And many of those arrested “came from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, countries that send large numbers of low-paid workers to the Emirates.”

European Parliament member alleges censorship by Canadian immigration officials

European Parliament member Rima Hassan is accusing Canadian authorities of revoking her travel authorization ahead of scheduled public appearances because of her speech about Israel. Hassan says her authorization was approved and then revoked after she reportedly “was asked to submit new documents and information, including bank statements and a list of family ties, a few hours before her flight.” Citing privacy reasons, Canadian officials declined to comment on the case, but the groups who invited Hassan to Canada to speak are calling foul.

The future of expression online will in part rest on today’s debates over what age groups can legally use platforms deemed “social media” and what information we must provide to prove we’re adults and allowed to access them. This week, developments out of the UK and Australia continued the global age-verification campaign, as governments around the world push full steam ahead into dicey questions of who is allowed to speak, whether they can do so anonymously, and what responsibilities rest on platforms when teens are users.

Subscribe now

The United Kingdom, never one to let an opportunity to regulate expression pass by, is currently in the “ping-pong” stage as the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill moves back and forth between the House of Lords and House of Commons.

Members of Parliament are now debating whether and how to ban teens from social media, with the House of Commons rejecting an amendment from the Lords that advocates “highly-effective age assurance measures” to keep under-16s off of “all regulated user-to-user services.”

Instead of keeping authority with the communications regulator OfCom, the proposed amendment from the Commons would grant broad authority to a government official to require companies to force kids under 18, not 16, offline. Old enough to drive a two-ton vehicle, yet not old enough to post about it.

As the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains, it would give the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology power “to restrict internet access for young people and determine what content is considered harmful…just because she can.”

It would also grant the secretary power to target “addictive” features and, alarmingly, Virtual Private Network use for teens under 18. Any of these proposals should raise concerns from internet users, but none more than suggestions of VPN restrictions — a tactic most common among authoritarian regimes.

Meanwhile, the UK government is rolling out a trial test enforcing bans and “digital curfews” on hundreds of UK teens. A control group of teens will have no changes to their internet experience while some will undergo a full social media ban and others will have curfews or time limits on their usage. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said results from the study “will give us the evidence we need to take the next steps, informed by the experiences of families themselves.”

To be clear: parents have always had the authority to set curfews — online and off — on their children. It has never required an act of government to tell kids to log off.

Keir Starmer, too, said he’s “very keen” on rolling out a policy on teens’ social media use after the trial test concludes — and that he’s looking to the U.S. for inspiration on next steps. Starmer was specifically referring to last week’s ruling in California holding YouTube and Meta liable for designing “addictive” products accused of causing depression and other harms to a user at a young age. FIRE’s Ari Cohn explained why this and another high profile ruling against tech firms raise very serious concerns for free speech in the United States.

In Australia, where the government’s decision to launch a landmark teen social media ban last year set off a wave of global dominoes, regulators are updating their definition of “age-restricted social media platforms” amidst Reddit’s legal challenge against the ban on privacy and free expression grounds.

To continue “targeting the most harmful and addictive social media features that keep young Australians hooked online,” the government is updating its definition of such platforms as ones that adopt “recommender systems (algorithms)” that employ at least one of these features when users are logged in: “endless-feeds (infinite scroll),” “feedback features (such as displaying the number of ‘likes’ or ‘upvotes’ a user has received),” and “time-limited features (such as disappearing ‘stories.’)” Ten platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube and Reddit, currently earn this designation.

These new designations were, according to Sky News Australia, “quietly” issued just ahead of the deadline for the government’s filing in response to Reddit’s challenge over the ban. The outlet says it “understands the updated rules” on the definition “could be an attempt to iron out the government’s legal defence against the social media giant.”

And, in light of the recent rulings against social media companies in the U.S., Australian law firms are now looking into whether similar efforts could succeed in Australia as an even more effective tool than government bans. “The [social] media ban has had very little impact on adolescent use of these technology platforms,” Shine Lawyers’ chief legal officer told Guardian Australia. “Meta has targeted generations of people who may never be able to detach from the grip of social media.” Another attorney said firms “expect the conversation around social media harm, regulation and accountability in Australia to accelerate in the wake of this decision in the U.S. overnight.”

The conversation around age verification has long centered on whether developments abroad could influence policy in the United States — but now the opposite may be true, too.

First arrests under Queensland’s new hate speech law

Two protesters were arrested on the first day of Queensland’s ban on the slogan “From the river to the sea.” Authorities enforced the restriction as part of new rules regulating protest speech related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which also cover the chant “globalize the intifada.” Offenders could face up to two years in prison.

Subscribe now

The first protester arrested was Liam Parry from Students for Palestine, who spoke at a march against the law outside the state parliament house. Parry reportedly gave a talk about the phrase, disputed the claim that it was antisemitic, and “discouraged others from chanting the slogan.” Another protester was arrested for wearing a shirt with the message “From the river to the sea.” Both were charged and will be expected to appear in court next month.

Rush for passage of Canadian hate speech law, despite serious free speech concerns

The Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights closed debate on the Combating Hate Act, with the next reading of the bill to take place late this month, despite long-held concerns from dozens of civil liberties and other advocacy groups about the text.

Among other things, the act would “create an offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place” and “of intimidating a person in order to impede them from accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for certain purposes.”

The provision on hateful symbols also includes “a symbol that so nearly resembles” a proscribed image “that it is likely to be confused with that symbol.” And groups like the Canadian Bar Association have objected to the vagueness of the offense concerning intimidation at a house of worship, warning that it’s “not clear at what point a person, their words, or their actions would constitute an obstruction and interference on the face of the amendments.” Keep an eye out for more updates from FIRE on the bill if it passes.

UK launches new definition of ‘anti-Muslim’ hostility

After a monthslong process, the UK has finally unveiled its new working definition of “anti-Muslim hostility,” which is facing criticism both from those who think it does too little to protect Muslims and others who fear it poses another threat to free expression in the UK. The Free Speech Union, for example, is already launching a legal challenge against the definition, arguing that it “relies on vague and legally undefined concepts,” among other objections.

It is defined, in part, as “the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim including because of their ethnic or racial backgrounds or their appearance, and treating them as a collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of encouraging hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.” The definition also notes that it’s “important to bear in mind the fundamental right of every person in the United Kingdom to exercise freedom of speech and expression within the law” and includes as protected speech “criticisms of a religion or belief, including Islam” and “ridiculing or insulting a religion or belief, including Islam.”

As FIRE has written before, it will be key to watch how this and any other definition of hatred is ultimately employed across government, and how it can chill or directly censor speech. Kenneth Stern, the primary author of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, warned it “was intended for data collectors writing reports about anti-Semitism in Europe” and “was never supposed to curtail speech on campus.” The same concerns must apply here. Member of Parliament Iqbal Mohamed, for example, has already pushed for “sanctions” against other MPs under the definition.

More concerns about political censorship in Europe

• Senedd, the Welsh Parliament, just passed legislation giving Welsh Ministers new authority to criminalize false statements before or during a Senedd election. Granting government officials the power to determine truth or falsity, and hand out criminal sanctions in the process, is a can of worms Wales may regret opening. Read FIRE’s in-depth analysis here.

• German writer Rainer Zitelmann is facing investigation under Germany’s law on “anti-constitutional” symbols for reposting a photo that showed a swastika in it. That swastika was on an armband worn by Adolf Hitler — and the post was criticizing Russian President Vladimir Putin by suggesting parallels between the two. “In my case, Hitler serves as a negative warning example in drawing an analogy,” Zitelmann said. “I have the impression that Section 86a is being instrumentalised against critical journalists and scholars, and that was clearly not what it was intended for.”

• Authorities in Belarus have designated the literary organization PEN Belarus as an extremist group. Free speech advocates warn the decision further restricts cultural expression and civil society in the country.

• Spain is developing a system designed to track hate speech on social media platforms. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who recently pushed for an under-16 social media ban and rules holding tech owners personally liable for hateful content on their platforms, is promoting the AI tool as a means to track and criticize companies’ allowance of “hate” on their platforms. Read FIRE’s full discussion about the program, and the risks it may pose to free expression.

New ethnic unity law poses yet another censorship threat in China

China is preparing to adopt a new “ethnic unity” law intended to strengthen national cohesion across ethnic groups. Rights groups warn the legislation could expand government control over speech related to minority identity and political dissent. Officials claim the measure is necessary to maintain “national unity and social stability” but it will instead serve as another tool authorities can use to censor ethnic minorities, particularly in Tibet and Xinjiang — where oppressive censorship already runs deep.

Meanwhile, Chinese company CHOKNOR Information Technology released a new Tibetan large language model and app, DeepZang, “for global users seeking to learn about Tibetan culture, history and politics, thereby preventing the dissemination of distorted ideologies and values.”

Albania’s highest court rejects TikTok ban

Albania’s Constitutional Court ruled that the government’s ban on TikTok violated constitutional protections for free expression. Judges concluded the restriction imposed disproportionate limits on online speech and access to information. The ruling is a notable development as internet bans and blocks, particularly of TikTok, continue to propagate on a global scale.

Russian officials censor artistic works at home — and abroad

The Netherlands has accused Russia of attempting to censor a photo exhibition in Sri Lanka documenting the war in Ukraine. Organizers say pressure was applied to remove images that portrayed Russia negatively. Dutch officials warned that efforts to interfere with exhibitions abroad represent attempts to “silence documentation of the war” and efforts from Russian officials to control not just what their citizens can see, but to censor the rest of the world, too.

Russia’s film industry is also facing increasing government censorship as authorities expand oversight of cultural production. Filmmakers say projects can be blocked, edited, or denied funding if they contain themes viewed as politically sensitive or critical of the government. Critics warn the growing system of approval and funding controls effectively determines which stories can reach audiences. Some filmmakers argue the process is increasingly used to ensure cinema reflects “state-approved narratives” about politics, history, and the war in Ukraine.

Political censorship, tech regulation, and campus protests in India

The Indian state of Telangana is considering legislation to regulate “misinformation” on social media, allowing authorities to intervene when content is deemed misleading or harmful. Officials claim the measure is necessary to prevent destabilizing false information, but critics rightly warn it could enable the government to police dissent under the label of “misinformation.”

Police in Khandwa registered cases against dozens of people after a mob attacked a police station following a controversial social media post accused of blasphemy. Authorities said at least 47 individuals were booked and a security “flag march” was conducted to restore order.

India’s film certification board has blocked the release of The Voice of Hind Rajab, an Oscar-nominated drama about a child killed in Gaza, reportedly warning it could “break up” India-Israel relations. The film’s distributor criticized the decision, saying authorities “want to censor it anyway” despite the film being shown in other countries with diplomatic ties to Israel.

Student protests at Jawaharlal Nehru University have also renewed debate about political expression and democratic participation on Indian campuses. Demonstrators argue that universities must remain spaces where dissent and debate are protected. Sociologist Anand Kumar warned that restrictions on campus activism threaten democratic culture, saying “campus democracy is essential to democratic society.” Supporters of the protests say limiting student speech undermines the role universities play in fostering critical political discussion.

Speech restrictions and media control in the Middle East

Iran continues to maintain strict control over political expression, public protest, and media reporting. Authorities frequently restrict speech through arrests, surveillance, and state regulation of news outlets. Human rights organizations warn that the government continues to target individuals who publicly challenge official narratives.

Journalists reporting from Israel during wartime must operate under a military censorship system that reviews sensitive reporting before publication. The system allows the military censor to block details related to security operations or infrastructure damage. News outlets say the process significantly shapes what information reaches the public during conflict.

Expanding national security and speech controls across Asia

Lawmakers in Macau have approved a new national security law allowing court proceedings to be held behind closed doors when authorities determine public hearings could threaten state interests. The law gives a government committee authority to decide whether cases involve national security, with decisions that are “not subject to appeal or judicial review.” Officials said the move reflects the principle of “patriots governing Macau,” while critics warn it could further restrict transparency and public scrutiny of politically sensitive cases.

Nepalese authorities have launched an investigation after copies of Chinese President

Xi Jinping’s book were burned at a university, an incident school officials say occurred during the disposal of damaged materials. A government panel has been tasked with ensuring such incidents are “not repeated in future,” while university officials said the books were destroyed “inadvertently” and there was no intent to cause offense.

Senegal passes law criminalizing “promotion” of homosexuality

Senegal’s parliament has approved a law increasing penalties for same-sex relationships and criminalizing the “promotion” of homosexuality, a move officials say reflects that “the majority of Senegalese do not accept homosexuality.” Rights groups warned the law is “deeply worrying” and could increase fear, discrimination, and violence while restricting expression related to LGBT issues.

Government suppression of political speech and satire

Indian authorities blocked a viral Instagram reel featuring comedian Pulkit Mani impersonating Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with users seeing a notice that the post was unavailable “pursuant to a notice” under local laws. Critics called the move an “alarming escalation” of censorship, warning that satire and political criticism are being suppressed without transparency or due process.

A Russian blogger who publicly criticized President Vladimir Putin and the war in Ukraine was placed in a psychiatric facility shortly after his post went viral, according to local reporting. In the post, he wrote that “Vladimir Putin is not a legitimate president” and should be “brought to trial,” raising concerns about the use of psychiatric detention in response to political dissent.

Salvadoran lawyer Ruth López, known for criticizing government corruption, has been held in pretrial detention, with her husband saying authorities targeted her because “they didn’t like the free expression she exercised.”

The political sphere, and the world more broadly, would probably be a better place if we did away with the practice of lying. Most of us would sleep more soundly at night if we didn’t feel the need to treat political campaigning with similar skepticism we’d give to days-old gas station sushi.

Subscribe now

But that doesn’t mean we’ll improve the world by giving government officials more power to punish dishonesty. We would still have lies — we always will, and no law can make them disappear. But in addition, we’ll have the added problem of more censorship laws ripe for abuse and error.

The Welsh Parliament, however, believes legislation is necessary to fight the scourge of political lies. In a new bill passed this week, by a vote of 50–1, the Senedd passed legislation in part granting Welsh ministers new authority to criminalize making false statements before or during a Senedd election. The language creating this authority, likely to come into force in 2030, reads:

(2A) The Welsh Ministers must make provision, of the kind that may be made under subsection (1)(a), prohibiting the making or publishing of false or misleading statements of fact before or during an election for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate.

(2B) The provision required by subsection (2A) may include, in particular, provision—

(a) about what is or is not a statement of fact;

(b) prohibiting false statements only or both false and misleading statements;

(c) specifying the period in which any prohibition has effect;

(d) prohibiting false or misleading statements of fact relating to matters specified in the order or matters generally;

(e) prohibiting false or misleading statements of fact made or published by persons or categories of person specified in the order or any person;

(f) prohibiting the making or publishing of false or misleading statements knowingly or recklessly;

(g) specifying exemptions or exceptions to any prohibition.

With the law’s passage, the onus will now be on Welsh ministers to craft criminal offenses that punish political candidates who issue false — or, according to the bill — even misleading statements during an election.

Legislators say the act is vital to combat declining public trust in civic life but fail to account for what new risks to public trust will arise from a bill that doesn’t even define false or “misleading” information, and yet grants future government officials the power to punish candidates for it with criminal sanctions.

Nor does the bill acknowledge the reality that some political matters are contested and don’t fit into a simple fact or fiction paradigm, or that those accused of lies today could even someday be vindicated as wrongly-maligned truth-tellers. It’s happened before, and it will happen again.

The reality is that people in office, and not just those aspiring to it, who will be enforcing these future laws against lies don’t always tell the truth. In fact, that’s been a mainstay throughout human history. Sometimes they do so for more innocent reasons — perhaps, just like the rest of us, they’re occasionally operating on incomplete or faulty information and just conveying what they believe to be true. Or, as many tyrants big and small have done over the years, they are misleading citizens because they have selfish or nefarious reasons. No matter what political views you hold or party you support, you can probably think of a few politicians who fit that bill.

While it’s a matter of regulatory abuse rather than criminal law, Americans should be aware that we’re fighting similar problems of a government monopoly on truth here in the U.S. Just days ago, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr threatened to do away with the broadcasting licenses of networks he claims are “running hoaxes and news distortions” about the war in Iran. While Welsh politicians are seeking to punish “fake news” (as future ministers may define it) among political candidates, our own FCC is trying to stamp out from our airwaves what the Trump administration defines as false, free press be damned. Americans must not allow these threats to go unchecked, either from today’s FCC or its future leadership.

Possessing the qualities of righteousness or virtue does not immunize a politician from sometimes just being flat-out wrong on some factual matters, or at least halfway there. For that reason alone, we should be wary of granting them the power of the state to sift through truth and lies. But we don’t live in a world governed by angels, and many politicians will not be honorable figures — so we should not hand such beatific power to human beings imperfect enough to abuse it.

Spain is no longer just talking about regulating online “hate.” Now it’s building an AI system to track it. Fresh off an announcement that he intends to pursue an under-16 social media ban, as well as regulations holding tech owners personally liable for hateful content on their platforms and algorithms that share that material, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is promoting the launch of an AI program to track online hate.

Subscribe now

The tool, named HODIO (Huella del Odio y la Polarización) and operated by Spain’s Observatory of Racism and Xenophobia, will reportedly “analyze large volumes of publicly available activity on social media to measure the scale and spread of online hate speech.” According to Politico, HODIO’s data will then “be used to track how hateful content evolves and spreads on platforms, and will feed into a public ranking comparing how much hate speech circulates on major networks.”

It’s valuable for governments to know and understand how prejudice operates and affects the citizens they govern, but this system risks expanding government pressure on platforms to censor lawful political expression.

First, there are significant preliminary questions of how “hateful content” is defined by the agency operating HODIO and to what extent an AI tool can be expected to track and understand that content. Will the definitions hew to Spanish law and precedent, broader language from other member states under the EU’s Digital Services Act, or encompass more nebulous concepts of hurtful speech that may nevertheless receive some legal protection? And how will these tools grasp the complexities and nuances surrounding contested political speech that some, but not all, users perceive as hateful?

FIRE warned about similar concerns last year regarding the Trump administration’s plans to use AI to search through the social media accounts of international students to find targets for potential deportation based on their posts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With stakes as high as these, AI cannot be tasked with the responsibility of parsing speech about a high-profile conflict and fully understanding both the nuance of language — and the First Amendment protections — in play. We cannot outsource free speech rights to a technological tool.

Most important, though, are questions about how this data — the collection and classification of which will raise challenges already — could be used not just to track hateful speech, but to guide government policy on it. When announcing HODIO’s launch, Sánchez said his government “plans to introduce a legal offense for ‘algorithmic amplification’ of hate speech” and warned that “social media must be held publicly accountable for every piece of hate content they allow.”

Taken together with these warnings, as well as earlier promises from Sánchez about personally punishing executives for posts and banning teens from social media, it seems increasingly likely that HODIO will function not just as a tracking tool, but as a component of regulating and policing the web.

Unless careful guardrails and caution are exercised, government efforts to understand and track bigotry can quite seamlessly morph into official censorship campaigns that infringe upon protected political speech. Just look at the expansive use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Anti-Semitism in the United States. Its primary author Kenneth Stern said it “was intended for data collectors writing reports about anti-Semitism in Europe” and “was never supposed to curtail speech on campus.” It’s done exactly that.

As with any new or emerging communicative tool, there will be concerns about the ways social media can upend society, for good or ill. But we must push back against efforts to grant governments sweeping new powers to police expression on the internet — AI-powered ones included.

“It’s like clockwork. War breaks out. Then come the calls for censorship,” my colleague warned last week about calls for censorship in the U.S. amid the outbreak of war with Iran. The same goes for the rest of the world. Dubai is threatening to imprison social media users who depart from official government narratives amid Iranian drone attacks, for example. And the UK is getting into the game too.

Subscribe now

UK Metropolitan Police said they will not allow the Al-Quds Day march in London, an annual pro-Palestinian event that has taken place for 40 years and was set up by Iran’s first Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini after the Islamic revolution in 1979. Police Assistant Commissioner Ade Adelekan said the march was “uniquely contentious having originated in Iran and in London is organized by the Islamic Human Rights Commission.” The IHRC, which says the march supports “Palestinian liberation,” said it plans to challenge the ban.

The one-month ban on events was approved by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who said, “doing so is necessary to prevent serious public disorder, due to the scale of the protest and multiple counter-protests, in the context of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.” Mahmood added that she expects “the full force of the law applied to anyone spreading hatred and division instead of exercising their right to peaceful protest.”

It’s been over a decade since police exercised this power, which was last used in 2012 to stop marches by the right wing organization English Defence League. But in recent years, Metropolitan Police have said they are prepared to crack down on protests they consider controversial. In January, police announced a more assertive approach to protest chants police deem antisemitic, even if they don’t meet the threshold for prosecution.

Controversial speech about the war with Iran, particularly public expression of mourning for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is also sparking calls for censorship in UK higher education. “We condemn all extremist intimidation, harassment and incitement to hatred in our universities,” the Department for Education said in a statement. “Where public mourning involves this sort of unacceptable behaviour, it should not be tolerated. We are absolutely committed to protecting lawful free speech and academic freedom, but those freedoms do not extend to behaviour that intimidates others.”

It certainly looks like UK officials are suggesting that speech praising Khamenei, upsetting as it may be to many listeners, is intimidating conduct, rather than political speech that must be protected in a free society. That distinction between illegal conduct and controversial speech is key, but it’s one that’s failing in the UK, where social media users are regularly detained for posts that simply upset or offend others..

The Henry Jackson Society wrote last week to Mahmood and Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson, calling for investigation into comments praising Khamenei and clarification on whether any action was needed under the government’s anti-extremism “Prevent” program, which in the past has already evoked concerns of academic freedom violations and allegations of chilled speech.

Indeed, the UK government announced days later forthcoming policies intended to amp up Prevent’s role in higher education. The new rules for campuses are part of a policy paper, “Protecting What Matters: Towards a more confident, cohesive, and resilient United Kingdom,” targeting factors “putting social cohesion in the UK under strain.”

The policy will apply to sectors across UK society, with a major focus on campuses. “Universities should not only be alert to violent extremism,” the government explains, “but also non-violent extremism, including certain divisive or intolerant narratives which can reasonably be linked to terrorism.”

Part of the campus policy changes will include the production of a Cohesion Charter, “which brings together a set of agreed principles that guide students’ conduct and engagement on issues that underpin — or undermine — campus cohesion,” that universities will be “strongly encouraged” to incorporate into their codes of conduct.

But another will focus on universities’ duties to guide students away from terrorism under the Prevent program. Going forward, the Office for Students will publish new frameworks to monitor universities’ “efforts to prevent individuals from becoming involved in terrorism or supporting it.” For those concerned about impacts on free expression on UK campuses, it will especially be important to watch how the government does — or doesn’t — define “support.”

The Office for Students also plans to release “updated guidance” to “help universities manage external speakers and events responsibly.” If universities fail in their duties to vet speakers or events for what the government deems extremism, violent or not, they will risk sanction or derecognition.

We’ll know more details when the full guidance is released later this year and universities, of course, must be expected to act upon threats, harassment, and criminal activity.

But it’s not difficult to see how this could quickly devolve into a censorial mess, especially given that the UK government has recently suggested that peacefully holding signs is a terror offense and warned teens that sharing links they find funny may get them nabbed for terrorist content. And with the risk of sanctions on the line, universities may be inclined to censor a wide array of speech that falls under the mile-wide umbrella of “non-violent extremism, including certain divisive or intolerant narratives which can reasonably be linked to terrorism,” creating a chilling effect that extends across academia.

FIRE’s Free Speech Dispatch covers new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.

Northern Ireland’s blasphemy law under scrutiny

Connie Egan, a member of Northern Ireland’s Legislative Assembly, pushed an amendment late last month that seeks to abolish the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel from the region. “Blasphemy laws have no place in modern society and Northern Ireland is the only place across these islands that still has these archaic offences, dating back to the 1800s, on the books,” Egan said.

Subscribe now

Though these kinds of blasphemy laws are rarely or sporadically enforced in some nations that maintain them, it’s still important to abolish them to ensure they cannot be used in the future, and to signal that blasphemy must not be treated as a crime. This is especially notable at this moment in the UK, where asylum seeker Hamit Coskun just successfully defeated prosecutors’ efforts to punish him for burning a Quran in front of London’s Turkish embassy. Coskun was not charged under a blasphemy law, but civil liberties observers have rightfully warned that prosecutors may be seeking to enforce a quasi-blasphemy law under other statutes.

Academic freedom, free speech controversies in UK higher ed

A controversy at the Open University has intensified debates over academic freedom after the institution said it would no longer use the term “ancient Palestine” in course materials following a complaint from the pro-Israel advocacy group UK Lawyers for Israel. The university initially affirmed that the phrase was “academically appropriate,” noting it had been used historically by scholars such as Herodotus, but later said the term had become “problematic in a way that, perhaps, it was not when the materials were written in 2018.” When OU’s Palestine Solidarity Group alleged that the university’s decision violated the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, OU said it would still allow use of the term but with “an additional contextual note to support students’ understanding of differing perspectives.”

Speaking of the Higher Education Act, some academics are arguing more needs to be done. Scholars involved in several high-profile academic free speech disputes in the UK are urging the government to immediately introduce a formal complaints system for university staff who believe their academic freedom has been violated. In a letter to the skills minister, academics argued that the delay in implementing the mechanism leaves scholars without a clear pathway to challenge censorship or retaliation, warning that many cases remain hidden because affected academics fear consequences. The signatories wrote that their experiences represent “the tip of the iceberg,” noting that many scholars “quite rationally avoid raising complaints even internally within their institutions” because they assume it will be ineffective or personally damaging.

UAE police threaten jail over social media posts

Dubai is a hot spot for influencers, but social media users may want to be wary about what they post. Amid attacks from Iran that killed at least three people in the UAE, Dubai police have threatened fines and jail time up to two years for “rumors, false information, or any content that contradicts official announcements or that may cause public panic or threaten public safety, order, or health.”

“Think before you share,” police warned.

Reprimands, sentences, and lawsuits for political speech across Europe

• In Belgium, a media outlet was formally reprimanded after publishing the full transcript of a speech by U.S. Vice President JD Vance. The country’s press ethics body said the outlet “violated ethics and, in particular, its social responsibility as a media of information” by publishing the speech without sufficient context or verification.

• In the United Kingdom, emails obtained through a freedom of information dispute reveal government officials privately discussing a decision to block funding for the Irish-language rap group Kneecap. One message reportedly described the issue as something officials hoped to “keep out of the public domain,” raising questions about transparency.

• Germany has also seen legal battles over political speech. A German court ordered the country’s domestic intelligence agency to temporarily stop referring to the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party as extremist until the designation’s legality is fully reviewed. Judges concluded that “it cannot currently be established that the applicant, as a whole, is dominated by the positions discussed above,” meaning the evidence was not yet sufficient to classify the entire party as extremist.

• Meanwhile, broadcaster Piers Morgan is facing a defamation lawsuit filed by a pro-Israel lawyer after a heated exchange on Piers Morgan Uncensored. During the interview, Morgan dismissed claims about Israeli military actions in Rafah as “a lot of old bullshit again.”

Another lengthy sentence for insulting Thai monarchy

A Thai court extended the prison sentence of activist lawyer Arnon Nampa by two years and eight months for speeches calling for monarchy reform at a 2020 protest. This brings his total sentence to more than 30 years under Thailand’s strict lese-majeste law. And that might not be all. Nampa still faces three more cases for defaming the monarchy.

Berlin International Film Festival faces controversy, and new rules

The Berlin International Film Festival sparked intense debate after filmmakers used their acceptance speeches to criticize Israel and Germany’s policies. Syrian-Palestinian director Abdullah Al-Khatib ended his remarks by declaring “Free Palestine from now until the end of the world” while accusing Germany of being “partners in the genocide in Gaza by Israel.” The comments prompted backlash from German officials and calls for code of conduct governing political statements at the festival.

Director Tricia Tuttle will be allowed to keep her position, but must “accept a new advisory board and a code of conduct that all festival participants will be required to sign off on.”

Blasphemy laws continue to endanger speech and religious minorities

In Gujranwala, a city in Pakistan, a Christian family says neighbors threatened to accuse them of blasphemy after allegedly seizing their property. According to advocates, the tactic is sometimes used to intimidate minorities in property disputes. Human rights groups note that “this is not the first time land grabbers have allegedly used threats of blasphemy accusations to silence Christian families.”

Human Rights Watch is also urging Pakistan to overturn the blasphemy conviction of university lecturer Junaid Hafeez, who was sentenced to death in 2019 over alleged Facebook posts and classroom remarks. The organization said his prolonged detention is “emblematic of the unjust and abusive nature” of the country’s blasphemy framework.

Egypt’s own “contempt of religion” law has also returned to public debate. The controversy was reignited after a video called for a boycott of Christian-owned shops, claiming buying from them “contributes to insulting Islam.” Article 98 of Egypt’s penal code allows prison sentences for those accused of insulting the country’s “heavenly religions.”

Atheist and Kurdish-Armenian asylum seeker Hamit Coskun has emerged triumphant from a year-long legal battle after he burned a Quran in protest near the Turkish embassy in London last February. This is good news, especially given the rarity of positive free speech developments in the UK.

Subscribe now

But the doggedness with which prosecutors pursued charges against Coskun, and the process he was subjected to, should alarm UK residents, whose right to blaspheme may be in as much danger as their freedom to publicly protest or their ability to post anonymously online.

The controversy began on Feb. 13, 2025, when Coskun stood outside the Turkish Consulate in London, lit a Quran on fire, and yelled messages including “Fuck Islam” and “Islam is the religion of terrorism.” Coskun has consistently argued this was a protest against political Islam in Turkey and Turkish President Erdoğan, whose “rise to power,” Coskun says, “brought with it a new political theology.”

Coskun was soon attacked by two men including one carrying a knife, who told Coskun he was “going to kill him” and then beat and kicked him. That man later pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 weeks in prison and community service, but his prison sentence was suspended. Ultimately, he would serve no time for the assault.

Coskun’s legal struggles, however, lasted much longer than his attacker’s did. Coskun was initially charged with “intent to cause against [the] religious institution of Islam, harassment, alarm or distress.” If you’re thinking that looks quite a bit like a blasphemy offense, you’d be right. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) then substituted the charge with a religiously aggravated public order offence after activists objected to the original offense.

In June, Coskun was found guilty in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court and fined £240 ($321). Incredibly, Judge John McGarva argued “That the conduct was disorderly is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by 2 different people.” In other words, being the victim of an attack was evidence of his disorderly conduct because the attack was disorderly.

Coskun successfully appealed at the Southwark Crown Court, which overturned his conviction in October. Justice Joel Bennathan refuted the previous ruling citing the attack on Coskun as evidence against him, writing that courts “should be wary of allowing the criminal reaction of one person to make a criminal of another for exercising their right to free speech.” He said further, “the right to freedom of expression, if it is a right worth having, must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb.” Rightfully so.

That should have been the end of the story. It wasn’t.

The Crown Prosecution Service, refusing to let the case go, challenged Coskun’s successful appeal weeks later. In a statement, CPS said: “There is no law to prosecute people for ‘blasphemy’ and burning a religious text on its own is not a criminal act. Our case remains that Hamit Coskun’s words, choice of location and burning of the Quran amounted to disorderly behaviour, and that at the time he demonstrated hostility towards a religious or racial group, which is a crime. We have appealed the decision, and the judge has agreed to state a case for the High Court to consider.”

Last week, prosecutors’ efforts to punish Coskun finally met an end. The High Court rejected that attempt, writing that the justices were “not persuaded” that the Southwark Crown Court “left any material factor out of account or relied on any immaterial factor” when overturning Coskun’s conviction. A spokesperson said CPS “will review its decision carefully.”

This is a notable win for free expression in a country where arrests for subjectively offensive speech have become alarmingly common. But UK citizens should remain deeply concerned about their ability to express their thoughts on important matters like religion or politics — even, or especially, in unpopular ways.

This chain of events, from the original charge referencing the “religious institution of Islam” to the guilty finding citing the attack against Coskun to prosecutors’ refusal to let this case drop, represent an alarming effort to enforce what certainly look like blasphemy restrictions.

This isn’t an anomaly, though. Laws and prosecutions protecting religious institutions from offence and insult should be a relic of the past but are instead still present in dozens of countries, and are experiencing a resurgence of sorts in European countries like Sweden and Denmark, with the encouragement of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The UK appears to be heading down this path, too, giving another means of censorship to a country increasingly fond of them.

The United Kingdom isn’t just focused on age-gating and regulating what its citizens can see and do on the internet through its Online Safety Act. Now, officials are setting their sights on what people can stream, expanding their regulatory focus beyond local television channels and into the workings of non-UK companies like Netflix.

Subscribe now

If the censorial headaches unleashed by the Online Safety Act’s attempts to crack down on “harmful content” on the web are any indicator, residents of the UK — as well as the streaming companies officials intend to regulate and their global audiences who watch them — have reason to worry.

This week, communications regulator Ofcom announced “enhanced” regulation for video-on-demand services with more than 500,000 UK-based users. Some of the requirements will address accessibility features such as subtitles, but there will also be a significant focus on the aired material itself: specifically “harmful or offensive material.” Platforms with user bases of this size will be subject to a forthcoming video-on-demand code modeled on rules already in place against stations like the BBC.

“Similar to the Broadcasting Code, this will ensure that news is reported accurately and impartially and audiences are protected against harmful or offensive material,” a UK government press release explains. “Audiences will be able to complain to Ofcom if they see something concerning, and Ofcom will have powers to investigate, and take action, where they consider there has been a breach of the code.”

The Broadcasting Code, which will no doubt influence the upcoming rules for streaming services, explains that TV and radio stations must “provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.”

Programs containing “harmful” material including “offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, [and] discriminatory treatment or language” must be “justified by the context.” That context can include the time and service during which the material is aired but also much more nebulous concepts like “the degree of harm or offence likely to be caused by” it or “the effect of the material on viewers or listeners who may come across it unawares.”

This will very likely mean bad news for UK citizens who don’t want this kind of government overreach into the streaming services they watch and who can, in theory at least, decide for themselves what material is too offensive or harmful for their TVs and tablets. But it also could be bad news for the rest of the world.

The risk of fines for ambiguously defined harmful content — and fines will no doubt be a penalty for breaches of the not-yet-written code — could very well pressure streamers like Amazon Prime and Netflix to make editorial decisions not to greenlight content that might be perceived as offensive by UK regulators, including shows and projects intended for a global audience. Companies might decide it isn’t worth the risk of either fines in the UK or the production cost of creating content that will be inaccessible to its UK-based audience.

And that can affect far more people than just UK citizens. As FIRE recently explained in its principles for defending speech on the global internet, the interconnectedness of today’s world means that regulations passed in one country can have significant “potential to bleed across borders,” including into the U.S.

We’ll keep an eye on these forthcoming regulations to see what it means for streaming companies — and, perhaps, what airs on our screens, too.

FIRE’s Free Speech Dispatch covers new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.

Canberra bar labeled a crime scene after police raid posters

Citing recent anti-extremism legislation, police raided Canberra’s Dissent Cafe and Bar last week and seized a set of posters depicting Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Elon Musk, and others in Nazi uniforms. Police, who declared the cafe a crime scene, said they are “committed to ensuring that alleged antisemitic, racist and hate incidents are addressed promptly and thoroughly and when possible criminality is identified, ACT Policing will not hesitate to take appropriate action.” The bar’s owner, David Howe, called the raid “ludicrous” and within a day replaced the posters with large “CENSORED” captions over them. Guardian Australia reports that this “is the first complaint about alleged hate imagery received in the nation’s capital following laws passed earlier this year in the wake of the Bondi shooting.” Howe says the posters “are an anti-fascist statement” about “authoritarian regimes around the world.”

Subscribe now

Former school trustee issued whopping $750,000 fine by Canadian tribunal

For comments made on social media, school board meetings, and to the media, former elected Chilliwack school trustee Barry Neufeld is now on the hook for a $750,000 fine. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled last week that Neufeld’s comments about gender identity and related Ministry of Education directives “invoked negative and insidious stereotypes about LGBTQ people, especially trans people, which denied their inherent dignity and, in some cases, reflected the hallmarks of hate against them as a group.” Among other comments, Neufeld said government resources about gender identity, which he called a “biologically absurd theory,” were a “weapon of propaganda.”

The case dates back to 2017, when the Chilliwack Teachers’ Association and B.C. Teachers’ Federation first took their objections over Neufeld to the Tribunal, alleging that Neufeld’s public comments constituted hate speech and discrimination. The fine issued by the Tribunal “will result in individual awards between around $4,600 to $16,667” to members of the teachers’ groups who filed the complaint. The Tribunal, writing that it was “not persuaded such an order would have any beneficial effect in this complaint, given Mr. Neufeld’s clearly entrenched views,” decided against issuing mandatory anti-discrimination training for Neufeld.

In comments praising the decision, British Columbia’s Human Rights Commissioner said “statements that deny trans identities and rely on stereotypes create significant harm” and that this “decision is significant for ensuring that human rights laws apply to political and public statements from our elected officials and affirming that trans people are entitled to have their identities recognized and rights respected.” Neufeld’s attorney announced this week that they intend to appeal.

UK court strikes down Palestine Action terror ban

The UK High Court ruled that banning Palestine Action under anti-terrorism law was “disproportionate and unlawful.” Judges found the group’s activities had not met the statutory threshold required for proscription but ministers have said they will appeal. For more in-depth discussion, see FIRE’s coverage of the ruling and what it means for the thousands who have been arrested for holding signs expressing support for the banned group, an offense that was also targeted under anti-terror legislation.

In a separate ruling, the High Court found the Police Federation acted unlawfully when it suspended elected officials over comments about racism in policing. In a media interview, one official “warned that officers were becoming increasingly reluctant to challenge individuals from some ethnic minority groups for fear of vexatious complaints or being labelled racist” and another “used social media to challenge claims that policing in the UK is institutionally racist.” The measures were deemed unjustified and disproportionate.

Brazil prosecutes student for gender identity posts and orders journalists silenced

The trial has begun for Brazilian veterinary student Isadora Borges, who faces up to ten years in prison for social media posts expressing her views on gender identity if found guilty. She says she hopes her “case can serve as a turning point in fighting censorship in Brazil” and that “Brazilians deserve the freedom to speak openly without punishment.” Borges, who was charged under an anti-racism law expanded years ago by the Supreme Court to include transphobia, was reported to police by Brazilian politician Erika Hilton.

Separately, a court in Belém ordered Adriano Wilkson to remove posts about alleged municipal contract irregularities and barred him from further discussing the issue. Journalist organizations condemned the ruling as censorship and a violation of constitutional press protections.

Russia blocks WhatsApp and throttles Telegram

Russia’s media regulator Roskomnadzor confirmed it had begun “throttling” Telegram, citing noncompliance with local law. Authorities have also blocked WhatsApp nationwide. Roskomnadzor stated: “We are absolutely open to working with any domestic or foreign internet resources. But on one very simple condition: respect for Russia and its citizens, and compliance with the laws of the Russian Federation.”

Telegram founder Pavel Durov said Russia is attempting to force citizens onto a state app “built for surveillance and political censorship.” A WhatsApp spokesperson called the move “a backwards step” that “can only lead to less safety for people in Russia.”

Spain targets VPN infrastructure in anti-piracy crackdown

A Spanish court ordered NordVPN and Proton VPN to block IP addresses transmitting illegal LaLiga football streams, allowing “dynamic” blocking in real time during matches. Proton VPN said it “has not been formally notified” and emphasized that courts are “bound by procedural safeguards that ensure parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case.” NordVPN called the approach “unacceptable.” Privacy advocates warn that blocking shared IP infrastructure risks sweeping lawful users into enforcement actions.

Olympic political speech rule reignites long-running debate

Every Olympic season, it seems, there is a controversy over whether and how athletes can and should express themselves on and off the track. This one was no different. Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych was disqualified for wearing a “helmet of remembrance” honoring athletes killed since Russia’s invasion. The IOC cited Rule 50, which states “no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted.” An IOC spokesperson said: “It’s not the message, it’s the place that counts.” The decision has reignited debate over contested claims of Olympic neutrality, athletes’ political expression, and what it means for speech to be “political” in the first place.

Internet takedowns remain a contentious issue in India

India has amended its IT Rules to require platforms to label and trace deepfakes and comply with government takedown orders within “as little as two to three hours.” Companies that fail to act risk losing safe harbor protections. Officials claim the changes are necessary to combat deceptive AI content, but critics warn the compressed timelines leave little room for human review and may pressure platforms to over-censor lawful speech.

And comedian Kunal Kamra is challenging the government’s Sahyog portal, which is intended to streamline online content takedowns, calling it an “assault on free speech.” Kamra argues the portal enables removals on “wholly vague grounds” and threatens “the free flow of information.”

Elsewhere, a sedition complaint was filed in Maharashtra after a school event allegedly featured a Pakistani patriotic song. The complainant described the performance as “anti-national,” and authorities launched a probe.

More political censorship across Asia

• West Bengal Police arrested activist Amit Nandi — over a minor joke. Nandi posted on social media that a traffic warning against drunk driving said “don’t drink cars and drive alcohol.”

• Indonesian comedian Pandji Pragiwaksono is also facing a police report over jokes in his Netflix special. Fellow comedians defended him, arguing that “funny is funny” despite backlash and legal risk.

• A Thai court extended a man’s prison sentence for insulting the monarchy to a shocking 50 years under Thailand’s lese majeste law. Rights groups note that hundreds have been charged under Section 112 in recent years and argue the statute is routinely used to suppress dissent. Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Commission has also recommended lifetime political bans for 44 former Move Forward Party lawmakers for proposing amendments to the lese majeste law. The commission claims the lawmakers failed to uphold Thailand’s constitutional monarchy.

• Malaysian police launched a defamation probe into a Bloomberg report concerning anti-corruption chief Azam Baki’s shareholdings. Authorities said the article is “suspected of containing defamatory statements.” Azam stated he has “nothing to hide” and is “confident that the truth will prevail.”

• Separately, Malaysian police also arrested 19 individuals, including rally coordinator Zamri Vinoth, ahead of an unauthorized rally under the Sedition Act Section 505(b) of the Penal Code, and the Communications and Multimedia Act. Police also detained three men in North Klang for allegedly posting “seditious” TikTok content related to the rally.

• Pakistan’s Lahore High Court set aside the death sentence of Col. (R) Muhammad Arif in a blasphemy case, finding insufficient evidence and flaws in the original trial’s handling of the facts. At the same time, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said the government is intensifying efforts to curb blasphemy-related content online, a frequent target of censorship efforts from Pakistani officials.

Journalism remains under threat worldwide

A new global press freedom roundup warns that despite a slight drop in the number of jailed journalists worldwide, repression remains severe. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 330 journalists were detained and 127 media workers were killed in 2025. The report highlights conflict zone killings in Gaza, prolonged internet blackouts in Iran, and digital censorship in Pakistan, underscoring a global decline in conditions for independent journalism.

Press freedom issues have already surfaced this year, too. Journalist Pellagia Mupurwa was detained under Zimbabwe’s cyber crime statute for allegedly “transmitting false messages with the intent to cause harm.” Police messages reportedly included the phrase “we are hunting you.” Charges were later withdrawn, but press freedom groups say the case illustrates how vague cybercrime laws intimidate journalists.

Last week, anti-Israel activist group Palestine Action won a victory in the courts as the High Court of Justice in London declared the government’s 2025 ban on the group disproportionate and unlawful.

Subscribe now

The ruling could have major implications for free expression in the United Kingdom given how widely and aggressively the ban on Palestine Action was imposed last year. Ultimately, the ban wasn’t just about the group itself or its conduct but a much broader range of speech about the group — all enforced under anti-terror legislation.

The group was banned in July under the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000 after members broke into Brize Norton, an airbase hosting a Royal Air Force station, and vandalized military planes with red paint because the “aircraft can be used to refuel and have been used to refuel Israeli fighter jets.” Activists involved with the group were also accused of causing damage to an Israeli defense and technology company’s headquarters and spray-painting the Ministry of Defence building in 2024.

Vandalism is, quite obviously, not protected speech. But talking about or even expressing general support for groups that have engaged in alleged criminal activity is not the same as engaging in that criminal activity. That’s just, well, speech. UK police didn’t see it that way, though.

In the weeks and months after the ban was instituted, widespread protests regularly popped up in London and other cities in favor of the group and in opposition to the ban. London’s Metropolitan Police immediately acted to arrest protesters, making clear that “expressing support for” a proscribed group “is a criminal offence.” At one point the Metropolitan Police even posted to X, “We have significant resources deployed to this operation. It will take time but we will arrest anyone expressing support for Palestine Action.”

And they meant that quite literally. Since last summer, at least 2,787 people have been arrested for expressing support for the group, many for holding signs reading “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.”

The arrests even reached more oblique references to the group and speech about speech about the group. A man who held up a magazine cover about the arrests of protesters holding up pro-Palestine Action signs was arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, as was a man who held up a sign of a political cartoon — legally available for sale in a Private Eye magazine — that criticized the ban on Palestine Action. Another woman claimed she was arrested for holding a sign that didn’t express support for the group but just said, “I do not support the proscription of Palestine Action.” And late last month, London police arrested two people for holding a banner supporting Palestine Action but activist groups have said the banner was specifically obscured so it did not read “We are all Palestine Action.”

Put simply, treating this kind of basic political speech as a terror offense is incompatible with a free society — but in many ways the UK has been looking less and less like one these days. Excessive, pervasive, and widespread policing of speech online and off has, unfortunately, become the rule rather than the exception.

We’ll find out soon whether the ruling about Palestine Action will signal a change in the UK but for now some uncertainty remains. The court left the ban in place until the government has time to appeal, which it intends to do. “I am disappointed by the court’s decision and disagree with the notion that banning this terrorist organisation is disproportionate,” Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said of the ruling. “The proscription of Palestine Action followed a rigorous and evidence-based decision-making process, endorsed by parliament. The proscription does not prevent peaceful protest in support of the Palestinian cause, another point on which the court agrees.”

Metropolitan Police, which conducted most of the arrests in relation to expression of support for the group, admitted it is in an “unusual” position given that the ban was ruled unlawful but will remain pending appeal. Police will “continue to identify offences where support for Palestine Action is being expressed, but they will focus on gathering evidence of those offences and the people involved to provide opportunities for enforcement at a later date, rather than making arrests at the time.”

So, for the time being, expressing support for Palestine Action is essentially Schrödinger’s speech crime.

FIRE’s Free Speech Dispatch covers new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.

More under-16 bans and Spain’s threat of criminal liability for tech executives

Spain and Greece are moving toward banning teenagers from social media, following a line of other nations considering the same. But that’s not all. In a speech earlier this month in Dubai, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said that CEOs of platforms like X and TikTok “will face criminal liability for failing to remove illegal or hateful content.” Sánchez also promised, among other things, to “turn algorithmic manipulation and amplification of illegal content into a new criminal offense” and to “go after” the actors who create that content “as well as after the platforms whose algorithms amplify the disinformation for profit.” In the United States, Section 230 protects platforms from civil liability for user-generated speech. While Section 230 does not provide protection against federal criminal prosecution, the First Amendment stops the government from making content (and its distribution) illegal just because the government thinks it false or harmful.

Subscribe now

X faces raids and threats of bans in Europe

Problematic regulation of online speech and the tech platforms that host it, and the threats of further action like the ones described above, are a common feature in the Free Speech Dispatch given the alarming frequency with which they occur. Last year, French prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into Elon Musk’s X over allegations that the platform’s algorithm and data extraction policies violated French law. Last week, that investigation intensified as prosecutors’ cybercrime unit raided X’s Paris office for alleged offenses including Holocaust denial material, which is illegal in France, and sexualized deepfakes of real people, including minors, generated by the platform’s AI chatbot Grok. Obviously the latter allegation is one that carries legal implications in the United States as well, unlike Holocaust denial, which is protected by the First Amendment. As FIRE’s John Coleman explains, “federal criminal law prohibits knowingly making or sharing child sexual abuse material involving actual children, whether it is created by a camera or with the assistance of AI.” But as FIRE warned when the UK threatened a ban on X earlier this year, countries must seek a careful approach to challenges posed by AI and social media: “Free nations that claim to honor the expressive rights of their citizens must recognize that mass censorship is never an acceptable approach to objectionable content or illegal conduct.” Threats to ban a platform entirely are neither careful nor justified.

For publishing a newspaper, Jimmy Lai will die in prison

The sentence is in. Media mogul Jimmy Lai has been sentenced to 20 years in prison under Hong Kong’s oppressive national security law. Along with others who were sentenced to terms six to 10 years for their involvement, Lai was targeted for running Apple Daily, a pro-democracy newspaper critical of Hong Kong and Chinese authorities. Chief Executive John Lee said this week that Lai used the paper to “poison the minds” of Hong Kong. Lai is 78 years old and has suffered declining health in the five years he has already spent in custody. A 20-year sentence will very likely mean that he dies in prison.

Australian states expand authority to crack down on speech about Israel and Gaza

Queensland is moving to criminalize the public use of phrases including “from the river to the sea” and “globalise the intifada” under sweeping new hate speech laws introduced in response to the Bondi terror attack. The proposed legislation would make it an offense to distribute, display, or recite proscribed phrases when intended to cause “menace, harassment or offence,” carrying penalties of up to two years in prison.

And in New South Wales, hate speech rules now cover staff at more than 3,000 government, independent, and Catholic schools across the state, giving regulators the power to discipline or dismiss teachers for alleged hate speech even when it occurs outside the classroom or on social media, and without waiting for a criminal charge. The changes were fast-tracked after the Bondi Beach shooting that killed 15 people, with the government framing the move as necessary to protect students and social cohesion. Teachers and civil liberty groups warn the vague standards could chill classroom discussion of Gaza and Palestine.

China perfectly illustrates dangers of UN’s cybercrime treaty

China’s proposed Cybercrime Prevention and Control Law bill isn’t just about fraud and scams. It also targets “‘spreading fake news and fabricated information’ and publishing information that ‘goes against public order and accepted social morals to gain traffic or advertising revenue.’” That’s what one might also call a censorship bill. And this inclusion of online speech disfavored by the government under the umbrella of “cybercrime” is exactly why FIRE warned that the cybercrime treaty considered by the United Nations, and adopted by 72 member states last year, posed a serious threat to global free speech.

Also in China, two independent journalists in southwestern China were detained after publishing an online report alleging corruption by a local official, highlighting the risks of investigative reporting in the country. Authorities accused Liu Hu and Wu Yingjiao of making “false accusations,” detained them, and removed their article from WeChat.

India widens speech controls through courts, police, digital regulation

In India, restrictions on expression continue to emerge across multiple fronts, from judicial warnings and police detentions to sweeping proposals for online regulation.

The Karnataka High Court questioned a Kannada television channel over a comedy show episode that allegedly portrayed Hindu gods in a derogatory way, stating that “freedom of speech cannot be used as a shield to hurt religious sentiments.” While granting interim protection from arrest, the court emphasized that creative expression is subject to “reasonable limits,” particularly where religion is concerned. Separately, UK-based YouTuber and doctor Sangram Patil was reportedly detained at Mumbai’s airport over social media posts critical of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

At the national level, India’s central government is drafting new IT Digital Code Rules to regulate online content through age ratings, parental controls, and restrictions on obscenity and incitement. Officials have framed the proposal as a way to “protect minors” while balancing free expression, but the rules’ broad standards could expand state control over lawful speech and encourage platforms to over-censor to avoid penalties.

Nepal’s proposed film censorship threatens queer storytelling

In Nepal, queer filmmakers and rights advocates say proposed film censorship rules would require all moving images, including festival screenings, to undergo government approval. Advocates warn the policy would severely restrict artistic freedom and LGBT storytelling. The Film Censorship Board and the Ministry of Information and Communication have temporarily held the policy from enforcement, but could enact it at any time.

Filmmakers say the proposal, combined with social pressure and police interference, could eliminate remaining spaces for films addressing gender identity and sexuality. One advocate warned that the rules would make it nearly impossible for queer filmmakers to “exist publicly at all.”

Pakistan escalates digital repression and blasphemy enforcement

A Pakistani court sentenced prominent human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband to 17 years in prison over social media posts deemed “anti-state,” including charges of cyber terrorism and spreading false information. Mazari’s arrest over anti-blasphemy law posts sparked protests and strikes in Islamabad, with demonstrators calling her detention “judicial harassment” and demanding her release. Pakistani police arrested Mazari and fellow human rights lawyer Hadi Ali Chattha without a warrant, despite a court order granting relief from arrest.

At the same time, rights groups report an increasing use of fabricated digital evidence in blasphemy cases, disproportionately affecting religious minorities. Against this backdrop, two Christian nurses, Mariam Lal and Newosh Arooj, were acquitted of blasphemy charges after more than four years. Advocates called the ruling “rare,” noting that trial courts in Pakistan seldom dismiss blasphemy cases due to extremist pressure.

UK expands crackdown on protests about Israel and Gaza

Pro-Palestinian activist and former Cornell PhD student Momodou Taal alleges UK police detained him for six hours at Heathrow Airport under the Terrorism Act 2000 to ask about his personal history and political views. Taal, whose devices were seized by police, said the stop was “political intimidation” tied to his opposition to the war in Gaza.

London police arrested two people at a protest for supporting the proscribed group Palestine Action after officers spotted a banner linked to the organization. As FIRE has explained in previous entries, Palestine Action was banned under anti-terrorism laws for damaging military planes in a protest. Simply expressing verbal “support” for the group can also result in an arrest under the same legislation. Activist groups have claimed, though, that the banner was specifically obscured so it did not read “We are all Palestine Action.”

Veteran rights campaigner Peter Tatchell was also detained at a separate London protest after displaying a placard reading “globalise the intifada.” The UK’s two largest police forces announced late last year that they would begin making arrests over phrases they say cause “increased fear in Jewish communities.”

Attacks on art and culture in Russia, Cuba, Egypt

• In Russia, comedian Artemy Ostanin was sentenced to nearly six years in prison after being convicted of inciting hatred over a joke about a legless war veteran.

• In Cuba, rapper Fernando Almenares Rivera, known as Nando OBDC, was sentenced to five years in prison for painting banners with pro-human rights slogans, which authorities classified as propaganda against the constitutional order.

• In Egypt, poet Ahmed Douma was briefly arrested and interrogated over social media posts criticizing prison abuses. Rights groups say the case fits a pattern of repeated investigations and bail demands used to silence dissent.

Repression beyond borders, from the United States to the Middle East

Two journalists from Italy’s public broadcaster RAI were threatened by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents while reporting on immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis, an incident that sparked concern among Italian officials about press freedom. Italian politicians warned that the confrontation was unacceptable, with one lawmaker saying it was a “very serious episode that risks intimidating journalists who are simply doing their job,” and calling on authorities to ensure reporters can work “without threats or interference.”

Across the Atlantic, a UK High Court ordered Saudi Arabia to pay more than 3 million British pounds in damages to London-based dissident Ghanem al-Masarir after finding the kingdom responsible for hacking his phones with Pegasus spyware and carrying out a physical attack against him. The court concluded that Saudi authorities were behind a “serious and unlawful interference” with al-Masarir’s rights, marking a rare judicial acknowledgement of transnational repression and a setback in Saudi Arabia’s efforts to change the global conversation about its human rights abuses.

FIRE’s Free Speech Dispatch covers new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.

Subscribe now

Iran escalates repression as protests spread

A familiar pattern of state repression has unfolded as mass protests spread in Iran. Authorities escalated their response through lethal force, mass arrests, communication blackouts, and the threat of executions. Demonstrations that began in late December over inflation and a collapsing currency quickly evolved into nationwide protests challenging the rule of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei more broadly. Death tolls are as of yet unclear, with different sources reporting numbers so far in the range from 6,000 to 12,000 to 30,000, and the exact number will likely be difficult to discern given widespread censorship. Security forces have also conducted thousands of arrests across all provinces.

So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

Ep. 262: Escaping Iran

The demonstrations in Iran have been met with mass arrests, internet restrictions, and even accusations of murder. While large-scale demonstrations appear to have subsided for now, reporting from Iran describes a tense calm, a heightened security presence, and widespread “disappointment and disillusionment” among Iranians…

Listen now

3 months ago · 20 likes · 4 comments · Nico Perrino and Pouya Nikmand

As unrest intensified, Iran imposed a near-total internet shutdown, cutting off roughly 90% of connectivity while preserving selective access for government officials and state-linked platforms. The blackouts, combined with fast-track trials and the possible use of capital punishment (including in the case of detained protester Erfan Soltani), may continue to oppress the Iranian people for some time.

Uganda employed similar tactics. Authorities cut nationwide internet access days before a presidential election this month, citing “misinformation” concerns as Yoweri Museveni sought a seventh term. The shutdown, which disrupted mobile money systems and opposition organizing, mirrors a broader global trend in which governments leverage digital control, emergency powers, and legal threats to contain political opposition at moments of vulnerability; often at the expense of free expression and public accountability.

Australia expands hate speech powers and counter-extremism laws after Bondi attack

Australia is moving forward with plans to significantly expand hate speech and counter-extremism laws following the Bondi Beach mass shooting, pledging tougher penalties, new criminal offenses, expanded visa cancellation powers, and a framework to target what it deems extremist organizations.

In legislation that passed last week, the government now has new powers to “list so-called hate groups, more easily deport or cancel the visas of individuals associated with hate groups, increase penalties for hate crime offences, and create new aggravated penalties for hate preachers and leaders who advocate violence.” It also includes a “new aggravated offence for adults who seek to radicalise children.” A provision addressing “promotion or incitement of racial hatred” was ultimately dropped from the legislation.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said Australia’s leadership “would have liked the laws to be even stronger,” but has nevertheless passed “the strongest hate laws Australia’s ever had.” The Greens, a left-wing political party, objected to the legislation on the basis that it would “silence legitimate criticism of foreign nations undertaking human rights abuses.” Attorney General Michelle Rowland did not make clear every group that would be targeted, though she listed the National Socialist Network and Hizb ut-Tahrir, but said “there are a number of other factors that would need to be satisfied” other than accusations that Israel is committing genocide. The bill’s many critics, however, remain unconvinced.

After the Dec. 14 Bondi Beach mass shooting that killed 15 people during a Hanukkah celebration, New South Wales leaders also moved to tighten laws on hate speech, protests, and firearms, including a push to ban “globalize the intifada” chants. Indeed, a 53-year-old woman was detained in Sydney this month for wearing a jacket reading “globalise the intifada.” She alleges that she was wrongly arrested, and that police claimed the slogan was unlawful — but could not cite any specific law. She was released without charge.

UK to crack down on chants deemed antisemitic

In the United Kingdom, Britain’s two largest police forces, the Metropolitan Police Service and Greater Manchester Police, announced a more assertive approach to policing antisemitism during protests. Officials plan to make arrests over certain chants and slogans, like “globalize the intifada,” that they say cause “increased fear in Jewish communities,” even if those chants have previously fallen short of prosecution thresholds.

But in other news, UK police leaders are advocating scrapping most non-crime hate incidents, arguing that the system has expanded too far and drawn officers into monitoring online disputes that do not meet the threshold for criminal behavior. FIRE has repeatedly raised concerns about the chilling effects of sending police to investigate legal speech, not crime — and recent incidents in Miami Beach and Perry County, Tennessee show that we should be worried about this policing of online speech here in the United States too.

Religious speech, blasphemy, and buffer zones

• A retired Northern Ireland pastor, Clive Johnston, will stand trial on charges that he violated abortion buffer zone laws by preaching a gospel sermon near Causeway Hospital in Coleraine. The UK’s buffer zone laws have been under scrutiny from anti-abortion activists including Rose Docherty, arrested last year for holding a sign that read “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want” outside Queen Elizabeth University Hospital.

• In Poland, the justice ministry plans to amend its blasphemy laws so that people convicted of “offending religious feelings” can no longer be sentenced to prison, following a European Court of Human Rights ruling that the law violated free expression. The proposal would keep the offence but limit penalties to fines or community service. More reform is needed, but it’s nevertheless a positive development for free speech.

• Elsewhere, blasphemy laws continue to be enforced harshly. A Pakistani court in Chiniot sentenced an Ahmadi community member to life imprisonment under blasphemy statutes, alongside a concurrent three-year sentence, over alleged altered Quran translations.

• And in Bangladesh, a Hindu factory worker, Dipu Chandra Das, was lynched and set on fire following blasphemy allegations. A rights group documented 71 blasphemy-linked incidents targeting Hindus in Bangladesh between June and December 2025, involving arrests, mob violence, vandalism and multiple deaths.

L.A. Chinese Consulate guard maces protesters

In Los Angeles, a security guard hired by the Chinese Consulate was arrested after pepper-spraying pro-democracy protesters who were peacefully demonstrating to celebrate the U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro. One of the men, who required medical attention, said the guard asked him, “Are you enjoying it?,” after spraying him.

Hong Kong’s censorship silences film, too

In Hong Kong, authorities banned the latest film by director Kiwi Chow, citing national security concerns. Chow said the film was a fictional thriller and not explicitly political, but believes his past work placed him under heightened scrutiny. The government “determined that it was ‘contrary to the interests of national security’… But how?” Chow said. “Nobody gave an explanation.”

Separately, four films were removed from the Hong Kong Film Award’s contenders list without explanation, despite appearing to meet eligibility rules. Industry figures suspect the exclusions may be linked to politically sensitive cast or crew members, raising further censorship concerns.

Europe promises new app W as competitor to X

European-led social media platform W was previewed last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos to address the “urgent need for a new social media platform built, governed and hosted in Europe” with “verification, free speech and data privacy at its core.” As our FIRE colleagues Greg Lukianoff and Adam Goldstein have pointed out, if “W is meant as just another alternative to X, and Europeans are free to use either platform as they see fit, then W might merely be a bad idea: a platform seemingly designed solely to comply with a complex array of European nations’ terrible free speech laws, each one more restrictive than the last.”

But given the threats to ban X and other regulation of social media platforms, there is a risk this will not compete, but dominate. And “given how willing European states are to jail their citizens for online speech, users should be cautious about speaking on a platform where anonymity is impossible.”

Pressure on media from South Korea to Venezuela

• South Korea’s National Assembly passed legislation allowing courts to impose heavy punitive damages on news outlets and large online platforms for disseminating “false or fabricated information,” despite warnings from journalists groups that the law could enable censorship. Supporters in President Lee Jae Myung’s Democratic Party say the bill is needed to combat disinformation, but critics argue its vague standards and steep penalties risk chilling investigative reporting and criticism of those in power.

• A report by Free Speech Collective documented 14,875 instances of free speech violations in India in 2025, including 117 arrests, widespread censorship, internet shutdowns, and the killing of eight journalists. The study said journalists were disproportionately targeted through arrests, harassment, legal action, and violence, while raising concerns about expanding state and regulatory controls over media academia, online platforms, and film certification.

• In Venezuela, at least 14 journalists were detained after the removal of Nicolás Maduro, with authorities confiscating phones and equipment and restricting reporting, though most were later released. Press groups warned the actions reflect a broader pattern of intimidation and criminalization of journalism under charges often used to suppress independent media.

Online speech, platforms, and youth access

• Roblox now requires users worldwide to verify their age through facial or ID checks to access chat features. Unverified users may still play but cannot chat.

• The dominoes from Australia’s ground-breaking — and troubling — social media age-gating law continue to fall. Now France is proposing a ban on social media access for children under 15 by September, backed by President Emmanuel Macron, citing risks such as exposure to “inappropriate content,” cyberbullying, and disrupted sleep.

• In its submission to a consultation for UK regulator Ofcom, Google warned new proposed measures to the Online Safety Act risked encroaching on users’ free speech. (Now where would Google get that idea…) Among the proposals were requirements for platforms to monitor and possibly hide “potentially” illegal content.

10 sentenced for ‘cyberbullying’ France’s first lady

A Paris court found 10 people guilty of cyberbullying France’s first lady for online posts “suggesting that Brigitte Macron was transgender and a pedophile.” One defendant received a six-month prison sentence (which may be served at home), others got suspended sentences, and all were ordered to attend cyberbullying awareness training and pay damages. Macron’s lawyer said of the sentencing, “what is important is that there are immediate cyberbullying awareness trainings, and for some of the defendants, a ban on using their social media accounts.”

Hate speech laws expand in India

Lawmakers in the Indian state of Karnataka have passed a bill criminalizing hate speech — expression “causing disharmony or enmity” — with penalties including fines and prison sentences of up to seven years. An opponent of the bill accused Karnataka’s government of “taking away people’s right to speech guaranteed by the constitution, and putting leaders of opposition and the media behind bars.”

This essay was originally published in The Washington Examiner on Jan. 14, 2026.

If the Islamic Republic of Iran has its way, the news you read and the social media you follow won’t show the truth of the shocking events happening right now within the country. A mass internet shutdown orchestrated by the government this month is threatening to silence expression from courageous Iranians, at least 12,000 of whom are now dead at the brutal hands of the state, who are fighting back against their oppressors.

Subscribe now

Protesters took to the streets in late December 2025, furious over out-of-control inflation, empty shelves, and the country’s dire economic situation. Protesters’ outrage is not just limited to the economy, with widespread sentiment among demonstrators against the regime and its conduct more broadly. Some of the rhetoric echoes that from the 2022 protests against the theocratic government after the death of Mahsa Amini, arrested and then killed by police for violating the country’s mandatory religious dress code for women.

Though censorship on the part of the government has made an exact analysis of the breadth and turnout of the protests difficult, reports indicate these protests are massive — and spreading. Demonstrators took to the streets in every province, reportedly turning out in at least 185 cities.

Earlier in the protests, authorities promised a $7 monthly payment to residents in an attempt to paper over rising dissent. That effort failed. And the authorities’ tone — and behavior — has since swiftly grown more hostile.

Attorney General Mohammad Movahedi Azad warned that “charges against all rioters are the same,” regardless of whether they “are individuals who have helped rioters and terrorists in the destruction and damage of public security and property, or mercenaries who have taken up arms and caused fear and terror among citizens.” Judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei promised that the state’s response would be “decisive, maximum and without any legal leniency.” Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has likewise made clear that he will not tolerate these challenges to his power, calling the movement terroristic and “mercenaries for foreigners.”

Punishment for detained protesters may ultimately include the death penalty. These are not idle threats. Iran shocked the global human rights community last year with its spike in executions. By September, authorities had already executed over 1,000 people in 2025.

And protesters are already paying the price. Authorities arrested at least 10,000 demonstrators, and thousands upon thousands have lost their lives. Doctors report a gruesome scene at hospitals from security forces “shooting from rooftops and terraces” rather than “on the street where people can see and run away.” In northern Iran, a morgue and hospital were so full that the “bodies were placed on top of one another.” And another horrific relic from the Mahsa Amini protests is resurfacing: hundreds of patients in Tehran “with pellets lodged in their eyes,” intentionally blinded by authorities.

But Iran isn’t just using brute force to escalate the crackdown on its people. It’s also deploying a repressive tactic that’s become increasingly common: suppression of the tools government critics use to broadcast their message on a mass scale. Authorities’ ultimate aim is to limit what their subjects can say — and what the rest of the world can know about it.

Starting on Jan. 8, the Iranian government enforced a suffocating internet blackout on the country, with a shocking 90% drop in traffic within 30 minutes after the ban began. These blackouts are a favorite tool of the regime; the government enacted blackouts in 2019 and 2022, too, to limit the spread of protesters’ words and also global attention on security forces’ violence against them. But experts warn this latest one represents a “new high-water mark” of online censorship in the country in its breadth and precision.

Iranian authorities have maintained their own internet access and ability to post on platforms such as X and Telegram while cutting off their people’s ability to do so. This suggests that the blackout is “more sweeping, but also appears to be more fine-tuned, which potentially means Tehran will be able to sustain it for longer.” In some places, authorities have even managed to inhibit access to Elon Musk’s Starlink system. Residents are experiencing a total cutoff of cellphone reception.

Iran isn’t alone in using this tactic against its people. Last year marked the most severe year yet for internet shutdowns, with researchers tracking nearly 300 disruptions and blackouts in dozens of nations. India, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Russia stood among the worst offenders. “As internet access becomes consistently weaponized, restricted, and precarious, we are seeing pervasive patterns of crushing censorship and an urgent need for greater accountability,” Access Now cautioned.

If the early days of this year are any sign of what’s to come, 2026 may prove to be yet another repressive one. “This might be for the long haul,” Doug Madory, a researcher of internet blackouts, told the Guardian regarding Iran’s censorship. “I’ve been doing this for a while, and I think it’s going to be a big one.”

The killings, censorship, and shutdowns sweeping Iran are a tragedy and a warning bell. But they also signal a small spark of hope to the world’s oppressed: Authoritarians would not work this hard to silence you if they believed you were powerless. This is always the case with censorship. The more aggressively an authoritarian attempts to crack down, the more it advertises its weakness and its fear.

The responsibility now rests on the rest of the world to make sure we’re doing all we can to listen — and to fight for the future of a free internet. That future hangs in the balance, with new threats every day, from every sector.

Authoritarian regimes such as Iran, Russia, and China all exert varying degrees of vast power upon the internet, whether in outright blocks or technologically complex systems that place immense firewalls between their people and the rest of the world.

But even freer democracies are trying their hand at alarming and illiberal tech regulation, from Australia’s privacy-threatening and speech-chilling social media age-gating to the recent, and ripe for abuse, United Nations Cybercrime Treaty, and the United Kingdom’s byzantine Online Safety Act. Indeed, because the content itself depicts violence — which is simply the nature of what Iran’s people are suffering — the Online Safety Act may even hinder U.K. citizens, young and old alike, from accessing information on the internet about what’s happening in Tehran. Censorship does not make the British safer. It just makes them ill-informed.

Here in the United States, we are not immune from these threats either, from jawboning to unconstitutional state and federal legislation, which all too often receive support from across the political aisle. That has to change.

As we advocate a freer future for Iran’s protesters, we also need to protect on a global scale the tools they need to share their story with the rest of the world.

The future of freedom depends on the internet. We must start acting like it.

Last year, FIRE launched the Free Speech Dispatch, a regular series covering new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.

For challenging the CCP, Jimmy Lai may spend the rest of his life behind bars

The result press freedom and human rights advocates feared has arrived: 78-year-old media tycoon, Chinese Communist Party critic, and Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai was found guilty in Hong Kong this week. After five years in detention, much of it in solitary confinement, a West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court found him guilty of sedition and collusion with foreign forces on Monday morning.

Subscribe now

He will be sentenced at a later date. Lai, who has suffered deteriorating health amidst his detainment, may very well die in prison.

Authorities launch censorship campaign after Hong Kong’s tragic Wang Fuk Court fire

It’s a page straight out of the authoritarian playbook: Censorship after a crisis to protect the interests of the state from the fallout. Unfortunately, authorities in Hong Kong are not straying away from this strategy. In the aftermath of a deadly residential fire that took at least 159 lives, some of those who have spoken out about the tragedy are now themselves at risk. Hong Kong officials warned they would punish those who “exploit” the tragedy and threatened foreign media against “spreading false information, distorting and smearing the government’s disaster relief and aftermath work” or “provoking social division and opposition.”

Miles Kwan, a university student, started a petition calling for “four big demands” including more regulation, investigation, and assistance to displaced residents after the fire. His position caught the attention of authorities, but not in the way he’d hoped — Kwan was quickly arrested on sedition charges. Other arrests followed, including of a solicitor who intended to speak at a pre-emptively canceled press conference about the fire and a former district councillor. Hong Kong Baptist University suspended the campus student union and “blocked from sight by tall barriers” a union notice board featuring messages about the fire. Separately, authorities also charged a man with sedition for encouraging others on social media not to vote in the latest “patriots only” election.

Proposed Trump admin policy could make self-censorship a condition of entry for tourists

Last week, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced its intention to impose a new policy on tourists from dozens of countries that do not require visas for short visits to the country. Under the proposal, tourists will have to provide five years of social media history in their Electronic System for Travel Authorizations applications, just so they can visit Yellowstone or Disney. Tourists will no doubt worry that their travel plans could be disrupted over years-old tweets and social media commentary.

“Requiring temporary visitors here for a vacation or business to surrender five years of their social media to the U.S. will send the message that the American commitment to free speech is pretense, not practice. This is not the behavior of a country confident in its freedoms,” FIRE warned in response. Keep an eye out for a forthcoming formal comment from FIRE on the matter.

China’s censorship targets underground pastors — and the global internet

After dozens of arrests, 18 leaders of the underground Zion Church were charged with “illegally using information networks,” which can result in up to three years in prison. The church is not sanctioned by the government.

Meanwhile, Chinese tech conglomerate Tencent is reportedly abusing trademark claims to pressure U.S. based cloud hosting service Vultr to halt operations of FreeWeChat, a censorship watchdog tool run by GreatFire.org. FreeWeChat monitors censorship on WeChat, Tencent’s immensely popular social app. After months of back and forth over Tencent’s allegations, Vultr issued “a formal 30-day notification of termination of services.” FreeWeChat has moved to another hosting provider, but expects the new one to face similar threats.

Prosecutors seek to reverse important UK free speech victory

In October’s Free Speech Dispatch, I celebrated the overturning of Hamit Coskun’s conviction for burning a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London. But that victory, a rare one in the UK these days, may be short-lived.

Late last month, the Crown Prosecution Service appealed the Southwark Crown Court’s ruling in favor of Coskun, where Justice Joel Nathan Bennathan said that free expression “must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb.” The CPS asserts that Quran burning itself is not a criminal act but Coskun “demonstrated hostility towards a religious or racial group, which is a crime.”

“Our case remains that Hamit Coskun’s words, choice of location and burning of the (Quran) amounted to disorderly behaviour,” CPS said in a statement. “We have appealed the decision, and the judge has agreed to state a case for the High Court to consider.” The CPS may be claiming this doesn’t amount to a restriction on blasphemous expression, but the UK’s National Secular Society rightly worries that “CPS seems determined to establish a blasphemy law by the back door.”

Meanwhile, former Premier League player Joey Barton was found guilty of 6 out of 12 counts of sending grossly offensive electronic communications with intent to cause distress or anxiety, earning a suspended prison sentence over a series of social media posts. In them, Barton attacked commentators Eni Aluko and Lucy Ward, calling them “the Fred and Rose West of football commentary,” a comparison to a notorious serial killer couple, and photoshopped their faces onto the Wests in a photo.. In another post he said Aluko was “only there to tick boxes” and because of DEI and affirmative action. Barton also called another broadcaster a “bike nonce” and implied he had been on Jeffrey Epstein’s island.

Trump minimizes Jamal Khashoggi murder, transnational prosecutions, and other press freedom news

• Last month, President Trump welcomed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the Oval Office — and berated an ABC journalist in the room who asked about MBS’s role in the gruesome murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. “You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that,” Trump said to the journalist, and called Khashoggi “extremely controversial.” Trump also said of Khashoggi, “Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen, but he [gesturing toward Mohammed] knew nothing about it and we can leave it at that.” U.S. intelligence previously confirmed MBS’s involvement in ordering the killing.

• After Trump’s repeated threats to sue the BBC in U.S. courts for its edits to his Jan. 6, 2021 speech, FCC Chair Brendan Carr announced an investigation targeting the BBC. In a letter to NPR and PBS, which sometimes broadcast BBC material, Carr said he sought “to determine whether any FCC regulations have been implicated by the BBC’s misleading and deceptive conduct.” And this week, Trump did indeed file his suit against the BBC in Florida, seeking $10 billion in damages — yet another frivolous lawsuit filed by the president.

• Vietnamese police are targeting a journalist over his reporting — and he doesn’t even live in Vietnam. Authorities have issued an order to prosecute and arrest Berlin-based Le Trung Khoa for “making, storing, spreading information, materials, items for the purpose of opposing the state.”

• Malaysian authorities are also pursuing a transnational prosecution, with the assistance of Thai courts. Australian academic and Thai resident Murray Hunter will go on trial this month in Thailand on criminal defamation charges over Substack posts about Malaysia’s internet regulator. He could face a fine or up to two years imprisonment.

• American right-wing journalist Andy Ngo is suing the UK’s Guardian News and Media for libel over its description of Ngo as an “‘alt-right’ agitator” in a Mumford and Sons album review.

• Bianet editor Tuğçe Yılmaz is facing charges of “insulting the Turkish nation, the state of the Republic of Turkey, and its institutions and organs” for her reporting on Armenian youth today and their relationship to the Armenian genocide.

• Turkish police arrested a man, and the YouTuber who interviewed and broadcast him, over a poem the man read that prosecutors claim insulted President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and “incit[ed] hatred among the public.”

• British musical duo Bob Vylan are suing Irish public broadcaster RTÉ for defamation, alleging that RTÉ defamed the duo in a report calling the band’s “death, death to the IDF” chant at this summer’s Glastonbury music festival “anti-Semitic.”

American writer in Germany receives another visit from police

Berlin-based American writer CJ Hopkins, whose prosecution FIRE covered last year, is in trouble with authorities again. Hopkins says Berlin police arrived at his home on the morning of Nov. 26 and proceeded to interrogate him and his wife and seize his computer. He is apparently facing new charges over the “publication and distribution” of his book The Rise of the New Normal Reich: Consent Factory Essays, Vol. III (2020-2021). The cover art of the book, which showed a swastika and medical mask, was the root of Hopkins’ previous legal trouble. He had posted the image to social media to compare European COVID policies to Nazism and was charged with “disseminating propaganda.”

Tech censorship news from Australia, India, Russia, and more

• Reddit is challenging Australia’s age restrictions on social media, citing the country’s free expression protections, and the application of that ban to the message forum. Australia’s government is digging in, though. Health Minister Mark Butler, who promised to “fight this action every step of the way,” said, “It is action we saw time and time again by Big Tobacco against tobacco control and we are seeing it now by some social media or big tech giants.”

• The under-16 social media bans are spreading. Following Australia’s lead, the Malaysian government is planning for a system of age verification to limit social media access to people 16 and older. Denmark and Norway are pursuing similar plans.

• Due to privacy and security concerns, Apple said it would not comply with an order from the Indian government to require its phones to automatically come with Sanchar Saathi, a cybersecurity app the government says addresses phone theft. The pushback was successful — the government shortly after announced it was rolling back its mandate to phone manufacturers.

• Claiming to combat “content that can negatively impact the spiritual and moral development of children,” particularly LGBT content, Russian media regulator Roskomnadzor cut off access to the popular online game platform Roblox.

• Italian YouTube channel Parabellum, which has covered Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, also says it’s received warnings from Roskomnadzor, particularly over its map of operations within Ukraine. Parabellum analyst Mirko Campochiari shared that he received an order from a Russian court to “remove information prohibited in the Russian Federation, to block traffic from Russia to the map, and to notify the Russian authority of the censorship carried out.”

Award-winning director Jafar Panahi sentenced in absentia

Iranian director Jafar Panahi was sentenced in absentia to a year in prison by a Tehran court for “propaganda activities against the system.” Panahi is also subject to a two year travel ban. Panahi filmed It Was Just an Accident, which recently received the Palme d’Or at Cannes, “clandestinely in Iran following a seven-month stint in prison.”

Last year, FIRE launched the Free Speech Dispatch, a regular series covering new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.

Yet another university erodes academic freedom to appease Beijing

In August, I released Authoritarians in the Academy, my book about the relationship between higher education, authoritarian regimes, and the censorship that internationalization has introduced into colleges and universities. And this month, an investigation released by The Guardian provided a perfect example of how this influence and censorship play out, in this case in the UK.

Subscribe now

Earlier this year, Sheffield Hallam University told professor Laura Murphy, whose work the university had previously touted, to abandon her research into Uyghurs and rights abuses in China. The ban ultimately lasted for eight months until the school reversed course and issued an apology in October after Murphy threatened legal action. The Guardian reports that “the instruction for Murphy to halt her research came six months after the university decided to abandon a planned report on the risk of Uyghur forced labour in the critical minerals supply chain.”

There are multiple alleged reasons for the university’s decision to disavow research critical of the CCP, but they all boil down to fear of legal or financial retaliation from the same government at the center of academics’ investigations. Murphy suggested that Sheffield Hallam was “explicitly trading my academic freedom for access to the Chinese student market.” And this is a real challenge among university administrations today: fear that vindictive governments will punish noncompliant universities by cutting off their access to lucrative international student tuition.

Another likely reason was a warning from Sheffield Hallam’s insurance provider that it would no longer cover work produced by the university’s Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice after a defamation suit from a company named in its research. The HKC has raised the ire of Chinese government officials before, leading to a block of Sheffield Hallam’s websites behind the Great Firewall. Regarding the ill will between CCP officials and the HKC, a university administrator wrote that “attempting to retain the business in China and publication of the [HKC] research are now untenable bedfellows” and complained of the negative effects on recruitment in the country, which looks to have suffered.

Most disturbing was a visit Chinese state security officials conducted in 2024 to the university’s Beijing office, where they questioned employees about the HKC’s research and the “message to cease the research activity was made clear.” An administrator said that “immediately, relations improved” when the university informed officials the research into human rights abuses would be dropped.

The university’s apology and reversal may not spell the end of the story. A South Yorkshire Police spokesperson suggested that, because of potential engagement with security officials in China, Sheffield Hallam may face investigation under the National Security Act related to a provision on “assisting a foreign intelligence service.”

NYC indie film festival falls victim to transnational repression

One of the most common misconceptions about free expression today is that nations with better speech protections are immune from the censorship in less free countries. Case in point: New Yorkers hoping to attend the IndieChina Film Festival, set to begin on Nov. 8, could not do so because of repression in China.

Organizer Zhu Rikun said relentless pressure necessitated the cancellation of the event, with film directors in and outside China telling him en masse that they could not attend or requesting their films not be shown. Human Rights Watch also reports that Chinese artist Chiang Seeta warned that “nearly all participating directors in China faced intimidation” and even those abroad “reported that their relatives and friends in China were receiving threatening calls from police.”

Zhu, whose parents and friends in China are reportedly facing harassment as well, thought it would “be better” after moving to the U.S. “It turns out I was wrong,” he said.

Worrying UN cybercrime treaty nets dozens of signatures, with a notable exception

Late last month, 72 nations including France, Qatar, and China signed a treaty purportedly intended to fight “cybercrime,” but that leaves the door open for authoritarian nations to use it to enlist other nations — free and unfree — in their campaign to punish political expression on the internet. As I explained last year as the proposal went to the General Assembly, among other problems, the treaty fails to sufficiently define a “serious” crime taking place on computer networks other than that it’s punishable by a four-year prison sentence or more.

You might see the immediate problem here: Many nations, including some who ultimately signed on to the treaty, regularly punish online expression with long prison terms. A single TikTok video or an X post that offends or insults government officials, monarchs, or religious bodies can land people around the world in prison — sometimes for decades.

Despite earlier statements of support from a representative for the United States on the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime, the U.S. ultimately did not sign the treaty and “is unlikely to sign or ratify unless and until we see implementation of meaningful human rights and other legal protections by the convention’s signatories.”

That’s not all. There’s plenty more news about speech, tech, and the internet:

• New amendments to Kenya’s Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act are worrying activists in the country, including one that grants the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee authority to block material that “promotes illegal activities” or “extreme religious and cultic practices.”

• Influencers, beware: the Cyberspace Administration of China released new regulations requiring social media users publishing material on “sensitive” topics like law and medicine to prove their qualifications to do so. Platforms will also be required to assist in verifying those qualifications.

• The much-maligned Online Safety Act continues to create new concerns for free expression in the UK. TechRadar reports that regulatory body OfCom is “using an unnamed third-party tool to monitor VPN use,” one likely employing AI capabilities. VPN use is, to no surprise, spiking in the UK in response to mandated age-checks under the online safety regulations.

• Brazil is employing a new AI-powered online speech monitor to collect material from social media and blogs that can be used for prosecution of hate speech offenders in the country. Hate speech convictions can result in serious punishment in Brazil, like the one levied against a comedian sentenced to over eight years for offensive jokes this year.

• The European Union Council’s “Chat Control” proposal to scan online communications and files for CSAM appears to be moving forward. The latest proposal removes the obligation for service providers to scan all material but encourages it to be done voluntarily. However, the text of the proposal allows for a “mitigation measure” requiring providers deemed high risk to take “all appropriate risk mitigation measures.”

• Apple and Android removed gay dating apps from their app stores in China after “an order from the Cyberspace Administration of China.” A spokesperson for Apple said, “We follow the laws in the countries where we operate.”

• India has somewhat narrowed the scope of its vast internet takedown machine, limiting the authority of those who can demand platforms block material to officials who reach a certain rank of power. Those ordering removals will now also be required to “clearly specify the legal basis and statutory provision invoked” and “the nature of the unlawful act.”

• Chief Minister Siddaramaiah of the Indian state Karnataka is threatening a new law against misinformation that will punish those “giving false information to people, and disturbing communal harmony.”

• Swiss man Emanuel Brünisholz will spend ten days in prison next month after choosing not to pay a 600 Swiss francs fine from his incitement to hatred conviction. Brünisholz’s offense was this 2022 Facebook comment: “If you dig up LGBTQI people after 200 years, you’ll only find men and women based on their skeletons. Everything else is a mental illness promoted through the curriculum.”

• A Spanish court acquitted a Catholic priest of hate speech charges after a yearslong investigation into his online criticisms of Islam, including a 2016 article, “The Impossible Dialogue with Islam.”

• Continuing its widespread censorship of what it deems “gay propaganda” or “extremist” material, Russian media regulator Roskomnadzor banned the world’s largest anime database last month. Roskomnadzor blamed the block on MyAnimeList’s content “containing information propagating non-traditional sexual relations and/or preference.”

• Singapore plans to roll out a new online safety commission with authority to order platforms to block posts and ban users and to demand internet service providers censor material as well. Initially, it intends to address harms like stalking but will eventually also target “the incitement of enmity.”

• South Sudan’s National Security Service released comedian Amath Jok after four days in detainment for insulting President Salva Kiir on TikTok, who she called “a big thief wearing a hat.” But Jok isn’t out of the woods yet. Authorities have indefinitely banned her from using social media.

South Korea seeks to punish expression targeting other nations

In response to controversial protests against China, a Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker is pushing for legislation to punish those who “defame or insult” countries and their residents or ethnic groups. The bill would punish false information with fines and prison terms up to five years, and “insulting” speech with up to a year.

That effort garnered support this month when President Lee Jae Myung said that “hate speech targeting specific groups is being spread indiscriminately, and false and manipulated information is flooding” social media. He called it “criminal behavior” beyond the bounds of free expression.

Media censorship from Israel to Kyrgyzstan to Tunisia

• The BBC has apologized to President Trump over “the manner” in which a clip of his speech on Jan. 6, 2021, was edited to give “the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action,” but notes that its UK-aired “Trump: A Second Chance?” program was not defamatory. It remains unclear whether Trump will still follow through on his threat to file a suit against the British outlet, but in earlier comments he claimed to have an “obligation” to do so.

• By a vote of 50 to 41, Israel’s Knesset passed the first of three steps in the approval of the Law to Prevent Harm to State Security by a Foreign Broadcasting Authority, which would give authorities permanent power to shut down and seize foreign media they deem “harmful” without needing judicial review or approval.

• A BBC journalist and Vietnamese citizen who returned home to renew their passport has not been allowed to leave the country for months. The journalist was reportedly held by police for questioning about their journalism.

• Thai activist Nutthanit Duangmusit was sentenced to two years for lèse majesté for her part in conducting a 2022 opinion poll to “gauge public opinion about whether they agree with the King being allowed to exercise his authority as he wishes.”

• A Kyrgyz court’s ruling declared two investigative media outlets as “extremist,” banned them from publishing, and made distribution of their work illegal.

• Investigative outlet Nawaat received a disturbing surprise from Tunisian authorities on Oct. 31: a notice slipped under their office door without even a knock, warning them to suspend all activities for a month.

Tanzanian police warn against words or images causing “distress”

In response to protests over President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s reelection, Tanzanian authorities issued a disturbing warning to the country: text messages or online posts could have serious consequences. The mass text sent to Tanzanian residents warned, “Avoid sharing images or videos that cause distress or degrade someone’s dignity. Doing so is a criminal offense and, if found, strict legal action will be taken.”

Hundreds have indeed been charged with treason, including one woman whose offense was recommending that protesters buy gas masks for protection at demonstrations.

Masih Alinejad’s would-be killers sentenced to 25 years in prison

In 2022, journalist and women’s rights activist Masih Alinejad was the target of an Iran-coordinated assassination plot that culminated in a hit man arriving outside her New York home with an AK-47. Late last month, two men were sentenced for their involvement in the attempt. The men, Rafat Amirov and Polad Omarov, were handed 25 years each in a Manhattan federal court. Regarding the verdict, Alinejad said: “I love justice.”

Ailing novelist granted pardon from Algerian president

Some parting good news: Boualem Sansal, an 81 year-old French-Algerian novelist who is suffering from cancer, has been granted a presidential pardon after serving one year of a five year sentence. Sansal was arrested late last year and convicted of undermining national unity and insulting public institutions. His humanitarian pardon from Algerian president Abdelmadjid Tebboune comes after months of advocacy from European leaders.