{ "generated": "2026-07-23", "version": 1, "license": "CC BY 4.0 — georank.place Free Speech Gap dataset. Pre-review draft; see methodology.", "meta": { "component_weights": { "a1": 1.5, "a2": 2, "a3": 1.5, "a4": 1.5, "a5": 1.5, "a6": 1.5, "a7": 1, "a8": 1 }, "signal_weights": { "b1": 2.5, "b2": 2, "b3": 1.5, "b4": 1, "b5": 1, "b6": 1 }, "tiers": { "open": "<20", "broadly_free": "20–39", "constrained": "40–59", "restricted": "60–79", "repressive": "80+" }, "bands": [ "none", "civil", "criminal_dormant", "criminal_enforced", "severe" ], "scenarios": [ "govt-critic", "insult-politician", "religion", "immigration-debate", "lgbt-content", "journalism", "protest-organizing", "criticize-business", "monarchy-head-of-state", "anonymous-account" ], "formulas": { "protection": "100 × Σ(score·w) / Σ(10·w) over verifiable components", "enforcement": "max(volume, severity): volume = per-capita official stats, log-scaled vs fixed reference, capped at 85 (measured volume alone never exceeds an imputed severe regime); severity = worst cited scenario band (none 0 · civil 10 · dormant 25 · enforced 65 · severe 95) + 5 per additional enforced scenario", "opacity_rule": "confidence D → E* = max(E, 100 − P); rendered hatched", "gap": "G = P + E* − 100", "risk": "R = 0.45·(100−P) + 0.55·E*" } }, "countries": { "ae": { "country": "United Arab Emirates", "protection": 6, "enforcement": 95, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 95, "enforcement_effective": 95, "gap": 1, "tier": "repressive", "risk": 95, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 1, "summary": "UAE Constitution Art. 30 guarantees freedom of opinion and expression 'within the limits of the law' — an open-ended legislative proviso rather than an enumerated set of carve-outs. Art. 33 similarly qualifies assembly rights 'within the limits of the law.' There is no independent constitutional court hearing individual free-expression petitions; the Federal Supreme Court's constitutional jurisdiction is confined to inter-emirate/inter-branch disputes. Nominal guarantee, not judicially enforceable in practice by individuals.", "citations": [ { "ref": "UAE Constitution (1971, as amended) Art. 30", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_Arab_Emirates_2004" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 0, "summary": "Penal Code (Federal Decree-Law 31/2021) Art. 183: insulting, offending, or injuring the reputation or prestige of the President carries imprisonment of not less than 15 and not more than 25 years plus a fine — among the most severe official-insult penalties of any country in this dataset. Art. 184: insulting/injuring the reputation, prestige, or standing of the State, any of its authorities, establishments, or founding leaders, or the national flag, anthem, or other national symbols, carries up to 5 years' imprisonment and a fine of up to AED 500,000. Actively enforced: see the insult-politician scenario (Ahmed Mansoor, 15-year sentence as of 2025).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Federal Decree-Law No. 31 of 2021 (Penal Code / Crimes and Penalties Law) Arts. 183–184", "url": "https://uaelegislation.gov.ae/en/legislations/1529" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 2, "summary": "Penal Code Arts. 425–427 criminalise qazf (publicly imputing a fact to a person capable of subjecting him to punishment or contempt — up to 2yr/fine) and ordinary insult (up to 1yr/fine); both are aggravated (up to 2yr, higher fines) when directed at a public official acting in that capacity. Art. 428 provides a truth defence only where the defamed person is a public official and the imputed fact relates to the office or service — there is no general truth defence in ordinary private disputes. Arts. 429–430 give narrow litigation-privilege and good-faith-reporting defences. No victim-complaint precondition to prosecution was found (unlike Germany's Antragsdelikt model), so the public prosecution can act unprompted.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Federal Decree-Law No. 31 of 2021 (Penal Code) Arts. 425–430", "url": "https://uaelegislation.gov.ae/en/legislations/1529" } ] }, "a4": null, "a5": null, "a6": { "score": 0, "summary": "Extensive, overlapping criminalisation of political/security speech. Penal Code Art. 181: attempting to overthrow the regime by force — death penalty. Art. 188: founding, joining, or supporting any association aiming to overthrow the regime, subvert the Constitution, or 'oppose the basic principles upon which the regime of the State is based' — death or life imprisonment. Art. 189: merely 'promoting by word or writing' those same objectives — 15–25yr. Art. 215: using information-technology systems to publish information/news or incite acts that endanger state security or public order — temporary imprisonment. Art. 217: disseminating false/malicious news or 'disruptive propaganda' — 1yr minimum, rising to 2yr minimum if it incites public opinion against a State authority. Federal Decree-Law 34/2021 (Combatting Rumours and Cybercrimes) duplicates and extends this online: Art. 20 (inciting overthrow of the regime or suspension of the Constitution via a website — life imprisonment) and Art. 52 (spreading false news/rumours online that disturb public peace or harm the public interest — min. 1yr, min. 2yr during declared crises). No violence nexus is required for the core offences.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Federal Decree-Law No. 31 of 2021 (Penal Code) Arts. 181, 188–189, 215, 217", "url": "https://uaelegislation.gov.ae/en/legislations/1529" }, { "ref": "Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021 (Combatting Rumours and Cybercrimes) Arts. 20, 52", "url": "https://uaelegislation.gov.ae/en/legislations/1526" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 1, "summary": "Prosecution of defamation/insult offences is not conditioned on a victim complaint (no private-prosecution gate), so the public prosecution can pursue speech cases unprompted. Statutory defences are narrow: Penal Code Art. 428's truth defence applies only where the defamed party is a public official and the imputed fact concerns the office; Arts. 429–430 provide only a litigation-privilege and a good-faith-reporting defence. There is no general public-interest/opinion defence and no anti-SLAPP mechanism in the Penal Code or the Cybercrimes Law, and no jury for these offences. Documented pre-trial detention in speech-related cases (see govt-critic, insult-politician scenarios) is consistent with this narrow statutory framework.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Federal Decree-Law No. 31 of 2021 (Penal Code) Arts. 428–430", "url": "https://uaelegislation.gov.ae/en/legislations/1529" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 0, "summary": "Federal Decree-Law 34/2021 gives both courts (Art. 59: closing/blocking violating websites) and administrative authorities (Art. 62: 'competent authorities' issue writs to correct, disable, or block access to illegal content; Art. 66: the Attorney General may block sites carrying criminal content) blocking power, with the administrative track requiring no judicial order and only a 3-working-day appeal window (Art. 63). Art. 53 imposes statutory content-removal duties/fines on platforms. Federal Decree-Law 55/2023 on Media Regulation extends government licensing requirements to online media activity. Combined administrative-blocking-plus-licensing regime.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021 (Combatting Rumours and Cybercrimes) Arts. 53, 59, 62–63, 66", "url": "https://uaelegislation.gov.ae/en/legislations/1526" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": null, "lese_majeste": true, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Defamation and Lèse-Majesté Provisions (Article numbers unverified)", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Mansoor" }, "note": "Ahmed Mansoor detained 2011 for criticizing government on opposition blog, initially pardoned; re-arrested March 2017 for social media posts deemed false and threatening public order. Sentenced March 2018 to 10 years + 1M AED fine; sentence increased to 15 years July 2024; appeals rejected March 2025. Still imprisoned." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "UAE Lèse-Majesté Provisions (15-25 years for insulting President/Crown Prince)", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Mansoor" }, "note": "Ahmed Mansoor's 2011 arrest cited charges of 'breaking UAE law of defamation by insulting heads of state' (President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Vice President Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan). Current 15-year sentence reflects enforcement of this provision as of March 2025." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific religious speech restrictions identified, though government blocks anti-Islamic content broadly." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific restrictions on immigration speech identified." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No speech-specific LGBT restrictions identified via statute, though homosexual conduct is criminalized under separate provisions." }, "journalism": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Defamation and Online Content Restrictions", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates" }, "note": "Journalist Bassma al-Jandaly detained at airport June 2005 after publishing article on criminal investigation, placed on travel ban by Sharjah police for allegedly interfering with investigation. Released after ministry intervention but case shows use of defamation charges against journalists." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific speech-based protest organizing restrictions identified." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Defamation Provisions", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Mansoor" }, "note": "Defamation laws (up to 5 years) could apply to business criticism; Ahmed Mansoor case shows application to institutional criticism." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "UAE Lèse-Majesté Law (15-25 years imprisonment for insulting President)", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lèse-majesté" }, "note": "Insulting President carries 15-25 years; Crown Prince insult similarly penalized. Ahmed Mansoor sentenced to 15 years (as of March 2025) for 2011 blog posts and 2017 social media criticizing these officials. Penalties among highest globally for this offense." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Cybercrime Laws and TRA Administrative Powers", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates" }, "note": "Government monitors online activists and journalists using sophisticated technology. VPN usage declared unlawful (March 2015), limiting anonymous access. Authorities can block VoIP services (Skype, WhatsApp calls) and track users. Ahmed Mansoor's arrest via social media accounts demonstrates enforcement." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Data confidence is C (low-moderate) for specific statute articles. User indicated Federal Decree-Law 34/2021 (cybercrime) Articles 20-28 and Article 176 Penal Code (insulting rulers), but specific articles could not be verified through available sources.", "Lèse-Majesté provisions (15-25 years for insulting President/Crown Prince, 5 years for defaming state authorities) are well-documented and actively enforced.", "Ahmed Mansoor case (2011 arrest → March 2018 conviction: 10 years → July 2024 increase: 15 years → March 2025 appeals rejected) provides confirmed enforcement data from last 10 years. Mansoor remains imprisoned.", "UAE internet censorship is among most restrictive globally; Freedom House rated 24/100 internet freedom (2023).", "Components not verifiable: a4, a5" ] }, "al": { "country": "Albania", "protection": 64, "enforcement": 52, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 52, "enforcement_effective": 52, "gap": 16, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 45, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Constitution Art. 22 guarantees freedom of expression, freedom of press/radio/television, and prohibits prior censorship. Art. 23 guarantees right to information about state activity. Restrictions under Art. 17 are permissible only when established by law, serve genuine public interest or protect others' rights, remain proportionate, and conform to ECHR standards. Judicially enforceable via Constitutional Court and (as EU candidate state) ECtHR access.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of the Republic of Albania, Arts. 17, 22, 23", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Albania_2008" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 8, "summary": "Criminal Code Art. 119 (Insult): 'deliberate insult of the person constitutes a penal misdemeanour' punishable by fine only (50,000-1,000,000 ALL; 50,000-3,000,000 ALL if public/repeated/multiple victims) — no imprisonment on the face of the current text. Enhanced offences that specifically protected officials — Art. 239 (Insulting a public official on duty), Art. 240 (Defamation toward a public official on duty), and Art. 241 (Defamation toward the President of the Republic) — were each abrogated by Law 23/2012, confirmed directly against the consolidated Criminal Code (footnotes 10-12: 'Abrogated with law 23/2012'). No enhanced protection for officials or the presidency remains on the books; a separate, narrower Art. 119/b criminalises online insult motivated by ethnicity/nationality/race/religion (up to 2yr), which is a hate-crime-type provision, not a general-official-dignity one.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania, Art. 119 (as consolidated 2013)", "url": "https://adsdatabase.ohchr.org/IssueLibrary/ALBANIA_Criminal%20Code.pdf" }, { "ref": "Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania, Arts. 239-241 (abrogated by Law 23/2012)", "url": "https://adsdatabase.ohchr.org/IssueLibrary/ALBANIA_Criminal%20Code.pdf" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 8, "summary": "Criminal Code Art. 120 (Defamation): 'intentional dissemination of talks... knowing that they are false, that injure the honour and dignity of the person' is a penal misdemeanour punishable by fine only (50,000-1,500,000 ALL; up to 3,000,000 ALL if public/repeated) — falsity known to the speaker is a definitional element (functioning as a truth defence), and no imprisonment is available on the current text. The 2012 reform (Law 23/2012) also removed the public prosecutor's role in these cases, leaving them privately prosecuted only. Not scored higher because Albania retains a criminal (rather than purely civil) track for defamation and lacks an anti-SLAPP statute (Albania's government has only begun, as of 2024-2025, work to align with the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive ahead of EU accession).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania, Art. 120 (as consolidated 2013)", "url": "https://adsdatabase.ohchr.org/IssueLibrary/ALBANIA_Criminal%20Code.pdf" } ], "note": "Anti-SLAPP gap per SCiDEV Center working paper: https://scidevcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Working-paper_Initial_Assessment_Anti_SLAPP_AL_SCiDEV.pdf" }, "a4": { "score": 9, "summary": "No standalone blasphemy or religious-insult (speech) offence identified in the Criminal Code. Art. 132 ('Destructing or damaging places of worship') and Art. 130 ('Obstructing the activities of religious organizations') are property/conduct offences, not content-based blasphemy provisions — the previous coding of this component conflated Art. 132 with a blasphemy law, which it is not. Art. 119/b (online insult motivated by religion, among other grounds) protects individuals from insult because of their religion; it does not criminalise insulting or mocking religion/belief itself. Corrected from an earlier score of 3.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania, Arts. 130, 132 (as consolidated 2013)", "url": "https://adsdatabase.ohchr.org/IssueLibrary/ALBANIA_Criminal%20Code.pdf" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 3, "summary": "Criminal Code Art. 265 ('Inciting hate or disputes' on grounds of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, including mere preparation/dissemination of such writings) carries 2-10yr imprisonment with no explicit violence nexus required. Art. 266 ('Calls for national hatred', endangering public peace by calling for hatred/insulting or defaming a population group or requesting force/arbitrary action against them) carries 2-8yr. Both are broad group-denigration-type offences usable without a demonstrated likelihood of violence, with substantial custodial exposure.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania, Arts. 265, 266 (as consolidated 2013)", "url": "https://adsdatabase.ohchr.org/IssueLibrary/ALBANIA_Criminal%20Code.pdf" }, { "ref": "OSCE hate crime legislation portal (supplementary)", "url": "https://hatecrime.osce.org/hate-crime-legislation-albania" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 5, "summary": "Criminal Code Arts. 222-225 criminalise calls to take up arms / public calls for violence / founding or re-founding organisations that intend to violently overturn the constitutional order, and distributing their writings/symbols — narrow, requiring a violent-overthrow nexus or affiliation with a banned organisation, fine or up to 3yr (Art. 222 itself: 5-10yr, being armed-command-takeover specifically). Separately, Art. 267 ('Propagating false information for panic') criminalises spreading false information/news 'in order to incite a state of insecurity or panic in people' — fine or up to 5yr imprisonment — a broad, opinion-adjacent false-news offence not requiring any violence nexus, which pulls the overall score down from where the narrower Arts. 222-225 alone would place it.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania, Arts. 222-225, 267 (as consolidated 2013)", "url": "https://adsdatabase.ohchr.org/IssueLibrary/ALBANIA_Criminal%20Code.pdf" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 4, "summary": "Art. 120's falsity element functions as a truth defence, and the 2012 reform (Law 23/2012) removed both imprisonment and the public prosecutor's involvement from Arts. 119-120, leaving them privately prosecuted (no custodial pre-trial detention risk given fines-only penalties). However, this private-prosecution trigger is documented as actively abused: per IFEX (2026), 'in the overwhelming majority of cases, criminal lawsuits have not been initiated by ordinary citizens seeking protection from defamation, but by politicians, high public officials, and companies' with economic power, and 'dozens of journalists and media outlets... have been dragged through the country's criminal courts' over the past decade. No anti-SLAPP statute exists to dismiss such suits early (EU Anti-SLAPP Directive alignment work only began 2024-2025). Net: no custodial exposure, but an unrestrained private-prosecution mechanism with no early-dismissal safeguard.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania, Arts. 119-120 (as amended by Law 23/2012)", "url": "https://adsdatabase.ohchr.org/IssueLibrary/ALBANIA_Criminal%20Code.pdf" } ], "note": "Enforcement pattern per IFEX, 'Why defamation should be fully decriminalised in Albania' (2026): https://ifex.org/why-defamation-should-be-fully-decriminalised-in-albania/" }, "a8": { "score": 6, "summary": "Law No. 9918/2008 'On Electronic Communications in the Republic of Albania' Art. 15(e) allows general-authorisation conditions restricting content transmission where it 'violates the legal framework' — a broad, framework-enabling hook rather than a detailed takedown mandate. In practice, the regulator AKEP blocks specific illegal-content categories (e.g., 343 online gambling sites ordered blocked in 2019 following a gambling ban) typically on request from another competent public authority (prosecutor, court, or regulator with legal competence), not via independent content judgment. A far more sweeping package — amending the Law on Audiovisual Media (draft Art. 132, permitting AMA/AKEP to instantly block media sites for content that 'may abet' child pornography/terrorism/national-security breaches) plus mandatory online-media registration — passed Parliament in December 2019 but was vetoed by President Meta in January 2020 and abandoned after Venice Commission and OSCE criticism; it never entered into force. No real-name or user-ID mandate was identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law No. 9918, dated 19.05.2008, 'On Electronic Communications in the Republic of Albania', Art. 15", "url": "https://www.informatica-juridica.com/anexos/legislacion-albania-law-no-9918-2008-of-19-05-2008-electronic-communications-in-the-republic-of-albania/" } ], "note": "Could not locate an official Albanian-government-portal mirror of Law 9918/2008 in this research pass; used a legal-text repository mirror. The failed 2019-2020 Audiovisual Media Law amendment (never in force) is documented via Balkan Insight/IFJ reporting: https://balkaninsight.com/2020/01/13/president-turns-down-albania-controversial-anti-defamation-law/" } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "blasphemy_law_note": "Confirmed false. No blasphemy/religious-insult offence in the Criminal Code; Arts. 130 and 132 are conduct/property offences (obstructing religious organisations; damaging places of worship), not insult-of-religion provisions. Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania, Arts. 130, 132: https://adsdatabase.ohchr.org/IssueLibrary/ALBANIA_Criminal%20Code.pdf", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No anti-state-opinion, sedition, or general false-news-for-critics offence reaches plain political criticism. Art. 267 (propagating false information to cause panic) could theoretically apply to false factual claims causing insecurity, but requires that specific intent/effect, not mere criticism." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code, Arts. 119-120", "url": "https://adsdatabase.ohchr.org/IssueLibrary/ALBANIA_Criminal%20Code.pdf" }, "note": "IFEX (2026) documents that criminal insult/defamation suits under Arts. 119-120 are overwhelmingly filed by 'politicians, high public officials, and companies' rather than ordinary citizens; a named, currently pending case (Elisabeta Imeraj, former Chief Prosecutor of Tirana, v. journalist Isa Myzyraj, filed April 2022, Elbasan Court, still in hearings as of March 2026) illustrates the pattern. https://ifex.org/why-defamation-should-be-fully-decriminalised-in-albania/" }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code, Arts. 265-266 (if religion-motivated hatred/insult of a group)", "url": "https://adsdatabase.ohchr.org/IssueLibrary/ALBANIA_Criminal%20Code.pdf" }, "note": "No standalone blasphemy offence exists (see a4). Religion-motivated hate speech against a group could fall under Arts. 265-266 or the online-insult Art. 119/b, but no prosecution/conviction example specific to religious-insult content was located in this pass." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary immigration-policy debate is not criminalised; exposure would only arise via Arts. 265-266 if speech incites hatred against a protected group, not from taking a policy position." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'LGBT propaganda' or content-restriction statute found. Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under Art. 265, meaning LGBT people are protected from incitement, not that LGBT-related speech is restricted." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code, Arts. 119-120", "url": "https://adsdatabase.ohchr.org/IssueLibrary/ALBANIA_Criminal%20Code.pdf" }, "note": "As of October 2023, 12 criminal defamation/insult cases were pending against journalists (7 initiated that year alone), per reporting cited in IFEX (2026); the Imeraj v. Myzyraj case (filed April 2022) cost the journalist defendant roughly EUR 7,000 in legal fees and 37 lost working days across 37 scheduled hearings by March 2026. https://ifex.org/why-defamation-should-be-fully-decriminalised-in-albania/" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No speech-specific criminal restriction on organizing peaceful protest identified; Criminal Code provisions on illegal ARMED assembly (in the vicinity of Arts. 262-263) require weapons/violence, not mere organizing." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code, Art. 120", "url": "https://adsdatabase.ohchr.org/IssueLibrary/ALBANIA_Criminal%20Code.pdf" }, "note": "IFEX (2026) notes companies are among the frequent filers of Art. 119-120 criminal complaints against critics/journalists generally; no citation specific to a business-criticism case (as opposed to political-official or general-journalism cases) was located, so coded dormant rather than enforced pending a more specific example." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Albania is a republic; head of state is the President. The dedicated presidential-defamation offence (former Art. 241) was abrogated by Law 23/2012. The President is now covered only by the same general Arts. 119-120 regime as any other person (see insult-politician for enforcement pattern generally, though no citation specific to a presidential case was found)." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name registration or mandatory-ID statute for online speech/accounts was identified in the sources consulted." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Primary research base for the Criminal Code in this pass: the OHCHR-hosted consolidated English text (2013, incorporating Law 23/2012 amendments and footnoted abrogations), cross-checked against secondary reporting (IFEX, Balkan Insight, EFJ, SCiDEV) for currency and enforcement context. Recommend a human editor verify against the official Albanian Official Gazette (Fletorja Zyrtare) or parliament.al for any amendments after 2013 not reflected in that consolidated text.", "Corrected two likely errors from the prior coding pass: (1) a4 was scored 3 based on Art. 132, a place-of-worship destruction/property offence unrelated to blasphemy speech — corrected to 9 (no standalone blasphemy law found); (2) a2/a3/a7 were previously null despite Arts. 119-120 and their 2012 amendment (Law 23/2012) being identifiable and well-documented in secondary legal literature — now scored with primary-text citations.", "As of late 2025/early 2026, a Parliamentary Committee on Media has been considering full decriminalisation of Arts. 119-120; a partial-decriminalisation package limited to 'registered journalists' was reportedly adopted 27 January 2026. This file reflects the law as of 2026-07-23; re-verify a2/a3/a7 and the insult-politician/journalism scenarios once that reform's final, in-force text is confirmed.", "A7/a8 could not be tied to an official Albanian-government-portal citation (parliament.al or Fletorja Zyrtare) within this research pass; secondary legal-repository and Venice-Commission/OSCE-adjacent sources were used as the best available substitute. A human editor with direct access to Fletorja Zyrtare should re-verify." ] }, "ar": { "country": "Argentina", "protection": 75, "enforcement": 10, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 10, "enforcement_effective": 25, "gap": 0, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 25, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 8, "summary": "Constitution Art. 14 guarantees the right to publish ideas via the press without prior censorship (subject to the general 'reglamentación' clause allowing regulation of the exercise of rights). Art. 32 uniquely bars the Federal Congress from enacting laws that restrict press freedom or establishing federal jurisdiction over it — a rare super-entrenchment. Art. 28 bars laws that alter constitutional rights. Judicially enforceable via the Corte Suprema and, as an IACHR member, the Inter-American Court.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of Argentina, Arts. 14, 28, 32", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Argentina_1994" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 8, "summary": "General insult (injurias, Art. 110 Código Penal) exists but is fines-only (no prison) since Ley 26.551 (2009) removed custodial penalties: 'reprimido con multa de pesos mil quinientos a pesos veinte mil.' No desacato (contempt-of-authority/official-insult) offence is in force — the word does not appear anywhere in the current in-force Código Penal text, and no enhanced-penalty provision protecting officials or institutions from insult could be located (desacato was repealed by Ley 24.198 in 1993, per the pre-existing research lead; the repeal law itself could not be independently retrieved this session, but its effect is confirmed by the absence of any such article in the current official text).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 110 (texto según Ley 26.551)", "url": "http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/15000-19999/16546/texact.htm" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 8, "summary": "Calumnia (Art. 109) and injuria (Art. 110) are criminal but fines-only ('multa de pesos tres mil a pesos treinta mil' / 'multa de pesos mil quinientos a pesos veinte mil') since Ley 26.551 (2009) removed prison terms and repealed Art. 112. Both articles now carry an explicit public-interest exemption: 'En ningún caso configurarán delito de calumnia [/injurias] las expresiones referidas a asuntos de interés público.' Art. 111 adds a truth defence where the imputed fact gave rise to criminal proceedings or the complainant requests proof of the statement. Art. 117 provides a retraction defence (exemption from penalty if the accused retracts publicly before answering the complaint). Art. 113 limits republication liability where the source is faithfully attributed.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Arts. 109-117 bis (texto según Ley 26.551)", "url": "http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/15000-19999/16546/texact.htm" }, { "ref": "Ley 26.551 (2009)", "url": "http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/160000-164999/160774/norma.htm" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious-offence provision exists in the Código Penal. The complete table of contents of Book Two (Títulos I-XIII, Arts. 79-316: crimes against persons, honor, sexual integrity, civil status, liberty, property, public safety, public order, national security, constitutional order, public administration, public faith, and the economic order) contains no title addressing religion, worship, or blasphemy.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Libro Segundo, Títulos I-XIII (table of contents)", "url": "http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/15000-19999/16546/texact.htm" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Ley 23.592 (Antidiscriminación, 1988) Art. 3 criminalises participating in an organisation or carrying out propaganda based on ideas of racial or religious superiority, and criminalises encouraging or inciting ('alentaren o incitaren') persecution or hatred against a person or group because of race, religion, nationality, or political ideas: 'prisión de un mes a tres años.' Art. 2 further enhances penalties (one-third minimum, one-half maximum) for any crime motivated by persecution or hatred toward a race, religion, or nationality, or aimed at group destruction. No violence/imminence nexus is required by the text — this is a broad group-denigration/incitement offence with a penalty ceiling of 3 years.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Ley 23.592, Arts. 2-3", "url": "http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/20000-24999/20465/texact.htm" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 7, "summary": "The Código Penal's public-order/security titles are general-application crime provisions rather than opinion or anti-dissent offences: Título VIII 'Delitos contra el orden público' (Arts. 209-213 bis: instigación a cometer delitos, asociación ilícita, intimidación pública, apología del crimen); Título IX 'Delitos contra la seguridad de la Nación' (Arts. 214-225: traición, atentados contra la existencia de la Nación); Título X 'Delitos contra los poderes públicos y el orden constitucional' (Arts. 226-236: rebelión, sedición). No desacato, no general false-news offence, and no 'discrediting the state/military' or foreign-agent-labelling provision was located anywhere in the code. No evidence of these provisions being used against political dissent or government criticism was found this session. Full article text for Arts. 209-236 could not be retrieved (the fetched source truncated before these sections), so scoring rests on verified table-of-contents headings rather than complete operative text — treated as narrow/dormant provisions pending fuller verification.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Libro Segundo, Títulos VIII-X (Arts. 209-236, headings verified; full article text not retrieved)", "url": "http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/15000-19999/16546/texact.htm" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 6, "summary": "Ley 26.551 provides strong substantive defences for calumnia/injuria (public-interest exemption, truth defence, retraction). However, Art. 73(1) Código Penal makes calumnias e injurias 'acciones privadas' — prosecutable only via private querella brought by the offended party, not by a public prosecutor; there is no public-interest gatekeeping filter before a private complaint can proceed to trial. No pre-trial detention is likely given the fines-only penalty structure, and no anti-SLAPP statute could be located. Mixed picture: strong defences once in court, but the private-prosecution trigger itself is unrestricted.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 73(1)", "url": "http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/15000-19999/16546/texact.htm" }, { "ref": "Ley 26.551 (2009)", "url": "http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/160000-164999/160774/norma.htm" } ] }, "a8": null }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No desacato, sedition, or false-news offence in force. Art. 32 of the Constitution bars Congress from restricting press freedom." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Arts. 109-110 (as amended by Ley 26.551)", "url": "http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/15000-19999/16546/texact.htm" }, "note": "Statements about a politician's public conduct fall within the public-interest exemption added by Ley 26.551, which expressly excludes such expressions from calumnia/injuria. Residual civil defamation liability may exist for false, damaging statements outside that exemption; no criminal enforcement in the last 10 years could be identified." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No blasphemy/religious-offence title exists in the Código Penal." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary policy debate is not covered. Explicit incitement to hatred/persecution of a nationality could implicate Ley 23.592 Art. 3 (1 month-3 years), but that requires incitement to hatred, not mere debate." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type LGBT-content restriction could be verified; Argentina has expanded LGBT-rights legislation (e.g., Ley 26.618, Ley 26.743)." }, "journalism": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Arts. 109-110 (as amended by Ley 26.551)", "url": "http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/15000-19999/16546/texact.htm" }, "note": "Public-interest reporting is exempted from criminal calumnia/injuria by Ley 26.551. CPJ has documented non-criminal press-freedom pressures (source-disclosure litigation, official hostility) in Argentina but no cited criminal-defamation conviction of a journalist in the last 10 years was found this session." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No speech-specific criminal restriction on organizing protest was identified; Título VIII intimidación pública (Art. 211) targets threats of public danger, not organizing per se." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Arts. 109-110 (as amended by Ley 26.551)", "url": "http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/15000-19999/16546/texact.htm" }, "note": "Business criticism of public relevance falls under the same public-interest exemption; residual civil liability may apply for knowingly false statements." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Arts. 109-110 (as amended by Ley 26.551)", "url": "http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/15000-19999/16546/texact.htm" }, "note": "Argentina is a republic; head of state is the President. No desacato/lese-majeste-type offence is in force. Criticism of the President's public conduct is public-interest speech, exempted from criminal calumnia/injuria." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name registration or mandatory-ID statute for online speech could be verified this session (a candidate law, Ley 26.032 on internet and free expression, could not be located at a working URL)." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A8 (intermediary/infrastructure mandates) left null: no NetzDG/DSA-type takedown statute or blocking-powers law could be located and verified with a working citation this session. CSJN case law (Rodríguez, María Belén c/ Google, 2014) is understood to require judicial order for search-engine delisting, but a citable primary-source URL for that ruling could not be retrieved this session.", "A6 rests on verified table-of-contents headings for Títulos VIII-X of the Código Penal (Arts. 209-236); the fetched source truncated before reproducing full article text for this range, so the exact wording/penalties of apología del crimen (Art. 213) and rebelión/sedición (Arts. 226+) are unconfirmed even though their existence and general subject matter are verified via the official portal.", "The desacato repeal (Ley 24.198, 1993) referenced in prior research could not be independently retrieved this session; its effect is corroborated by the complete absence of the term 'desacato' and of any official-insult article in the current in-force Código Penal text.", "WebSearch budget was exhausted mid-session; all Argentina verification after that point relied solely on WebFetch against the official infoleg.gob.ar portal.", "Components not verifiable: a8" ] }, "at": { "country": "Austria", "protection": 54, "enforcement": 38, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 38, "enforcement_effective": 46, "gap": 0, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 46, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Staatsgrundgesetz (StGG) 1867 Art. 13: everyone has the right to freely express opinion in speech/writing/print/image 'within the limits of law' (para. 1); press may not be censored or subjected to a concession/licensing system (para. 2). Judicially enforceable via the Verfassungsgerichtshof; Austria also gives the ECHR (incl. Art. 10) constitutional rank domestically, though that incorporation act itself was not independently re-verified in this pass.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Staatsgrundgesetz 1867, Art. 13", "url": "https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/stgg/paragraf/artikel13" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 5, "summary": "§115 StGB (Beleidigung): public insult/mockery/threat of physical mistreatment, up to 3mo imprisonment or 180 daily fines. §111 (üble Nachrede) up to 6mo/1yr (aggravated). Both are private-prosecution (Privatanklage) offences for ordinary citizens under §117(1) — but the same provision makes offences against the Federal President, National/Federal Council, state legislatures, armed forces, or state authorities prosecutable ex officio (no private complaint needed), an enhanced institutional-protection mechanism even though maximum penalties themselves are modest.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB §115", "url": "https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/stgb/paragraf/115" }, { "ref": "StGB §117", "url": "https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/stgb/paragraf/117" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 6, "summary": "§111 StGB üble Nachrede: up to 6mo/1yr (public) imprisonment or fines; truth is a complete defence ('wird ... nicht bestraft, wenn die Behauptung als wahr erwiesen wird'), and good-faith belief in truth is also a defence for the base offence. Custodial penalties available but capped well below multi-year terms, with a clean truth defence.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB §111", "url": "https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/stgb/paragraf/111" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 5, "summary": "§188 StGB (Herabwürdigung religiöser Lehren) criminalises publicly disparaging/mocking an object of veneration, doctrine, or lawful practice of a domestic church/religious society in a manner capable of causing 'justified offence' — up to 6mo imprisonment or 360 daily fines. Live and enforced: ECtHR upheld a domestic §188 conviction (a €480 fine) in E.S. v. Austria, confirming recent-decade application.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB §188", "url": "https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/stgb/paragraf/188" }, { "ref": "ECtHR, E.S. v. Austria, App. No. 38450/12 (25 Oct 2018)", "url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{\"appno\":[\"38450/12\"]}" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 4, "summary": "§283 StGB (Verhetzung): criminalises calls for violence against, or dignity-damaging insults of, a broad list of protected groups (religion/worldview, nationality, descent/ethnic origin, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation), plus approving/denying/trivialising certain crimes against such groups — up to 2yr base, 3yr if disseminated broadly, 6mo-5yr if it actually incites violence. No violence nexus required for the base insult/denigration offence, and the protected-category list is broader than most comparators.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB §283", "url": "https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/stgb/paragraf/283" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 7, "summary": "§248 StGB (Herabwürdigung des Staates und seiner Symbole) narrowly criminalises hateful disparagement of the Republic/its states or their symbols before a broad public — up to 1yr (state) or 6mo (symbols), a narrow and rarely-charged provision. §282 (public incitement to a punishable act, or public endorsement of a serious intentional crime in a way that outrages public sentiment) is a general incitement-to-crime provision, up to 2yr, not specifically targeted at political dissent.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB §248", "url": "https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/stgb/paragraf/248" }, { "ref": "StGB §282", "url": "https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/stgb/paragraf/282" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 4, "summary": "§111(3) gives a truth defence and, for the base offence, a good-faith-belief defence. But procedure is asymmetric: ordinary honour offences (§§111, 113, 115) require the victim to bring a Privatanklage (private prosecution) at their own initiative/cost, while §117(1) makes offences against the Federal President, parliament, armed forces, or state authorities prosecutable by the state ex officio — i.e. the state itself can initiate proceedings against critics of these institutions without a complaint, and §117(2) additionally lets an official's superior authorise prosecution.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB §111", "url": "https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/stgb/paragraf/111" }, { "ref": "StGB §117", "url": "https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/stgb/paragraf/117" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 5, "summary": "EU DSA applies directly; Austria designated KommAustria (housed within RTR-GmbH) as the national DSA coordinator, overseeing intermediary/platform/video-sharing-platform complaint and reporting procedures for unlawful content. The predecessor Kommunikationsplattformen-Gesetz (KoPl-G, Austria's own NetzDG-style takedown law) could not be confirmed as repealed or fully superseded in this pass. Statutory notice-and-action framework rather than pure judicial-order blocking; no ID/real-name mandate found.", "citations": [ { "ref": "RTR — Digitale Dienste / DSA coordinator", "url": "https://www.rtr.at/medien/was_wir_tun/DigitaleDienste/DigitaleDienste.de.html" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "General criticism of government policy is protected opinion under StGG Art. 13; exposure only arises from insulting specific officials/institutions (see insult-politician, monarchy-head-of-state) or state-symbol defamation (§248, dormant)." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "StGB §§111, 115, 117", "url": "https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/stgb/paragraf/117" }, "note": "The statutory exposure is confirmed (and, for insults against Parliament, ex officio), but no specific prosecution/conviction statistic or documented case from the last 10 years was located in this research pass, so this is coded dormant rather than enforced." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "StGB §188", "url": "https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/stgb/paragraf/188" }, "note": "ECtHR, E.S. v. Austria, App. No. 38450/12 (25 Oct 2018): unanimously upheld an Austrian domestic conviction and EUR 480 fine under §188 StGB for statements disparaging the Prophet Muhammad. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{\"appno\":[\"38450/12\"]}" }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary policy debate is protected; exposure only arises if speech crosses into denigration of a protected group under §283 Verhetzung (see a5)." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech or content found. Sexual orientation is itself a protected category under §283 Verhetzung (i.e. anti-LGBT incitement is criminalised, not LGBT expression)." }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No journalism-specific criminal exposure verified beyond the general insult/defamation/blasphemy/incitement provisions coded above, which apply equally to published content." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Assemblies are governed by the Versammlungsgesetz 1953 (notification-based); this pass did not independently re-verify its current text, so no citation is given, but no general criminal prohibition on organizing a peaceful protest was found." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "StGB §111", "url": "https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/stgb/paragraf/111" }, "note": "False factual claims damaging a business's reputation could in principle be charged as üble Nachrede; opinion-based criticism is unaffected. No business-criticism-specific prosecution example verified; such disputes are typically pursued civilly." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "StGB §117(1)", "url": "https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/stgb/paragraf/117" }, "note": "Insults against the Federal President are prosecutable ex officio (no private complaint required) under §117(1), a heightened institutional-protection mechanism, but no specific enforcement statistic or case from the last 10 years was located in this pass." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name/ID mandate for social media users was found. Platform account-holder data can be sought via civil disclosure in defamation/insult proceedings; not independently re-verified against a specific statute in this pass." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "The Verbotsgesetz 1947 (National Socialism prohibition act) separately and severely criminalises NS re-engagement/Holocaust denial (commonly cited penalty range 1-10, up to 20 years for aggravated cases), overlapping with the incitement/denial ground already covered by §283 StGB. Its current text could not be retrieved from an official portal in this research pass (RIS.bka.gv.at returned HTTP 503 for all query attempts) so it was not used for scoring or given a citation.", "RIS (Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes), Austria's official legal portal, was unreachable via automated fetch throughout this research pass (persistent 503); jusline.at (a legal-database mirror of the same consolidated federal statute text) was used as the citation source instead for StGB/StGG provisions." ] }, "au": { "country": "Australia", "protection": 70, "enforcement": 10, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 10, "enforcement_effective": 30, "gap": 0, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 30, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 5, "summary": "No express constitutional guarantee of free speech/expression. The High Court has derived only an implied freedom of political communication from the structure of representative government (ss.7, 24 of the Constitution) — a negative limit on legislative power, not a personal right, and confined to political/governmental matters rather than expression generally.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (no express speech clause)", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Australia_1985" }, { "ref": "Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520", "url": "http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/25.html" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 10, "summary": "No criminal insult or lese-majeste offence for officials, politicians, or the monarch/Governor-General was located in the Commonwealth Criminal Code or the Queensland Criminal Code (the codes reviewed in detail for this dataset); political criticism of officials is instead governed by the Lange-modified qualified-privilege defamation framework, not a distinct insult offence.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520", "url": "http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/25.html" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 5, "summary": "Defamation is primarily civil (uniform Defamation Acts across states/territories, truth a complete defence), but criminal defamation is retained in some states. Queensland's Criminal Code s.365 makes it a misdemeanour, max 3 years' imprisonment, to publish matter defamatory of a living person knowing it false or reckless as to truth, intending (or reckless as to) serious harm; s.365(3)-(5) gives a 'lawful excuse' wherever a civil-defamation defence (including truth) would apply. Custodial penalty available bars a higher score despite the effective truth defence.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s. 365 (Criminal defamation)", "url": "https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/inforce/current/act-1899-009" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious-insult offence located. The Queensland Criminal Code's religious-worship chapter (ch.21, ss.206-207, reviewed directly for this dataset) criminalizes assaulting ministers of religion and disturbing/obstructing worship — offences protecting the conduct of worship, not a blasphemy/religious-insult offence. Known gap: other states/territories were not individually re-verified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), ch. 21, ss. 206-207 (no blasphemy provision present in this chapter)", "url": "https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/inforce/current/act-1899-009" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 6, "summary": "Two-track regime. Federally, s.18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) prohibits, civilly, acts reasonably likely to 'offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate' on grounds of race/colour/national or ethnic origin — broad, no violence nexus, but civil (AHRC complaint/Federal Court), not criminal, and subject to s.18D exemptions for artistic, academic, fair-comment and fair-reporting purposes. Separately, some states criminalize vilification: Queensland's Criminal Code s.52A criminalizes public acts that knowingly or recklessly incite hatred/serious contempt/severe ridicule on grounds of race, religion, sexuality, sex characteristics or gender identity, but only where the act includes threatening physical harm or inciting others to threaten physical harm — i.e. a violence nexus is required — max 3 years.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) ss. 18C-18D", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00089" }, { "ref": "Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s. 52A (Serious vilification)", "url": "https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/inforce/current/act-1899-009" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 7, "summary": "No federal false-news offence, but sedition-type provisions survive in state criminal codes. Queensland Criminal Code ch.7 (ss.44-52) criminalizes seditious intention/enterprises/publication (misdemeanour, 3 years; 7 years on repeat conviction), with procedural safeguards (6-month limitation period, no conviction on uncorroborated testimony of one witness) suggesting judicial confinement; no modern prosecution identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), ss. 44-52 (Sedition)", "url": "https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/inforce/current/act-1899-009" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 6, "summary": "s.18D provides real public-interest/fair-comment/artistic defences to the RDA's civil hate-speech provision; Qld's criminal defamation and vilification offences import civil-defamation-style defences and require AG/DPP charging decisions rather than pure private complaint escalation to imprisonment. However, there is no dedicated federal anti-SLAPP statute (protection is patchy and state-based), and criminal defamation with custodial exposure remains available in some states.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) s. 18D", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00089" }, { "ref": "Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s. 365(3)-(5)", "url": "https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/inforce/current/act-1899-009" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 5, "summary": "Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) gives the eSafety Commissioner statutory removal-notice powers across multiple categories (Class 1/2 material, cyber-bullying, non-consensual intimate images, adult cyber-abuse) with defined compliance timeframes and civil penalties for non-compliance, plus 'blocking notices' for material depicting abhorrent violent conduct — a NetzDG/OSA-style statutory takedown regime with some administrative blocking, not merely judicial-order blocking.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth)", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00076/latest/text" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "General political criticism is protected under the implied freedom of political communication, Lange v ABC (1997) 189 CLR 520." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "uniform Defamation Acts (state/territory)", "url": "https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/inforce/current/act-1899-009" }, "note": "Ordinarily a civil defamation matter; truth is a complete defence. Criminal defamation (e.g. Qld Criminal Code s.365) is available in principle but requires proof of knowledge of falsity/recklessness plus intent to cause serious harm; no enforcement example against a critic of a politician within the last 10 years was found, so coded civil rather than criminal_dormant/enforced." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No blasphemy offence identified federally or in the states reviewed." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) s. 18C", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00089" }, "note": "Immigration-related commentary directed at a person or group's race/ethnicity/national origin could in principle trigger a civil s.18C complaint if reasonably likely to offend/insult/humiliate/intimidate; s.18D provides fair-comment/public-interest exemptions. General policy debate is not itself criminalized." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-style restriction on pro-LGBT expression identified. Queensland's s.52A vilification offence protects sexuality/gender-identity groups from incitement to violence rather than restricting LGBT-related speech." }, "journalism": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth)", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00076/latest/text" }, "note": "No offence attaches to journalism as such, but the eSafety Commissioner's statutory removal/blocking powers have been used against news/user footage of newsworthy violent events, as in the 2024 dispute with X Corp over Wakeley church-stabbing footage (Federal Court injunction granted 22 Apr 2024, lifted 13 May 2024 by Kennett J as unreasonable to apply globally; eSafety discontinued the Federal Court case 5 Jun 2024). Coded civil because the mechanism is a civil removal-notice/penalty regime, not a criminal offence against the journalist/publisher." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Organizing peaceful protest is generally protected; state 'anti-protest' conduct laws targeting disruptive tactics (e.g. NSW, Qld, Tas) address conduct/obstruction rather than the organizing speech itself and were not separately verified for this review (known gap)." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "Civil defamation is the ordinary route; corporations with 10+ employees generally cannot sue for defamation in Australia's uniform Defamation Acts, narrowing exposure for consumer/business criticism." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Australia's head of state is the monarch (King Charles III), represented domestically by the Governor-General; no lese-majeste offence was located. Historic common-law seditious-libel-against-the-Crown concepts are superseded by the modern statutory sedition offences (e.g. Qld ss.44-52), which are not enforced against ordinary criticism." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No general real-name/ID mandate for online accounts identified. Known gap: did not verify whether the Online Safety Act's information-gathering/investigation powers create a distinct unmasking-exposure pathway; not separately confirmed for this review." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "This review verified Queensland's Criminal Code provisions in detail (criminal defamation s.365, sedition ss.44-52, serious vilification ch.7A) as the concrete example of state-level criminal speech offences; other states/territories (NSW, WA, Tasmania, SA, Vic, NT, ACT) were not individually re-verified for equivalent or differing provisions, so the country score reflects Queensland as evidence that criminal defamation/vilification exposure exists 'in some states', not a full state-by-state audit.", "No count of how many Australian states currently retain criminal defamation was independently established (known gap)." ] }, "be": { "country": "Belgium", "protection": 59, "enforcement": 25, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 25, "enforcement_effective": 41, "gap": 0, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 41, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Art. 19: 'Freedom to demonstrate one's opinions on all matters guaranteed; offences when freedom is abused may be punished.' Art. 25: 'The press is free; censorship never introduced; no security demanded from authors, publishers, printers. When author known and resident in Belgium, publisher/printer/distributor cannot be prosecuted.'", "citations": [ { "ref": "Belgian Constitution Art. 19, Art. 25", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Belgium_2014" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 5, "summary": "Correction: ordinary criminal insult (injure, Art. 448) carries 8 days-2 months + fine -- the SAME range whether the target is a private citizen or a public official/authority-holder acting in that capacity, so Art. 448 itself is not an enhancement. The genuine officials-enhanced offence is the separate crime of 'outrage' (Arts. 275-277, verified against the live consolidated text): verbal outrage by acts/words/gestures/threats against a member of the legislative Chambers, a Minister, a Constitutional Court member, a magistrate, or an on-duty police officer carries 15 days-6 months + fine, rising to 2 months-2 years + higher fine if committed during a parliamentary session or court hearing; a broader lower tier (Art. 276: ministerial officers/public-authority agents/'persons of public character') carries 8 days-1 month. No dedicated lese-majeste/president-insult offence remains: the Law of 6 April 1847 on offences against the King (imprisonment 6mo-3yr for offending the King, 3mo-2yr for the royal family) was REPEALED IN FULL by the Law of 29 February 2024 (in force 8 April 2024) -- confirmed against the live Justel record, which shows 'ABROGE PAR: Loi du 29-02-2024'. The King therefore now has no enhanced insult protection at all; the enhancement that survives targets legislators/ministers/magistrates/police specifically, tops out at 2 years, and needs the in-session/in-hearing aggravator to exceed 6 months -- placing this below the president-insult/lese-majeste band.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Code pénal Arts. 275-277 (outrage envers dépositaires de l'autorité)", "url": "https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/loi/1867/06/08/1867060850/justel" }, { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 448 (injure)", "url": "https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/loi/1867/06/08/1867060850/justel" }, { "ref": "Loi du 6 avril 1847 portant répression des offenses envers le Roi -- abrogée par la Loi du 29 février 2024 (publiée le 8 avril 2024)", "url": "https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/loi/1847/04/06/1847040650/justel" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 4, "summary": "Criminal defamation under Arts. 444-448. Custodial penalties available (1-3 years). Truth is a defence but private prosecution can proceed regardless. No anti-SLAPP statute. Defamation of officials carries enhanced penalties.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Belgian Criminal Code Arts. 444-448", "url": "https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/loi/1867/06/08/1867060850/justel" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 9, "summary": "Belgium has no blasphemy or religious insult offence in the Criminal Code. Religious offence protections limited to incitement to hatred framework under racism law. No criminal penalties for insulting religion per se.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Belgian Criminal Code absence of blasphemy/religious insult provision", "url": "https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/loi/1867/06/08/1867060850/justel" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Law of 30 July 1981 criminalizes incitement to discrimination/hatred based on race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation. Requires intent and likelihood nexus. Law of 23 March 1995 criminalizes denial of Holocaust/Nazi crimes (negationism).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law of 30 July 1981 on Combating Racism; Law of 23 March 1995 (negationism)", "url": "https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 7, "summary": "No sedition or false-news criminal statutes targeting political speech. Political criticism and government criticism generally protected. No systematic criminalisation of political dissent.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Belgian Criminal Code general provisions", "url": "https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/loi/1867/06/08/1867060850/justel" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 4, "summary": "Private prosecution possible for criminal defamation/insult. Public interest defence exists but not robustly codified. No statutory anti-SLAPP protection. Some procedural protections for journalists but limited.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Belgian Criminal Code procedure provisions", "url": "https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/loi/1867/06/08/1867060850/justel" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 6, "summary": "Belgium subject to EU Digital Services Act (2022/2065). Takedown deadlines, notice-and-action mechanisms, risk assessment obligations. Blocking only by judicial order or DSA compliance mechanisms.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "blasphemy_law_note": "Confirmed false. No blasphemy/religious-insult offence in the Criminal Code; only incitement to hatred under the anti-racism/discrimination framework touches religion. Code penal / Strafwetboek (Belgium): https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/loi/1867/06/08/1867060850/justel", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Criticism of government per se not criminalized. Political speech generally protected under Art. 19." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 275 (outrage envers un membre des Chambres ou un Ministre)", "url": "https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/loi/1867/06/08/1867060850/justel" }, "note": "Corrected citation: Arts. 443-444 (calomnie/diffamation) are the general factual-imputation offence with no official-specific enhancement; the actual enhanced provision for insulting a Minister or member of the Chambers is the distinct 'outrage' offence (Art. 275), 15 days-6 months rising to 2 months-2 years if committed during a parliamentary session. No citable prosecution under Art. 275 against a politician in the last 10 years was found in this pass." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Law of 30 July 1981 Art. 1-2", "url": "https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/" }, "note": "Incitement to hatred based on religion criminalized. Enforcement is selective; mere offensive speech about religion not typically prosecuted." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Law of 30 July 1981", "url": "https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/" }, "note": "Anti-racism law applies to xenophobic speech but enforcement limited. Policy debate itself not criminalized." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal restrictions on LGBT expression or content. Marriage equality and civil partnerships recognized." }, "journalism": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code Arts. 444-448", "url": "https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/loi/1867/06/08/1867060850/justel" }, "note": "Journalists face civil and criminal defamation liability. Criminal prosecution less common. Press freedom protected under Art. 25." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Organizing protests is protected expression. No specific criminal offence for protest organization per se." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code Arts. 444-448", "url": "https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/loi/1867/06/08/1867060850/justel" }, "note": "Criminal defamation liability extends to business entities. Civil suits more common than criminal prosecution." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No lèse-majesté law in Belgium. Criticism of King or monarchy not specifically criminalized. General defamation/insult statutes apply but not enhanced." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "No mandatory ID requirement for online speech. Platform operators may assist authorities in identifying anonymous speakers in defamation/insult cases." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A1 verified via constituteproject.org; A8 via EUR-Lex. A2-A7 coded from training knowledge with citations to primary sources (ejustice.just.fgov.be).", "Belgium is EU member; DSA (2022/2065) applies to all intermediaries.", "Private prosecution model for defamation/insult distinguishes Belgium from common law jurisdictions.", "Official flag update: official_insult_enhanced set to true (Art. 448 enhanced penalties for attacks on Crown, Government members, Parliament)." ] }, "bg": { "country": "Bulgaria", "protection": 66, "enforcement": 25, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 25, "enforcement_effective": 34, "gap": 0, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 34, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 6, "summary": "Art. 39: Everyone may 'express an opinion or to publicize it through words, written or oral, sound or image, or in any other way' but not to derogate others' rights/reputation or incite forcible constitutional change. Art. 40: Press and mass media free, not subjected to censorship; restrictions only by judicial order in public decency/incitement cases.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Bulgarian Constitution Art. 39, Art. 40, Art. 41", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Bulgaria_2015" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 7, "summary": "Criminal Code Arts. 146-148: Art. 146 (insult) and Arts. 147-148 (defamation). Private prosecution only (no state prosecution). Fines available; custodial penalties do not exist for these offences since 2000s reforms. Truth is a complete defence for defamation. Citation repaired 2026-07-23: verified directly against the consolidated Nakazatelen kodeks text on lex.bg -- Art. 146(1) (obida) is fine-only (500-3,000 leva); Art. 148 aggravated forms (public, media, official, racist/xenophobic motive) raise the fine ceiling to 10,000 leva but remain fine-only, confirming no custodial penalty exists and no enhanced protection specific to officials-as-victims (Art. 148(1)(4) instead aggravates when the OFFENDER is an official).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Nakazatelen kodeks (Bulgarian Criminal Code) Arts. 146, 148", "url": "https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/1589654529" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 8, "summary": "Criminal defamation (Arts. 147-148) exists but fines-only (no custodial) since reforms. Truth is complete defence. Private prosecution model means state does not prosecute. Lower enforcement burden than public prosecution regimes. Citation repaired 2026-07-23: verified directly against lex.bg -- Art. 147(1) kleveta is fine-only (1,000-7,000 leva) + public reprimand; Art. 147(2) 'the actor is not punished if the truth of the disclosed facts... is proven' confirms truth is a complete statutory defence; Art. 148(2) aggravated kleveta (public/media/official/racist motive, or grave consequences) raises the fine ceiling to 15,000 leva but remains fine-only.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Nakazatelen kodeks (Bulgarian Criminal Code) Arts. 147-148", "url": "https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/1589654529" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 9, "summary": "Citation repaired 2026-07-23: the on-file WIPO Lex URL resolved to the unrelated Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, not any Bulgarian text -- replaced with the Nakazatelen kodeks (Bulgarian Criminal Code) text on lex.bg, verified to show Art. 164 directly. Characterisation and score also corrected: Art. 164 is not a blasphemy/religious-insult provision -- it criminalises (1) preaching or inciting discrimination, violence or hatred on religious grounds (up to 4yr custodial + fine, not fines-only as previously stated) and (2)-(3) desecrating/damaging a religious building, symbol or grave (up to 3yr, or up to 5yr if racist/xenophobic motive). This is a group-protection incitement offence, properly an A5 (incitement/hate-speech) matter -- a5 already cites it independently. Bulgaria has no standalone blasphemy or religious-insult offence at all (consistent with the independently-verified flags.blasphemy_law=false), so this scores near the top of the band rather than the previous mid-band 'live provision, fines or short custodial' score, which both understated the custodial exposure of Art. 164 and miscategorised it as a religious-insult provision.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Nakazatelen kodeks (Bulgarian Criminal Code), Art. 164", "url": "https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/1589654529" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 6, "summary": "Citation repaired 2026-07-23 and re-verified directly against lex.bg. Art. 162(1) is the general incitement offence: preaching or inciting discrimination, violence or hatred based on race, skin colour, descent, nationality/ethnicity or sexual orientation -- 1-4yr imprisonment + fine (5,000-10,000 leva), no violence-nexus or resulting-harm required (the incitement itself is the complete offence). Art. 164(1) mirrors this for religious grounds specifically -- up to 4yr or probation + fine. Together these cover race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation and religion, matching a broad group-denigration model rather than the narrower 'requires intent AND likelihood of violence/harm' standard previously claimed here (that description belongs to a higher band and was inaccurate for this no-violence-required offence).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Nakazatelen kodeks (Bulgarian Criminal Code) Art. 162(1)", "url": "https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/1589654529" }, { "ref": "Nakazatelen kodeks (Bulgarian Criminal Code) Art. 164(1)", "url": "https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/1589654529" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 5, "summary": "Correction 2026-07-23: the previous claim of 'no sedition or false-news criminal statutes' does not hold -- verified directly against lex.bg, Art. 108(1) NK criminalises preaching fascist or other anti-democratic ideology, or the forcible change of the constitutional order established by the Constitution, at up to 3yr/probation/fine; Art. 108(2) escalates to 1-6yr where committed by an official or via mass media/social media. This is a live, recently-strengthened (amended 2025, in force 2026) anti-constitutional-order/ideology-preaching offence with real custodial exposure -- a genuine sedition-type provision, not the absence of one. No evidence of recent prosecutions was found, but the provision's currency and penalty range place it in the 'live sedition provision with real penalties' band rather than 'no such offence'.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Nakazatelen kodeks (Bulgarian Criminal Code) Art. 108", "url": "https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/1589654529" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 5, "summary": "Private prosecution only for defamation/insult. Public interest and truth are defences. No anti-SLAPP statute. Procedural burden on private plaintiffs limits strategic litigation.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Nakazatelen kodeks (Bulgarian Criminal Code) Arts. 146-148 (truth/public-interest defence); private-prosecution nature per Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure", "url": "https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/1589654529" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 6, "summary": "Bulgaria subject to EU Digital Services Act (2022/2065). Takedown obligations, notice-and-action mechanisms. Blocking by judicial order. DSA applies to intermediaries.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "blasphemy_law_note": "Confirmed false. No blasphemy/religious-insult offence; Criminal Code Art. 164 criminalises incitement to discrimination, violence or hatred on grounds of race, nationality or religion -- a hatred/discrimination provision protecting persons, not religious doctrine. Bulgarian Criminal Code Art. 164 (per a4 citation; the on-file WIPO Lex link could not be freshly re-verified in this pass and should be re-checked by a human editor).", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Political criticism not criminalized. Art. 39 protects expression on all matters." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code Art. 146", "url": "https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/1589654529" }, "note": "Criminal insult exists; private prosecution only, rarely used against politicians." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code Art. 164", "url": "https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/1589654529" }, "note": "Incitement to hatred based on religion criminalized. Enforcement is selective." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code Art. 164", "url": "https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/1589654529" }, "note": "Art. 164 can apply to xenophobic speech but policy debate not typically prosecuted." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal restrictions on LGBT expression. No propaganda-type restrictions." }, "journalism": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code Arts. 147-148", "url": "https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/1589654529" }, "note": "Private prosecution defamation possible but rare. Journalists generally protected." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Protest organizing protected expression." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code Arts. 147-148", "url": "https://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/1589654529" }, "note": "Private prosecution defamation possible but fines-only, rarely used." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Bulgaria is constitutional monarchy. No lèse-majesté law. Criticism of King not enhanced." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "No mandatory ID requirements. Private prosecution requires identification of defendant." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A1 verified via constituteproject.org; A8 via EUR-Lex. A2-A7 coded from training knowledge with citations to WIPO Lex translation of Bulgarian Criminal Code.", "Bulgaria: EU member; DSA (2022/2065) applies.", "Distinctive feature: private prosecution only model for defamation/insult; no state prosecution (since 2000s reforms).", "Truth is complete defence for defamation (Art. 148); custodial penalties do not exist for insult/defamation." ] }, "br": { "country": "Brazil", "protection": 59, "enforcement": 72, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 72, "enforcement_effective": 72, "gap": 31, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 58, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Constitution Art. 5(IV) guarantees freedom of thought/expression but explicitly forbids anonymity ('é livre a manifestação do pensamento, sendo vedado o anonimato'). Art. 5(IX) prohibits censorship or licensing of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communication activity. Art. 5(V) guarantees right of reply proportional to the offence plus damages. Art. 5(XIV) protects journalistic-source confidentiality. Art. 5(XLII) makes racism a non-bailable, imprescriptible crime punishable by imprisonment. Judicially enforceable via the Supremo Tribunal Federal; the anonymity clause is a built-in carve-out not present in stronger-scoring constitutions.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of Brazil, Art. 5 (IV, V, IX, XIV, XLII)", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 5, "summary": "Injúria (Código Penal Art. 140) carries detenção of 1-6 months or fine — low-level on its own. But Art. 141(I) increases the penalty by one-third when the crime (calúnia/difamação/injúria) is committed against the President of the Republic or a foreign head of state, and Art. 141(II) does the same for crimes against a public official on account of their function. Procedurally, Art. 145 (parágrafo único) makes crimes against the President proceed by 'requisição do Ministro da Justiça' (the Ministry of Justice can order prosecution) rather than requiring the President personally to sue, and crimes against a public official proceed by the official's own representação — both bypass the ordinary private-queixa-only rule that applies to insults among private citizens. This is an explicit enhanced-protection regime for officials/the presidency.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Arts. 140, 141, 145", "url": "https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/declei/1940-1949/decreto-lei-2848-7-dezembro-1940-412868-publicacaooriginal-1-pe.html" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 3, "summary": "Calúnia (Art. 138: 'imputar-lhe falsamente fato definido como crime') carries detenção of 6 months-2 years plus fine; difamação (Art. 139) 3 months-1 year plus fine; injúria (Art. 140) 1-6 months or fine, rising to reclusão of 1-3 years plus fine under the racial/religious/disability-based qualified form (Art. 140 §3, inserted by Lei 9.459/1997). These are custodial, not fines-only. CPJ documents active use against a journalist within the last 10 years: Ricardo Antunes was sentenced on 2024-08-12 to 7 years' imprisonment (cumulative across five blog posts) for calúnia/difamação/injúria after reporting on a businessman — well above the statutory per-count maximum, reflecting cumulative charging, and demonstrating the offence is routinely usable against critics/journalists rather than dormant.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Arts. 138-140", "url": "https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/declei/1940-1949/decreto-lei-2848-7-dezembro-1940-412868-publicacaooriginal-1-pe.html" }, { "ref": "CPJ: 'CPJ, others reject 7-year prison sentence for Brazilian journalist over blog' (2024-09)", "url": "https://cpj.org/2024/09/cpj-others-reject-7-year-prison-sentence-for-brazilian-journalist-over-blog/" } ] }, "a4": null, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Lei 7.716/1989 Art. 20 (as inserted by Lei 9.459/1997) criminalises 'praticar, induzir ou incitar a discriminação ou preconceito de raça, cor, etnia, religião ou procedência nacional' — reclusão of 1-3 years plus fine; §1 (manufacture/distribution of Nazi symbols for propaganda purposes) raises this to 2-5 years; §2 (commission via mass media or publication) also raises it to 2-5 years. Código Penal Art. 140 §3 separately criminalises racial/religious/disability-based 'injúria qualificada' at 1-3 years. No violence or imminence nexus is required by the text of any of these provisions — broad group-denigration/incitement offences capped at 5 years even in aggravated form.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Lei 7.716/1989 Art. 20 (as amended by Lei 9.459/1997)", "url": "https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/lei/1997/lei-9459-13-maio-1997-374814-publicacaooriginal-1-pl.html" }, { "ref": "Código Penal Art. 140 §3 (inserted by Lei 9.459/1997)", "url": "https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/lei/1997/lei-9459-13-maio-1997-374814-publicacaooriginal-1-pl.html" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 9, "summary": "Lei 14.197/2021 (Título XII-A Código Penal, 'Crimes contra o Estado Democrático de Direito') replaced the old military-era Lei de Segurança Nacional (7.170/1983), which it expressly repeals (Art. 4°: 'Revogam-se a Lei nº 7.170, de 14 de dezembro de 1983'). The abolition/coup offences require violence or grave threat: Art. 359-L (attempting to abolish the Democratic Rule of Law by violence/grave threat, 4-8 years) and Art. 359-M (attempting to depose the legitimately constituted government by violence/grave threat, 4-12 years) — not mere opinion or advocacy. Crucially, Art. 359-T is an explicit savings clause: 'Não constitui crime previsto neste Título a manifestação crítica aos poderes constitucionais nem a atividade jornalística.' No false-news or anti-state-opinion offence was located.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Lei 14.197/2021, Arts. 359-L, 359-M, 359-T, 4°", "url": "https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/lei/2021/lei-14197-1-setembro-2021-791691-publicacaooriginal-163372-pl.html" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 5, "summary": "Art. 145 Código Penal makes calúnia/difamação/injúria proceed only by private queixa as the general rule (a check on frivolous prosecution). But this is undercut for the two categories of official most likely to face criticism: crimes against the President/foreign head of state proceed on the Justice Ministry's own requisição (Art. 145 parágrafo único, referencing Art. 141 I), and crimes against a public official acting in their function proceed on that official's representação (referencing Art. 141 II) — both lowering the bar relative to an ordinary private citizen's queixa. No public-interest/opinion defence statute or anti-SLAPP mechanism was located this session, though a truth defence (exceção da verdade) is understood to exist for calúnia in Brazilian law generally — its exact statutory text could not be retrieved this session so it is not relied on for scoring.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Arts. 141, 145", "url": "https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/declei/1940-1949/decreto-lei-2848-7-dezembro-1940-412868-publicacaooriginal-1-pe.html" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 8, "summary": "Marco Civil da Internet (Lei 12.965/2014) Art. 19 shields application providers from civil liability for third-party content unless they fail to act 'após ordem judicial específica' — a judicial-order-only takedown/liability standard, not notice-and-takedown. Art. 10 similarly requires a judicial order before a provider must disclose retained logs. Arts. 13 and 15 impose data-retention duties (connection logs: 1 year, by autonomous-system administrators; application-access logs: 6 months, by internet application providers) — a narrow, non-content infrastructure mandate rather than a blocking/filtering regime. No real-name/ID requirement for users was found.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Lei 12.965/2014 (Marco Civil da Internet), Arts. 10, 13, 15, 19", "url": "https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/lei/2014/lei-12965-23-abril-2014-778630-publicacaooriginal-143980-pl.html" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": null, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": { "ref": "Lei 14.197/2021, Art. 359-T", "url": "https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/lei/2021/lei-14197-1-setembro-2021-791691-publicacaooriginal-163372-pl.html" }, "note": "Art. 359-T expressly excludes critical manifestation toward the constitutional powers and journalistic activity from the crimes-against-the-democratic-state title." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Arts. 138-141", "url": "https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/declei/1940-1949/decreto-lei-2848-7-dezembro-1940-412868-publicacaooriginal-1-pe.html" }, "note": "Calúnia/difamação/injúria apply with an Art. 141 penalty enhancement where the target is a public official; no cited enforcement example specifically against a critic of a politician (as opposed to a businessman) was found in the last 10 years, so coded dormant rather than enforced." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": null, "note": "Código Penal Título V ('Dos Crimes contra o Sentimento Religioso e contra o Respeito aos Mortos', Art. 208, ultraje a culto religioso) is understood to exist, but its exact text/penalty and any recent enforcement could not be retrieved this session (source truncated before this range); left uncited and coded conservatively as dormant rather than scored in A4." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary policy debate on immigration is not covered. Explicit incitement to discrimination/hatred based on national origin could implicate Lei 7.716/1989 Art. 20 (1-3 years, or 2-5 years via mass media), but that requires incitement, not mere debate." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type LGBT-content restriction could be verified. STF (ADO 26/MI 4733, 2019) extended Lei 7.716 racism-law protections to cover homophobia/transphobia, which restricts anti-LGBT hate speech rather than LGBT expression." }, "journalism": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Arts. 138-140", "url": "https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/declei/1940-1949/decreto-lei-2848-7-dezembro-1940-412868-publicacaooriginal-1-pe.html" }, "note": "Journalist Ricardo Antunes was sentenced 2024-08-12 to 7 years' imprisonment (cumulative across five blog posts) for calúnia/difamação/injúria over reporting on a businessman. https://cpj.org/2024/09/cpj-others-reject-7-year-prison-sentence-for-brazilian-journalist-over-blog/ — a cumulative sentence exceeding the 5-year 'severe' threshold, within the last 10 years." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No speech-specific criminal restriction on organizing protest was identified; Lei 14.197/2021's abolition/coup offences (Arts. 359-L, 359-M) require violence or grave threat." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Arts. 138-140", "url": "https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/declei/1940-1949/decreto-lei-2848-7-dezembro-1940-412868-publicacaooriginal-1-pe.html" }, "note": "Same Ricardo Antunes case: a 7-year cumulative sentence for calúnia/difamação/injúria arose from blog posts criticising a businessman. https://cpj.org/2024/09/cpj-others-reject-7-year-prison-sentence-for-brazilian-journalist-over-blog/" }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Arts. 141(I), 145", "url": "https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/declei/1940-1949/decreto-lei-2848-7-dezembro-1940-412868-publicacaooriginal-1-pe.html" }, "note": "Brazil is a republic; head of state is the President. Crimes against the President carry a one-third penalty enhancement (Art. 141 I) and proceed on the Justice Ministry's own requisition rather than a private complaint (Art. 145, parágrafo único). No specific enforcement example against a president-critic in the last 10 years was found this session, so coded dormant." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": { "ref": "Lei 12.965/2014 (Marco Civil), Arts. 10, 13, 15", "url": "https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/lei/2014/lei-12965-23-abril-2014-778630-publicacaooriginal-143980-pl.html" }, "note": "No real-name/ID mandate for internet users. Constitution Art. 5(IV) states 'anonymity is forbidden' as a general principle, but unmasking under Marco Civil requires a specific judicial order (Art. 10), not administrative/self-executing disclosure." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A4 (blasphemy/religious offence) left null: Código Penal Título V (Arts. 208-212, crimes against religious feeling) is known by title/location from official-source tables of contents encountered en route, but the WebFetch tool's underlying page retrieval truncated before reaching this range on every mirror tried (planalto.gov.br, camara.leg.br, legis.senado.leg.br), so exact article text/penalty could not be verified and confirmed this session.", "planalto.gov.br (the canonical 'texto compilado/multivigente' source named in the task brief) was completely unreachable this session (connection reset on every attempt); all Brazil citations instead use the Câmara dos Deputados legin mirror (www2.camara.leg.br) for original-publication texts, cross-checked via lexml.gov.br for correct document identification. These are official government sources but are original-publication texts rather than the consolidated/updated planalto compilation, so subsequent amendments not captured in the specific amending laws cited here could exist unnoted.", "WebSearch budget was exhausted mid-session (during Argentina work); all Brazil verification relied solely on WebFetch.", "A truth defence (exceção da verdade) for calúnia is understood to exist in Brazilian law generally but its exact Código Penal text could not be retrieved this session, so A3/A7 scoring does not rely on it.", "Components not verifiable: a4" ] }, "ca": { "country": "Canada", "protection": 79, "enforcement": 12, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 12, "enforcement_effective": 21, "gap": 0, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 21, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 8, "summary": "Charter s.2(b) guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, judicially enforceable by independent courts, subject to the s.1 'reasonable limits ... demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society' proviso used to uphold several speech-restricting Criminal Code provisions.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 2(b)", "url": "https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 10, "summary": "No criminal insult or lese-majeste offence targeting officials, politicians, or the monarch/Governor General as such; general defamatory libel provisions (ss. 298-301) are not official-dignity-specific and carry no enhanced penalty for officials.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 298-301", "url": "https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-301.html" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 5, "summary": "Defamatory libel remains a criminal offence: s.301 (general) up to 2 years imprisonment; s.300 (publishing matter known to be false) up to 5 years. Section 309 provides a defence where the accused reasonably believed the matter true and it concerned a subject of public interest/benefit. Custodial penalties available disqualify a higher score even though prosecutions are rare; constitutionality upheld in R v. Lucas.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 300, 301, 309", "url": "https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-300.html" }, { "ref": "R v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439", "url": "https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii815/1998canlii815.html" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "Blasphemous libel (former s.296) was repealed outright in 2018, not merely left dormant.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 296 [Repealed, 2018, c. 29, s. 30]", "url": "https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-296.html" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 6, "summary": "Section 319 criminalizes wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group (up to 2 years) and public incitement of hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace; no violence/imminence nexus is required for the (2) offence (group denigration is enough), but prosecution requires the Attorney General's personal consent (s.319(6)) and truth/good-faith religious or public-interest defences exist (s.319(3)). Constitutionality upheld in R v. Keegstra.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 319", "url": "https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html" }, { "ref": "R v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Keegstra" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 9, "summary": "Seditious words/libel/conspiracy (s.59) remain in force on paper (advocacy of unlawful force to accomplish governmental change), but the provision is narrow and effectively dormant — no modern prosecutions identified. No false-news offence exists federally.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 59", "url": "https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-59.html" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 6, "summary": "Public-interest/reasonable-belief-in-truth defence exists for defamatory libel (s.309) and good-faith/truth defences exist for s.319 hate speech; s.319 prosecutions require Attorney General consent, screening out private complaints. However, private prosecutions for defamatory libel (ss. 298-301) are not similarly screened, and Canada has no dedicated federal anti-SLAPP statute (protection against strategic litigation exists only via provincial statutes, e.g. Ontario's Courts of Justice Act s. 137.1, not nationwide).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 309, 319(3), 319(6)", "url": "https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 8, "summary": "No general statutory takedown-deadline regime or real-name mandate is currently in force. The proposed Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), which would have created a new regulator and takedown/duty-to-act framework, did not pass second reading before Parliament prorogued in January 2025 and died on the order paper; no equivalent bill has been reintroduced in the 45th Parliament as of this review. Blocking of online content currently occurs only via judicial order.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Bill C-63, An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, 44th Parliament, 1st Session", "url": "https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-63" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "General criticism of government policy is protected expression under Charter s.2(b); no specific offence attaches absent hate speech, sedition, or defamatory falsity." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code ss. 298-301 (defamatory libel)", "url": "https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-301.html" }, "note": "Defamatory libel provisions could in theory apply to false, malicious statements about a politician, but no enforcement example from the last 10 years was found. R v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439 (constitutionality upheld) involved a police officer, not a politician, and is outside the 10-year enforcement window." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Blasphemous libel (s.296) repealed in 2018, 2018 c.29 s.30." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "General immigration debate is protected expression. The narrow s.319 hate-speech offence could theoretically apply to speech that wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group defined by national origin, but requires AG consent and is not aimed at policy debate; R v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697 upheld the provision's constitutionality in a different (antisemitic teaching) context." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-style restriction on pro-LGBT expression. Known gap/related but distinct: Criminal Code ss. 320.101-320.104 (in force 2022) criminalize advertising/promoting conversion therapy, the inverse of a propaganda law — not separately scored here as it does not restrict LGBT-content speech." }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal offence attaches to journalism as such; the Journalistic Sources Protection Act (2017) provides statutory source-protection procedure." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Organizing peaceful protest is protected assembly/expression. Unlawful assembly/riot provisions (ss. 63-69) address conduct, not covered by this speech-focused scenario." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "Civil defamation is the ordinary route for business-related criticism; provincial anti-SLAPP statutes (e.g., Ontario's Courts of Justice Act s. 137.1) exist in some provinces but not nationally. Criminal defamatory libel (ss. 298-301) is theoretically available but civil suits are the norm." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Canada's head of state is the monarch (represented federally by the Governor General); no lese-majeste offence exists. Historic seditious-libel language (s.59) does not target the Crown specifically and is effectively dormant." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No general real-name/ID mandate for online accounts. Known gap: could not verify a specific citable statute or case squarely addressing platform-level anonymity/unmasking exposure at the federal level within the scope of this review." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Online Harms Act (Bill C-63) died on the order paper when the 44th Parliament prorogued in January 2025; as of this review no successor bill has been introduced in the 45th Parliament. If reintroduced, A8 and several scenario bands would need re-scoring.", "Count/enforcement-recency check for s.319 and ss.298-301 prosecutions was limited to sources found in this review; a full 10-year enforcement audit (StatCan/DOJ prosecution statistics) was not located and would strengthen confidence in the criminal_dormant vs criminal_enforced calls above." ] }, "ch": { "country": "Switzerland", "protection": 67, "enforcement": 25, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 25, "enforcement_effective": 33, "gap": 0, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 33, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Bundesverfassung Art. 16: freedom of opinion and information is guaranteed unconditionally in the article's own text (no express carve-out) — everyone may freely form, express and disseminate opinions, and freely receive/gather/disseminate information. Limits come only from the generic Art. 36 clause applicable to all fundamental rights (legal basis, public interest or third-party rights, proportionality, inviolable core content). However, Art. 190 BV binds the Federal Supreme Court and other law-applying authorities to federal statutes ('Bundesgesetze ... sind ... massgebend'), meaning the top court cannot strike down a federal statute for unconstitutionality — a structural limit on judicial enforceability against Parliament itself (ECHR-law avenues partly compensate).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Bundesverfassung Art. 16", "url": "https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/de#art_16" }, { "ref": "Bundesverfassung Art. 36", "url": "https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/de#art_36" }, { "ref": "Bundesverfassung Art. 190", "url": "https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/de#art_190" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 6, "summary": "Art. 177 StGB (Beschimpfung/general insult): fine only, up to 90 daily rates — no imprisonment at all for the base offence. Art. 296 StGB criminalises publicly insulting a FOREIGN head of state/government/diplomat (up to 3yr or fine) but this protects foreign officials, not Swiss ones; no dedicated Swiss lese-majeste or president-insult provision was found — Swiss officials are covered only by ordinary honour offences (Art. 173, 177).", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB Art. 177", "url": "https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/de#art_177" }, { "ref": "StGB Art. 296", "url": "https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/de#art_296" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 8, "summary": "Art. 173 StGB (üble Nachrede, factual defamation): fine only ('Geldstrafe'), no imprisonment; truth or good-faith belief in truth is a defence (para. 2), though para. 3 disallows the truth defence where the statement mainly targets private/family life for no public-interest reason. Art. 174 (Verleumdung, knowingly false defamation) does carry custodial exposure — up to 3yr, or 1mo-3yr if part of a systematic reputation-destruction campaign. Base offence is civil-adjacent (fines only, clean truth defence); the more severe track requires proven bad faith.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB Art. 173", "url": "https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/de#art_173" }, { "ref": "StGB Art. 174", "url": "https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/de#art_174" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 7, "summary": "Art. 261 StGB criminalises publicly and maliciously insulting/mocking others' religious convictions, disrupting or mocking a constitutionally-guaranteed act of worship, or desecrating a place/object of worship — but the penalty is fine-only ('Geldstrafe'), with no imprisonment available at all. No enforcement example from the last 10 years was located in this pass, and the fine-only ceiling places it above the mid band despite being a live (non-repealed) provision.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB Art. 261", "url": "https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/de#art_261" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 4, "summary": "Art. 261bis StGB (Rassismusstrafnorm): criminalises public calls for hatred/discrimination, spreading ideologies of systematic denigration, organizing/promoting/participating in propaganda, publicly denigrating/discriminating against a person or group 'in a manner that violates human dignity', denying/grossly trivialising genocide or crimes against humanity, and refusing a publicly-offered service — all on grounds of race, ethnicity, religion, OR sexual orientation. Up to 3yr or fine; no violence nexus required for the denigration/denial limbs, and covers a compelled-service-refusal ground not seen elsewhere.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB Art. 261bis", "url": "https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/de#art_261_bis" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 7, "summary": "Art. 275 StGB (Angriffe auf die verfassungsmässige Ordnung): criminalises acts aimed at unlawfully disturbing/changing the constitutional order of the Confederation or cantons, up to 5yr or fine — a narrow provision aimed at concrete unlawful acts, not opinion/dissent as such, and not evidenced as being in active broad use. No general false-news, sedition, or 'discrediting the state' offence targeting domestic political speech was found.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB Art. 275", "url": "https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/de#art_275" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 6, "summary": "Art. 173, 174, 177 and 261 are all Antragsdelikte ('auf Antrag' / prosecuted only upon the injured party's request), meaning ordinary citizens — not the state — control initiation, and truth/good-faith defences are built into Art. 173(2). No pre-trial detention regime specific to speech offences was found. This is a comparatively protective procedural posture (no ex officio official-insult track was located, unlike DE/AT), though it was not exhaustively checked against every institutional-insult scenario.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB Art. 173", "url": "https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/de#art_173" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 9, "summary": "Switzerland is not an EU/EEA member and the DSA does not apply domestically; no NetzDG/DSA-style takedown, real-name, or blocking statute is currently in force. The Federal Council opened a consultation (Vernehmlassung) on 29 Oct 2025 for a new Bundesgesetz über Kommunikationsplattformen und Suchmaschinen (KomPG), explicitly modelled in part on the EU DSA and the UK Online Safety Act, limited in scope to very large platforms/search engines — but as of this review it remains a draft, not enacted law.", "citations": [ { "ref": "BBl 2025 3178 — Vernehmlassungsverfahren KomPG", "url": "https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/fga/2025/3178/de" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "General policy criticism is protected opinion under Art. 16 BV; exposure only arises from acts aimed at unlawfully disturbing the constitutional order (Art. 275, dormant) or from insulting specific individuals (see insult-politician)." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "StGB Art. 173, 177", "url": "https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/de#art_177" }, "note": "Ordinary honour offences apply to politicians as to anyone else (Antragsdelikt, fine-only for Art. 177); no enhanced official-insult track or enforcement statistic specific to politicians was located in this pass." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "StGB Art. 261", "url": "https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/de#art_261" }, "note": "Provision is in force (fine-only) but no prosecution/conviction statistic or documented case from the last 10 years was located in this research pass." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary policy debate is protected; exposure only if speech crosses into denigration/discrimination on ethnic or religious grounds under Art. 261bis (see a5)." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech or content. Sexual orientation is itself a protected ground under Art. 261bis (anti-LGBT hatred/discrimination is criminalised, not LGBT expression)." }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No journalism-specific criminal exposure verified beyond the general provisions coded above." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Assembly regulation in Switzerland is primarily cantonal; this pass did not verify any cantonal or federal statute criminalising the mere organizing of a peaceful protest, so none is cited." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "StGB Art. 173", "url": "https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/de#art_173" }, "note": "False factual claims damaging a business's reputation could in principle be charged as üble Nachrede (fine-only); opinion-based criticism is unaffected and truth/good-faith are defences. No business-criticism-specific case verified." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Switzerland has no monarch; the (annually rotating, largely ceremonial) Federal President has no dedicated protective statute — insults are handled, if at all, under ordinary Art. 173/177, the same as any other individual. Art. 296 protects only foreign heads of state." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name/ID mandate for social media users, and no enacted platform-disclosure statute; the draft KomPG (BBl 2025 3178, in consultation as of this review) may eventually create obligations but is not yet law." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Fedlex (the official Swiss federal law portal) is a JavaScript-rendered application that returns only a browser-compatibility notice to non-interactive fetchers; all StGB/BV citations in this file were verified by rendering the pages in a live browser and reading the DOM directly, not by a plain HTTP fetch.", "Assembly/protest regulation in Switzerland is largely cantonal rather than federal and was not surveyed canton-by-canton in this pass." ] }, "cl": { "country": "Chile", "protection": 60, "enforcement": 38, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 38, "enforcement_effective": 40, "gap": 0, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 40, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Constitution Art. 19, Number 12 guarantees 'freedom to express opinions and to inform, without prior censorship, in any form and by any means.' The right is subject to 'liability for crimes and abuses committed in the exercise of these freedoms, in accordance with the law' — a moderate, liability-based (not prior-restraint) limitation. Judicially enforceable via constitutional actions (recurso de protección) before the Courts of Appeal and Constitutional Tribunal.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitución Política de la República de Chile, Art. 19(12)", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Chile_2021" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 5, "summary": "Penal Code Art. 416 defines injuria (insult) broadly as 'toda expresión proferida o acción ejecutada en deshonra, descrédito o menosprecio de otra persona.' Grave injurias made in writing and with publicity (Arts. 417-418) carry reclusión menor en sus grados mínimo a medio (custodial, roughly 61 days to 3 years) plus a fine of 11-20 UTM; lesser injurias carry lighter custodial/fine penalties (Art. 419). No enhanced penalty tier exists for insulting public officials or the President specifically — the former desacato offence protecting the President/authorities (Ley de Seguridad del Estado, Art. 6(b)) was repealed by the 2001 Press Law. If anything Art. 420 cuts the other way for officials (see a7): truth is a defence to injuria ONLY when the target is a public official and the statement concerns their official conduct. Scored mid-range because real custodial exposure (up to 3 years) exists for ordinary insult, even though there is no official-specific enhancement.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal de Chile, Arts. 416-419", "url": "https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/Navegar?idNorma=1984&idParte=9672739" }, { "ref": "Repeal of desacato: Ley N° 19.733 (Ley de Prensa), 2001", "url": "https://docs.chile.justia.com/nacionales/leyes/ley-n-19-733.pdf" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 4, "summary": "Calumnia (Penal Code Art. 412: falsely imputing a specific, currently-prosecutable crime) carries, when published in writing (Art. 413), reclusión menor en su grado medio (roughly 541 days-3 years) plus fines of 11-20 UTM for imputing a crimen, or lighter tiers for a simple delito; Art. 415 gives full exemption from all penalty if the accused proves the imputed criminal fact (truth is a complete, definitional defence for calumnia). Injuria (insult, Art. 416), by contrast, has NO general truth defence: Art. 420 bars evidence of truth except where the imputation concerns a public official's official conduct. Real custodial penalties are available (up to 3 years for aggravated public calumnia/injuria), and defamation remains a criminal (not purely civil) track prosecuted privately (see a7).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal de Chile, Arts. 412-415, 420", "url": "https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/Navegar?idNorma=1984&idParte=9672739" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious-insult offence in the Chilean Penal Code or any other statute identified in this research pass. Constitution Art. 19, Number 6 guarantees freedom of conscience and free exercise of all beliefs/cults (subject only to morality/public-order limits), with no established church and no religious-insult carve-out.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitución Política de la República de Chile, Art. 19(6)", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Chile_2021" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 8, "summary": "No standalone criminal offence for group-based hate speech/incitement exists. Ley N° 20.609 (2012, 'Ley Zamudio') creates only a civil anti-discrimination action (acción de no discriminación arbitraria) and, via a 2012 amendment to Penal Code Art. 12 N°21, an aggravating sentencing CIRCUMSTANCE (not a standalone offence) where any ordinary crime is committed motivated by the victim's race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Chilean legal scholarship and legislative history confirm that, as of this research pass, 'la criminal legislation does not contemplate any figure that allows for the punishment of' hate speech/incitement as such; repeated legislative proposals to create a dedicated hate-speech offence have not been enacted.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Ley N° 20.609 (2012); Código Penal Art. 12 N°21 (aggravating circumstance only, not a speech offence)", "url": "https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/Navegar?idNorma=1042092" } ], "note": "Absence-of-offence conclusion cross-checked against academic literature (SciELO, Universidad Católica) describing the 2012 reform and subsequent failed hate-speech criminalisation bills." }, "a6": { "score": 3, "summary": "The Ley de Seguridad del Estado (Ley N° 12.927 / consolidated text, Decreto N° 890 of 1975) remains fully in force. Art. 6(f) criminalises 'apología o propaganda de doctrinas, sistemas o métodos que propugnen el crimen o la violencia en cualquiera de sus formas, como medios para lograr cambios o reformas políticas, económicas o sociales' (apology/propaganda for doctrines/systems/methods that advocate crime or violence as a means to political/economic/social change) — punishable by presidio/relegación/extrañamiento menores en sus grados medio a máximo (roughly 541 days to 5 years). Art. 4(f) separately criminalises propagating 'doctrinas que tiendan a destruir o alterar por la violencia el orden social o la forma republicana y democrática de gobierno.' Both require an advocacy-of-violence element rather than pure political opinion, but are broader than an incitement-to-imminent-violence standard (advocacy of an idea as a 'means,' not a call to specific imminent acts) and carry substantial custodial penalties. Live enforcement is documented (see a6/political scenarios): the Piñera government (2019-2020) filed numerous querellas under this law in the protest-repression context; the Boric government withdrew 139 of them on taking office in 2022, but pursued and obtained the first conviction under Art. 6(f) since Chile's return to democracy, against a Mapuche activist leader, upheld by the Supreme Court.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Ley de Seguridad del Estado (Ley N° 12.927, texto refundido por Decreto N° 890 de 1975), Arts. 4(f), 6(f), 7", "url": "https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=27292" } ], "note": "Content of Arts. 4(f)/6(f)/7 cross-verified via Palma Hermosilla, 'El injusto del delito de expresión en el artículo 6 letra f) de la Ley de Seguridad del Estado' (U. de Chile thesis, 2023), which quotes the statutory text directly and documents the conviction:" }, "a7": { "score": 3, "summary": "Injuria and calumnia are 'delitos de acción penal privada' under Código Procesal Penal Art. 55: only the offended party (not the public prosecutor) may bring the case, exclusively by querella before a Juzgado de Garantía (Art. 400 et seq.) — a pure private-prosecution-trigger regime with no independent-defences carve-out for public-interest speech beyond the narrow truth defences described in a2/a3. Separately, under the Ley de Seguridad del Estado, the state itself (via the Ministerio del Interior) is empowered to file and withdraw querellas as a party (Art. 27), meaning officials can personally initiate (and have initiated, at scale, during 2019-2020) prosecutions for speech offences. No anti-SLAPP statute exists. Custodial exposure is real for both injuria/calumnia (up to 3yr) and LSE Art. 6(f) offences (up to 5yr), meaning pre-trial detention is a live risk, not merely theoretical.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Procesal Penal (Ley N° 19.696), Arts. 55, 400", "url": "https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=176595" }, { "ref": "Ley de Seguridad del Estado (Ley N° 12.927), Art. 27", "url": "https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=27292" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 8, "summary": "Ley N° 20.453 (2010) — the first net-neutrality statute in the world — added Arts. 24H-24J to the General Telecommunications Law, guaranteeing internet users the right to use, send, receive or offer any lawful content, application or service without arbitrary blocking, discrimination, or throttling by ISPs, enforced by the telecoms regulator Subtel. No general takedown mandate, no real-name/ID requirement for online speech, and no administrative content-blocking regime for platforms/media was identified in this research pass. Not scored 10 because the law's exceptions (network management, security, legally-mandated blocking) were not independently verified in full text within this pass.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Ley N° 20.453 (2010), amending the Ley General de Telecomunicaciones (Arts. 24H-24J)", "url": "https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/Navegar?idNorma=1016570" } ], "note": "Could not verify the exact wording of Ley 20.453's exception clauses (network management/security/legal-order carve-outs) against the primary BCN text within this research pass; scored on the strength of the law's confirmed core guarantee." } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Ley de Seguridad del Estado, Art. 6(f)", "url": "https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=27292" }, "note": "Plain criticism of government is not itself an offence, but Art. 6(f) LSE has been invoked against political dissidents advocating radical change; no citation of its use against an ordinary (non-violence-advocating) government critic was found, so coded dormant for that narrower fact pattern rather than enforced. See protest-organizing for the documented enforcement pattern against a specific activist." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal, Arts. 416-419", "url": "https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/Navegar?idNorma=1984&idParte=9672739" }, "note": "General injuria applies equally to politicians as to any person (no enhanced official-insult offence remains after the 2001 desacato repeal). No specific prosecution/conviction statistic for insult of a politician (as opposed to ordinary citizen-vs-citizen injuria) was located in this pass." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No blasphemy offence identified." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No offence reaches ordinary immigration-policy debate." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech identified; Ley 20.609 protects against discrimination rather than restricting speech." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal, Arts. 412-420 (injuria/calumnia, as applied via publicity aggravator Art. 422)", "url": "https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/Navegar?idNorma=1984&idParte=9672739" }, "note": "Journalists are subject to the same injuria/calumnia regime as any speaker, with the publicity aggravator (Art. 422) applying to press/broadcast dissemination specifically. No documented criminal conviction of a journalist within the last 10 years was located in this pass (as distinct from the Mapuche-activist LSE conviction under a6, which did not involve a journalist)." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Ley de Seguridad del Estado, Art. 6(f)", "url": "https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=27292" }, "note": "The Tribunal de Juicio Oral en lo Penal de Temuco convicted a Mapuche activist leader under LSE Art. 6(f) for public statements advocating armed resistance; the Supreme Court (Corte Suprema) upheld the conviction, marking, per academic analysis, the first conviction under this provision since Chile's return to democracy (~1990). The Piñera government (2019-2020) filed numerous other querellas under the LSE in the protest-repression context, of which the Boric government withdrew 139 in 2022." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 416 (injuria)", "url": "https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/Navegar?idNorma=1984&idParte=9672739" }, "note": "Ordinary injuria/calumnia could in principle be invoked by a business or its representatives; no citation of a business-criticism-specific criminal case was located." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Chile is a republic; no monarch. The dedicated presidential-insult (desacato) offence, Ley de Seguridad del Estado Art. 6(b), was repealed by the 2001 Press Law (Ley 19.733); the President is now covered only by the general injuria/calumnia regime, under which Art. 420 in fact gives defendants an easier truth defence when the target is a public official/authority." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name or ID-verification mandate for online accounts was identified; Ley 20.453 (net neutrality) points toward a more permissive regime generally." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "The previous coding pass nulled six of eight components citing an inability to access statute URLs; this pass verified Código Penal Arts. 412-431 (calumnia/injuria), the Ley de Seguridad del Estado (Ley 12.927), the Código Procesal Penal's private-action rules (Arts. 55, 400), Ley 20.609, and Ley 20.453 against a combination of official BCN (Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional) permalinks and content cross-verification via secondary legal-text mirrors and an academic thesis, because BCN's site renders via JavaScript and could not be fetched directly as plain text in this tooling.", "A human editor with direct browser access to bcn.cl (leychile.cl) should re-verify the exact current (2026) in-force text of Arts. 412-431 CP, Arts. 4/6/7/27 LSE, and Arts. 24H-24J of the Ley General de Telecomunicaciones (as amended by Ley 20.453) directly against the primary portal, since this pass relied on mirrors/secondary sources for exact article text where BCN could not be rendered.", "Could not verify whether any additional 2023-2026 amendments to the LSE or the Código Penal defamation provisions have been enacted; Chile has seen periodic legislative proposals (e.g., to criminalise hate speech, or to further reform or repeal the LSE) that were not confirmed as enacted within this research pass." ] }, "cn": { "country": "China", "protection": 25, "enforcement": 95, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 95, "enforcement_effective": 95, "gap": 20, "tier": "repressive", "risk": 86, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 2, "summary": "Art. 35 guarantees speech/press/assembly/association/procession/demonstration, but China's constitution is not judicially enforceable (no constitutional court, no citizen right to invoke it in litigation) and is subordinate in practice to CCP leadership clauses in the Preamble.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of the PRC (2018), Art. 35", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/China_2018" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 1, "summary": "No standalone lese-majeste/official-insult statute exists; the catch-all 'picking quarrels and provoking trouble' offense (Art. 293, up to 5yr, or up to 10yr for organizers of repeated group conduct) is the mechanism actually used against people who insult officials or the head of state online, with multi-year sentences documented.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Law of the PRC, Art. 293", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" }, { "ref": "Criminal Law of the PRC, Art. 246 (general insult/defamation, up to 3yr)", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 2, "summary": "Art. 246 criminalizes insult and defamation together (up to 3yr custodial); prosecution normally requires private complaint, but an exception allows public-security-initiated prosecution 'where social order or national interests are seriously endangered' — the exception is the route used against government critics, and truth is not stated as a complete defense in the text.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Law of the PRC, Art. 246", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 9, "summary": "No dedicated blasphemy or religious-insult criminal offense was found in the Criminal Law's chapter on crimes infringing citizens' rights. Restriction of religious expression is instead achieved via a separate cult-organization offense (Art. 300, see A5/scenario religion) and administrative regulation of unregistered religious activity, not via penalizing insult to religion as such.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of the PRC (2018), Art. 36 (freedom of religious belief)", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/China_2018" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 4, "summary": "Art. 249 criminalizes inciting ethnic hatred or ethnic discrimination (up to 3yr, no violence nexus required) — a broad group-denigration offense. Separately, Art. 300 criminalizes 'organizing/using a cult organization to undermine implementation of the law' (up to life imprisonment) and has been applied at scale against a specific belief group (Falun Gong) rather than confined to violence-inciting speech.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Law of the PRC, Art. 249", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" }, { "ref": "Criminal Law of the PRC, Art. 300", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 0, "summary": "Art. 105(2) criminalizes 'inciting others by spreading rumors or slanders...to subvert the State power or overthrow the socialist system' (up to 5yr, ringleaders 5yr+); Art. 103 criminalizes separatism/incitement to separatism (10yr+ for ringleaders); Art. 293 'picking quarrels' functions as a general anti-dissent catch-all. Actively and severely enforced: rights lawyers Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi were sentenced in April 2023 to 14 and 12 years respectively for subversion of state power after closed-door trials.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Law of the PRC, Art. 105", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" }, { "ref": "Criminal Law of the PRC, Art. 103", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 1, "summary": "Art. 246 lets prosecutors bypass the normal private-complaint requirement via the 'social order/national interest' exception. Criminal Procedure Law Art. 79 permits residential surveillance (which for national-security/major-bribery suspects can be at a police-designated, incommunicado location under Art. 75/77) for up to 6 months before formal arrest procedures apply, well documented as used against speech/rights defendants. No public-interest, opinion, or anti-SLAPP defense is codified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Law of the PRC, Art. 246", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" }, { "ref": "Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC (2018), Art. 79", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-procedure-law-2018/" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 0, "summary": "Cybersecurity Law Art. 24 mandates real-identity verification for network access, phone activation, and any publishing/messaging service, with service denial for non-compliance; Art. 47 requires network operators to proactively monitor user content and immediately stop transmission/delete prohibited information. Combined with the separately-licensed 'Great Firewall' internet access/content licensing regime, this is a pervasive filtering + real-name system.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Cybersecurity Law of the PRC (2016), Art. 24", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/2016-cybersecurity-law/" }, { "ref": "Cybersecurity Law of the PRC (2016), Art. 47", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/2016-cybersecurity-law/" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "blasphemy_law_note": "Confirmed false. No blasphemy/religious-insult offence identified in the Criminal Law's rights-infringement chapter; religious expression is instead restricted via the separate unregistered-practice/cult-organisation regime (Art. 300), not by penalising insult to religion as such. Constitution of the PRC (2018) Art. 36: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/China_2018", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Law Art. 105(2) (inciting subversion of state power)", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" }, "note": "Rights lawyers Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi sentenced 10 April 2023 to 14 and 12 years respectively for subversion of state power. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/04/china-heavy-prison-sentences-for-human-rights-activists-disgraceful/" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Law Art. 293 ('picking quarrels and provoking trouble')", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" }, "note": "Shandong social-media user jailed 2 years on 'public order' (picking quarrels) charges in 2017 after calling President Xi Jinping a forbidden nickname in an online chat. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/sentencing-04122017111054.html" }, "religion": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Law Art. 300 (organizing/using a cult organization to undermine law enforcement)", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" }, "note": "UK Home Office reports 764 Falun Gong practitioners given prison sentences in 2024 alone under Art. 300, with sentences up to life; average sentence documented at just over 5 years. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/china-country-policy-and-information-notes (CPIN: Falun Gong, China, Nov 2025); corroborated by CECC 2025 Annual Report." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Law Art. 293 ('picking quarrels and provoking trouble', general catch-all)", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" }, "note": "No statute specific to immigration-topic speech was identified. The general public-order catch-all (Art. 293) could in principle be applied, but no documented prosecution specifically for immigration-debate speech was found in the last 10 years." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Cybersecurity Law Art. 47 (mandatory takedown of 'prohibited' content)", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/2016-cybersecurity-law/" }, "note": "LGBT content is suppressed mainly through platform-level, administrative takedowns rather than criminal prosecution — e.g., WeChat's July 2021 mass shutdown of university LGBT student-group accounts. No criminal conviction specifically for LGBT expression was located; identity criminalization does not exist as such. Note per rubric: this scores expression restriction, not identity criminalization, which does not exist in PRC law." }, "journalism": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Law Art. 293 ('picking quarrels and provoking trouble')", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" }, "note": "Documentary filmmaker Chen Pinlin sentenced 6 January 2025 to 3 years 6 months for 'picking quarrels and provoking trouble' over his documentary 'Urumqi Middle Road' covering the 2022 nationwide protests. https://rsf.org/en/china-documentary-filmmaker-chen-pinlin-sentenced-three-and-half-years-covering-historic-protests" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Law Art. 105(2) (subversion of state power)", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" }, "note": "Ding Jiaxi sentenced to 12 years in April 2023 principally for organizing a private gathering of activists (the 2019 Xiamen meeting); Xu Zhiyong to 14 years on related organizing conduct. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/04/china-heavy-prison-sentences-for-human-rights-activists-disgraceful/" }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Law Art. 221 (harming commercial reputation/product reputation)", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" }, "note": "Art. 221 (up to 2yr) applies only to fabricated false statements that damage commercial reputation, not to genuine criticism. No enforcement statistic or specific case from the last 10 years was verified for this file, so scored as dormant rather than enforced pending further verification." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Law Art. 293 ('picking quarrels and provoking trouble')", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/criminal-law-2021/" }, "note": "Same RFA-documented 2017 case: 2-year sentence for insulting President Xi Jinping (head of state) online under the picking-quarrels catch-all. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/sentencing-04122017111054.html" }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Cybersecurity Law Art. 24 (mandatory real-identity registration)", "url": "https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/2016-cybersecurity-law/" }, "note": "Real-name backend registration is mandatory for all network/messaging services; true anonymity does not exist. Authorities use the mandatory ID trail to identify and prosecute pseudonymous posters, as in the 2017 Shandong 'picking quarrels' case above where an ostensibly anonymous chat participant was tracked, identified and jailed. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/sentencing-04122017111054.html" } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "China does not publish nationwide criminal-enforcement statistics for speech offenses (no official count of Art. 293/Art. 105/Art. 246 prosecutions is released); all enforcement evidence in this file relies on individually documented cases from NGOs, press freedom organizations, and foreign government reports rather than an official aggregate.", "A5 and the 'religion' scenario both rely on Art. 300, which nominally targets 'cult organizations' rather than religious belief as such, but has been the primary vehicle for large-scale criminalization of Falun Gong practice and speech; scored under the assumption this constitutes the closest analogue to a religious-offense provision in PRC law.", "Art. 221 (criticize-business) enforcement statistics/case citation could not be verified within the scope of this research pass; flagged for follow-up rather than left uncoded." ] }, "co": { "country": "Colombia", "protection": 70, "enforcement": 52, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 52, "enforcement_effective": 52, "gap": 22, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 42, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 8, "summary": "Constitution Art. 20 guarantees freedom to express and diffuse thoughts and opinions, to inform and receive truthful and impartial information, and to establish mass media; 'there shall be no censorship.' Arts. 73-74 give special constitutional protection to the professional activity of journalists and guarantee public access to official documents. Judicially enforceable via the tutela (constitutional protection action) before any judge, with final review by the Constitutional Court.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitución Política de Colombia, Arts. 20, 73-74", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Colombia_2015" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 5, "summary": "Penal Code (Ley 599 de 2000) Art. 220 (Injuria): making dishonouring imputations to another person carries 1-3 years' imprisonment plus a fine of 10-1,000 monthly minimum wages (SMLMV). Art. 223 increases this by one-sixth to one-half when committed through mass media or public gatherings. No distinct enhanced-penalty offence specifically protecting public officials/the presidency from insult was identified (the general aggravating-circumstances provision, Art. 58, which can apply when a crime's victim is a public servant, is generic to all offences rather than insult-specific). Real custodial exposure (up to 3 years, more with the media aggravator) without an official-specific enhancement places this in the rubric's 4-6 band on the custodial-penalty prong alone.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Ley 599 de 2000 (Código Penal), Arts. 220, 223", "url": "http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ley_0599_2000.html" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 6, "summary": "Calumnia (Art. 221: falsely imputing a criminal offence to another) carries 1-4 years' imprisonment plus a fine of 10-1,000 SMLMV. Truth is a general defence (Art. 224: 'no será responsable... quien probare la veracidad de las imputaciones'); an original statutory exception barring truth-evidence for conduct already resolved by acquittal/dismissal was struck down as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (Sentencia C-417 of 2009), leaving only a narrower exception for imputations concerning sexual/marital/family-life matters. Voluntary retraction before first-instance sentencing extinguishes liability entirely (Art. 225); reciprocal imputations may mutually exempt both parties (Art. 227); and insults made by litigants/counsel in court filings are subject only to disciplinary, not criminal, sanction (Art. 228). The Constitutional Court upheld the general constitutionality of criminalising injuria/calumnia in Sentencia C-487 of 2023. Net: still a criminal, custodial (up to 4yr) track, but with a broader truth defence and more extensive statutory off-ramps (retraction, reciprocity, litigation privilege) than typical criminal-defamation regimes.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Ley 599 de 2000 (Código Penal), Arts. 221, 224, 225, 227, 228", "url": "http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ley_0599_2000.html" }, { "ref": "Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-417 de 2009 (striking part of Art. 224's truth-evidence bar)", "url": "https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2009/C-417-09.htm" }, { "ref": "Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-487 de 2023 (upholding Arts. 220-221)", "url": "https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2023/c-487-23.htm" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 9, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious-insult offence was identified in the Penal Code. Constitution Art. 19 guarantees freedom of religion/worship and bars an established state church; religion appears in the Penal Code only as a protected characteristic within the hostigamiento (harassment) offence (Art. 134B, see a5), which protects believers from targeted harassment rather than criminalising insult of religion/belief itself.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitución Política de Colombia, Art. 19", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Colombia_2015" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 6, "summary": "Art. 134B (added by Ley 1482 de 2011, 'Hostigamiento') criminalises promoting or instigating acts/conduct/behaviour constituting harassment aimed at causing physical or moral harm to a person or group based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, political/philosophical ideology, sex or sexual orientation — 12-36 months' imprisonment plus a fine, requiring an intent-to-harm nexus but not a demonstrated likelihood of violence. Art. 134A separately criminalises acts of racism/discrimination that obstruct rights (12-36 months) — a conduct-based, not purely expressive, offence. Broader than a pure incitement-to-violence standard, but narrower than an undifferentiated group-denigration ban given the harm-intent requirement.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Ley 1482 de 2011, amending Código Penal Arts. 134A, 134B", "url": "https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma.php?i=44932" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 8, "summary": "Rebelión (Art. 467: using arms to overthrow the government or alter the constitutional/legal order) requires armed means and carries 96-162 months; sedición (Art. 468: using arms to temporarily prevent the constitutional/legal order's free functioning) likewise requires armed means, 2-8 years. Both are conduct/violence-linked, not opinion-based. Instigación a delinquir (Art. 348) criminalises public, direct incitement to a specific crime or category of crimes — base penalty a fine only, escalating (10-20 years) solely where the incitement targets a listed list of grave offences (genocide, terrorism, forced disappearance, violence against a public servant, etc.) — narrow and crime-specific rather than a general anti-state-opinion or false-news offence. No general sedition-by-words, false-news, or foreign-agent-labelling statute was identified in this research pass.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Ley 599 de 2000 (Código Penal), Arts. 348, 467, 468", "url": "http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ley_0599_2000.html" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 7, "summary": "Injuria and calumnia are 'delitos querellables' — prosecutable only on the victim's private complaint (Código de Procedimiento Penal Art. 74), not ex officio by the Fiscalía. Crucially, Art. 522 CPP (as implemented via the abbreviated procedure of Ley 1826 de 2017) makes conciliation a MANDATORY precondition to criminal action for querellable offences: a conciliation hearing must be attempted before a prosecutor or recognised conciliator, and the case terminates without conviction if settled; failure of the complainant to appear is treated as withdrawal. Combined with the broad truth defence, retraction, and reciprocal-imputation off-ramps (a3), this is a more protective private-prosecution regime than a bare victim-complaint trigger alone would suggest. Not scored higher because the querella mechanism remains open to abuse: FLIP (Fundación para la Libertad de Prensa) has documented a businessman (Abelardo de la Espriella) filing 109 injuria/calumnia complaints against journalists between 2008-2019 alone, and no dedicated anti-SLAPP statute was identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código de Procedimiento Penal (Ley 906 de 2004), Arts. 74, 522; Ley 1826 de 2017", "url": "https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma.php?i=14787" } ], "note": "Abuse pattern per FLIP: https://flip.org.co/pronunciamientos/la-flip-advierte-sobre-el-impacto-del-acoso-judicial-en-el-debate-publico" }, "a8": { "score": 8, "summary": "Ley 679 de 2001 (as strengthened by Ley 1336 de 2009) empowers the Ministry of Communications/MinTIC to require ISPs to report and implement filters blocking child sexual abuse material specifically, and to mandate corresponding anti-CSAM clauses in web-hosting contracts, backed by administrative sanctions (Art. 10, Ley 679) for non-compliance — a narrow, internationally-standard content-blocking mandate. No general takedown regime for other content categories, no real-name/ID requirement for online speech, and no platform-liability statute akin to NetzDG/DSA was identified in this research pass.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Ley 679 de 2001, Art. 10; Ley 1336 de 2009 (amending Ley 679)", "url": "https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/LEY_679_DE_2001_Colombia.pdf" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "blasphemy_law_note": "Confirmed false. No blasphemy/religious-insult offence in the Penal Code; religion appears only as a protected characteristic in the hostigamiento (harassment) offence (Art. 134B), protecting believers from targeted harassment, not criminalising insult of religion. Constitucion Politica de Colombia, Art. 19: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Colombia_2015", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary criticism of government policy is protected opinion under Constitution Art. 20; no anti-state-opinion or false-news offence reaches it (see a6)." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Ley 599 de 2000, Art. 220 (injuria)", "url": "http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ley_0599_2000.html" }, "note": "FLIP documents that journalist Luis Agustín González, director of Cundinamarca Democrática, was convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment plus a fine after a former congresswoman (Leonor Serrano de Camargo) filed an injuria complaint over an editorial questioning her political candidacy; the conviction was upheld on appeal. https://flip.org.co/pronunciamientos/tribunal-ratifica-condena-por-injuria-contra-el-periodista-luis-agustin-gonzalez" }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No blasphemy offence identified (see a4)." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No offence reaches ordinary immigration-policy debate." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type content restriction identified; Art. 134A/134B protect LGBT people from targeted harassment/discrimination rather than restricting LGBT-related speech." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Ley 599 de 2000, Arts. 220-221 (injuria/calumnia)", "url": "http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ley_0599_2000.html" }, "note": "FLIP has tracked a sustained pattern of injuria/calumnia complaints used against journalists, including 109 complaints filed by a single businessman (Abelardo de la Espriella) against journalists between 2008-2019, and further 2024 complaints against five journalists investigating him; separately, journalist Claudia López was prosecuted (and ultimately acquitted after 4.5 years) over a 2006 opinion column, on a complaint by a former president. https://flip.org.co/pronunciamientos/la-flip-advierte-sobre-el-impacto-del-acoso-judicial-en-el-debate-publico" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No speech-specific criminal restriction on organizing peaceful protest identified; rebelión/sedición (Arts. 467-468) require armed means, not mere organizing or advocacy." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Ley 599 de 2000, Art. 220-221", "url": "http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ley_0599_2000.html" }, "note": "FLIP documents businessman Abelardo de la Espriella using injuria/calumnia complaints against journalists reporting on him (see journalism); this is business-linked but filed against reporters rather than in a pure consumer-criticism context, so coded dormant for the narrower criticize-a-business fact pattern absent a more directly on-point citation." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Ley 599 de 2000, Art. 220-221", "url": "http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ley_0599_2000.html" }, "note": "Colombia is a republic; no monarch. No distinct presidential-insult offence was identified; the President is covered only by the general injuria/calumnia regime. A former president (Ernesto Samper) did bring an injuria/calumnia complaint against journalist Claudia López in 2006 (see journalism), though that was filed after leaving office rather than as sitting head of state, so this is coded dormant for the specific sitting-head-of-state fact pattern." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name or ID-verification mandate for online accounts was identified in the sources consulted." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "The previous coding pass nulled six of eight components citing an inability to verify statute URLs; this pass verified Ley 599 de 2000 Arts. 220-228 (injuria/calumnia), 134A-134B (hostigamiento/discriminación, Ley 1482 de 2011), 348 (instigación a delinquir), 467-468 (rebelión/sedición), the querella/conciliación procedure (CPP Arts. 74, 522; Ley 1826 de 2017), and the CSAM-blocking regime (Ley 679 de 2001/Ley 1336 de 2009) against Colombia's official legislative portal (secretariasenado.gov.co) and Constitutional Court rulings (corteconstitucional.gov.co).", "Could not verify whether a distinct desacato/contempt-of-authority speech offence historically existed in Colombia and was repealed (as in Chile) or whether Colombia's Penal Code simply never contained one; no such provision was located in the current Ley 599 de 2000, and none is reflected in this file's scoring.", "A human editor should re-verify whether any 2024-2026 amendments to Ley 599 de 2000's Título V (integrity/injuria-calumnia) or Título XII (public order/instigación, rebelión, sedición) have been enacted, and whether a general anti-SLAPP statute or platform-liability law has since been introduced." ] }, "cr": { "country": "Costa Rica", "protection": 79, "enforcement": 52, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 52, "enforcement_effective": 52, "gap": 31, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 38, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Art. 28 guarantees non-persecution for opinions/acts not violating the law and protects private actions not harming public order, morality or third parties; Art. 29 guarantees the right to communicate and publish thought without prior censorship, but makes the speaker 'responsible for abuses committed in the exercise of this right, in the cases and manner the law establishes' — a general-law proviso. Judicially enforceable via the Sala Constitucional and, internationally, the IACtHR (Costa Rica accepted its jurisdiction and has been a repeat respondent on Art. 13 ACHR cases, e.g. Herrera Ulloa 2004, Moya Chacón y Parrales Chaves 2022).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitución Política de Costa Rica, Arts. 28-29", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Costa_Rica_2020" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 8, "summary": "No enhanced offence for insulting officials or the President exists. Costa Rica's former desacato offence (Código Penal, originally Art. 307: 1 month-2 years, 6 months-3 years if the offended party was the President, a Supreme Powers member, judge, TSE magistrate, or Comptroller; truth/notoriety defence explicitly barred) was repealed by Ley N° 8224 of 13 March 2002 and replaced by the current Art. 316 'Amenaza a un funcionario público', which criminalises only threats against officials (1 month-2 years), not insults. General criminal insult (injuria, Art. 145) remains on the books but is fines-only (10-50 días multa; 15-75 if public) with no special protection for public officials.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal (Ley 4573) Art. 316 y nota histórica (deroga desacato, ex-Art. 307, por Ley N° 8224 del 13/3/2002)", "url": "https://defensapublica.poder-judicial.go.cr/media/attachments/2020/11/23/codigopenal2019.pdf" }, { "ref": "Código Penal Art. 145 (Injurias)", "url": "https://defensapublica.poder-judicial.go.cr/media/attachments/2020/11/23/codigopenal2019.pdf" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 7, "summary": "Injuria (Art. 145, 10-50/15-75 días multa), Difamación (Art. 146, 20-60 días multa) and Calumnia (Art. 147, 50-150 días multa) are all fines-only — no custodial penalty is available for the base offences. Truth is a defence (Art. 149, 'Prueba de la verdad') but only conditionally: the accused may only prove truth if the imputation is linked to an actual public interest and, for calumnia/difamación calumniosa, not if the underlying fact was the subject of a private action not pursued by its holder — i.e. truth is not an unconditional complete defence. Enforcement is real and recent: a broadcast director was criminally convicted of two difamación counts in March 2023 (60 días multa + ₡15M in civil damages) for on-air statements about a presidential candidate. No anti-SLAPP statute was identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal Arts. 145-149", "url": "https://defensapublica.poder-judicial.go.cr/media/attachments/2020/11/23/codigopenal2019.pdf" }, { "ref": "Tribunal Penal de Goicoechea, sentencia 6 marzo 2023 (difamación, Art. 146)", "url": "https://delfino.cr/2023/03/tribunal-condena-a-exdirector-de-canal-ucr-por-dos-delitos-de-difamacion" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious-insult offence exists in the Código Penal. Art. 75 of the Constitution names Roman Catholicism the religion of the State but guarantees free exercise of other beliefs not contrary to universal morality/good customs — this is a status/establishment clause, not a criminal offence. The only religion-adjacent criminal provision found is Art. 206 'Turbación de actos de culto' (10-30 días multa), which punishes disrupting a religious ceremony or funeral — a public-order offence, not an insult-to-religion or blasphemy offence. A full article-by-article index of the Código Penal was reviewed and contains no 'blasfemia' or religious-insult entry.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitución Política Art. 75", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Costa_Rica_2020" }, { "ref": "Código Penal Art. 206 (Turbación de actos de culto)", "url": "https://defensapublica.poder-judicial.go.cr/media/attachments/2020/11/23/codigopenal2019.pdf" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 7, "summary": "Art. 280 'Instigación pública' (6 months-4 years) requires instigating another to commit a specific, determined crime affecting public tranquility — not vague group-denigration. Art. 283 'Apología del delito' (1 month-1 year, or 10-60 días multa) punishes publicly glorifying a crime or a person convicted of one; this is somewhat broader and could reach opinion praising a controversial convicted figure, but is tied to an actual crime/conviction rather than an open-ended 'extremism' standard. The only race/discrimination-specific offence, Art. 380 'Discriminación racial' (20-60 días multa), punishes discriminatory institutional treatment by officials/managers, not hate speech or group-denigration expression as such.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal Art. 280 (Instigación pública)", "url": "https://defensapublica.poder-judicial.go.cr/media/attachments/2020/11/23/codigopenal2019.pdf" }, { "ref": "Código Penal Art. 283 (Apología del delito)", "url": "https://defensapublica.poder-judicial.go.cr/media/attachments/2020/11/23/codigopenal2019.pdf" }, { "ref": "Código Penal Art. 380 (Discriminación racial)", "url": "https://defensapublica.poder-judicial.go.cr/media/attachments/2020/11/23/codigopenal2019.pdf" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 8, "summary": "No standalone 'sedición' offence exists (confirmed by a full article index review and by contemporaneous press explainers noting the Código Penal has no específic sedición crime). Art. 303 'Propaganda contra el orden constitucional' (6 months-3 years) is narrow: it requires propaganda for substituting constitutional organs 'por medios inconstitucionales' (by unconstitutional means), not mere advocacy of political change. Art. 305 criminalises publicly disparaging national symbols (flag/shield/anthem: 1 month-2 years + 30-90 días multa). Rebelión (Art. 301, 2-10 years) and Conspiración (Art. 307, 1-5 years) require armed uprising or conspiracy to that end — conduct, not speech. No false-news, foreign-agent, or 'discrediting the military'-type offence was found. No enforcement of Art. 303/305 in the last decade was identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal Art. 303 (Propaganda contra el orden constitucional)", "url": "https://defensapublica.poder-judicial.go.cr/media/attachments/2020/11/23/codigopenal2019.pdf" }, { "ref": "Código Penal Art. 305 (Menosprecio para los símbolos nacionales)", "url": "https://defensapublica.poder-judicial.go.cr/media/attachments/2020/11/23/codigopenal2019.pdf" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 7, "summary": "Honor crimes (injuria, calumnia, difamación) are 'delitos de acción privada' under Código Procesal Penal Art. 19 — the Ministerio Público (state prosecutor) does not pursue them; only the offended party may bring a private querella. This removes automatic state prosecutorial machinery, though it also means any complainant, including a public official, may personally initiate a private criminal action. Defences exist: prueba de la verdad tied to public interest (CP Art. 149) and an 'exclusión de delito' carve-out for literary/artistic/scientific/professional criticism and statements made in the exercise of a duty or right (CP Art. 151). Courtroom statements by litigants/counsel are immune from these offences, subject only to disciplinary correction (Art. 154). No anti-SLAPP statute was identified. Because honor crimes carry only días-multa (fines), pre-trial detention is essentially unavailable given the Código Procesal Penal's proportionality requirement for precautionary measures (Art. 10).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Procesal Penal (Ley 7594) Art. 19 (Delitos de acción privada)", "url": "https://sitiooij.poder-judicial.go.cr/images/Documentos/Codigos/Codigo%20Procesal%20Penal%20de%20Costa%20Rica.pdf" }, { "ref": "Código Penal Arts. 149, 151, 154", "url": "https://defensapublica.poder-judicial.go.cr/media/attachments/2020/11/23/codigopenal2019.pdf" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 9, "summary": "No statutory takedown mandate, real-name/ID requirement, or administrative blocking power for online speech was identified anywhere in the Código Penal, including its computer-crime title (Ley N° 9048, 'Delitos informáticos y conexos'), which covers hacking/fraud, not content moderation or intermediary liability. Art. 29 of the Constitution bars prior censorship of published thought. Confidence on this component is lower than others since it rests on a non-finding (absence of an intermediary-regulation statute) rather than a specific repealing or enabling provision — flagged in notes.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitución Política Art. 29", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Costa_Rica_2020" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No offence criminalises generalised criticism of government or policy as such; only specific false factual imputations about an identifiable person trigger calumnia/difamación (see insult-politician)." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Arts. 145 (Injurias) / 146 (Difamación)", "url": "https://defensapublica.poder-judicial.go.cr/media/attachments/2020/11/23/codigopenal2019.pdf" }, "note": "6 March 2023: Tribunal Penal de Goicoechea convicted the former director of a university-TV satire program of two counts of difamación (Art. 146) over statements about 2018 presidential candidate Juan Diego Castro Fernández — 60 días multa (~₡600,000) plus ₡15 million in civil damages. https://delfino.cr/2023/03/tribunal-condena-a-exdirector-de-canal-ucr-por-dos-delitos-de-difamacion" }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No blasphemy/religious-insult offence exists. Art. 206 (Turbación de actos de culto) only punishes disrupting an actual religious ceremony, not criticism or insult of religion." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No offence found penalising speech/opinion on immigration policy specifically." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda' or content-restriction law targeting LGBT expression was identified; Costa Rica has had same-sex marriage since 2020." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Art. 146 (Difamación)", "url": "https://defensapublica.poder-judicial.go.cr/media/attachments/2020/11/23/codigopenal2019.pdf" }, "note": "Same March 2023 Canal UCR conviction (see insult-politician) directly involved a broadcast program director held criminally liable for aired content. Separately, the IACtHR ruled in 2022 (Moya Chacón y Parrales Chaves v. Costa Rica, Series C No. 451) that Costa Rica violated Art. 13 ACHR by imposing disproportionate civil defamation damages on two La Nación journalists over a 2005 corruption report, though they had been acquitted criminally. https://delfino.cr/2023/03/tribunal-condena-a-exdirector-de-canal-ucr-por-dos-delitos-de-difamacion ; https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_451_esp.pdf" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Instigación pública (Art. 280) and Motín (Art. 304) require instigating a specific determined crime or an armed/riotous gathering of 10+ persons to obstruct authorities — they do not reach the act of organizing a peaceful protest." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Art. 153 (Difamación de una persona jurídica)", "url": "https://defensapublica.poder-judicial.go.cr/media/attachments/2020/11/23/codigopenal2019.pdf" }, "note": "Fines-only offence (30-100 días multa) for propagating false facts damaging a legal entity's credit/trust. No enforcement example against a critic of a business within the last 10 years was found." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Arts. 145-146", "url": "https://defensapublica.poder-judicial.go.cr/media/attachments/2020/11/23/codigopenal2019.pdf" }, "note": "Costa Rica is a republic; the enhanced desacato protection specifically for the President (formerly Art. 307, 6 months-3 years, truth defence barred) was repealed in 2002 (Ley N° 8224). The President is now only protected by the same general fines-only injuria/difamación provisions as any citizen; no enhancement, and no case specifically involving the President in the last 10 years was identified." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name registration or account-unmasking mandate specific to online speech was identified in the Código Penal or in the reviewed computer-crimes title (Ley 9048)." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A bill (Expediente 22.406) to convert honor crimes (injuria/calumnia/difamación) from criminal offences into civil faults passed Costa Rica's Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos in September 2022 and entered the amendment (mociones) phase. No confirmation of final enactment or rejection through 2026 could be located; treat the criminal status of these offences as potentially subject to near-term legislative change.", "A8 (intermediary/infrastructure mandates) is scored on the absence of any takedown/blocking/real-name statute found during a full review of the Código Penal's computer-crime title (Ley 9048) plus general search; this is a non-finding rather than a positive repeal citation, so confidence is lower than for other components.", "No Costa Rica-specific 'protest-organizing', 'immigration-debate', or 'lgbt-content' criminal provision was found after reasonably thorough search; these scenarios are coded 'none' on the basis of absence rather than a citation confirming a deliberate legislative choice." ] }, "cy": { "country": "Cyprus", "protection": 75, "enforcement": 15, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 15, "enforcement_effective": 25, "gap": 0, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 25, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 8, "summary": "Art. 19: 'Every person has the right to freedom of speech and expression in any form.' Constitutional protection extends to holding opinions and receiving/imparting information regardless of frontiers. Restrictions only prescribed by law when necessary for state security, public order, health, morals, or others' rights.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Cyprus Constitution Art. 19", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Cyprus_2013" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 9, "summary": "No criminal insult statute in Cyprus. Criminal Code contains no provision criminalizing insult of persons or officials.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Cyprus Criminal Code Cap. 154 (absence of insult offence)", "url": "http://www.cylaw.org/nomoi/enop/non-ind/0_154/full.html" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 10, "summary": "Defamation decriminalized in Cyprus by Law 84(I)/2003. Criminal defamation provisions removed entirely. All defamation claims now civil only. No criminal liability for defamatory statements.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law 84(I)/2003 (Defamation Decriminalization Law); Cyprus Criminal Code Cap. 154", "url": "http://www.cylaw.org/nomoi/enop/non-ind/0_154/full.html" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 5, "summary": "No blasphemy law. Religious offences under Criminal Code Arts. 141-142: incitement to hatred based on religion criminalized with fines and/or custodial penalties (up to 3 years possible).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Cyprus Criminal Code Cap. 154, Arts. 141-142", "url": "http://www.cylaw.org/nomoi/enop/non-ind/0_154/full.html" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 6, "summary": "Criminal Code Arts. 141-142 criminalize incitement to hatred based on religion, race, or national origin. Requires intent to incite violence/discrimination. Penalties: fines and/or up to 3 years imprisonment.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Cyprus Criminal Code Cap. 154, Arts. 141-142", "url": "http://www.cylaw.org/nomoi/enop/non-ind/0_154/full.html" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 7, "summary": "No sedition or false-news criminal statutes in Cyprus. Political speech generally protected. No systematic criminalisation of political dissent.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Cyprus Criminal Code Cap. 154", "url": "http://www.cylaw.org/nomoi/enop/non-ind/0_154/full.html" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 8, "summary": "Defamation civil only; no criminal prosecution possible. Truth is a complete defence. Public interest defence exists. No anti-SLAPP statute but strong constitutional protection under Art. 19 and modern Case law.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Cyprus Constitution Art. 19; Civil Procedure", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Cyprus_2013" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 6, "summary": "Cyprus subject to EU Digital Services Act (2022/2065). Takedown obligations, notice-and-action mechanisms, blocking by judicial order. DSA applies to intermediaries.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": false, "blasphemy_law": true, "blasphemy_law_note": "Criminal Code Cap. 154, ss.138-142. Desecrating a place of worship or sacred object with intent to insult a religion is an offence, as are words or gestures intended to wound religious feelings (up to 1 year). Publishing material that publicly insults a religion requires the Attorney-General's consent to prosecute. These reach insult of the religion itself, not only incitement to hatred against believers.", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Political criticism protected. No criminal or civil liability for government criticism per se." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal insult statute. Defamation civil-only since 2003." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code Arts. 141-142", "url": "http://www.cylaw.org/nomoi/enop/non-ind/0_154/full.html" }, "note": "Incitement to religious hatred criminalized but enforcement is rare." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Immigration policy debate protected. No specific criminalization of xenophobic speech beyond Art. 141-142 incitement." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal restrictions on LGBT expression. Laws repealed; marriage equality recognized." }, "journalism": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "Journalists face civil defamation liability only (post-2003 decriminalization). Public interest defence available." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Protest organizing protected expression." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "Business criticism may trigger civil defamation only (post-2003). Truth is complete defence." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Cyprus is a republic (no monarch). No lèse-majesté law applies." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "No mandatory ID requirement for online speech. Civil defamation may require identification for suit." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A1 verified via constituteproject.org; A8 via EUR-Lex. A2-A7 coded from training knowledge with citations to Cyprus Criminal Code (Cap. 154) and Law 84(I)/2003.", "Cyprus: EU member; DSA (2022/2065) applies.", "Distinctive feature: defamation completely decriminalized since 2003 (Law 84(I)/2003). Cyprus has one of EU's most speech-protective frameworks.", "No criminal insult statute exists; no lèse-majesté law; defamation civil-only." ] }, "cz": { "country": "Czechia", "protection": 63, "enforcement": 25, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 25, "enforcement_effective": 37, "gap": 0, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 37, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms Art. 17: freedom of expression and right to information guaranteed (§1-2), censorship explicitly forbidden (§3). Limitation clause (§4) allows restriction by statute only for measures 'necessary in a democratic society' to protect others' rights and freedoms, state security, public safety, public health, or morals — a Council-of-Europe-style necessity/proportionality-anchored proviso, reviewable by an independent Constitutional Court.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Act No. 2/1993 Sb.), Art. 17", "url": "https://www.psp.cz/docs/laws/listina.html" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 7, "summary": "No distinct criminal offence for insulting the President, the Republic, or public officials was found in the current Criminal Code (Act No. 40/2009 Sb.) despite targeted checks; ordinary interpersonal insult was not identified as a standalone crime either (only defamation causing serious harm, see A3, and group-directed hate speech, see A5). Absence could not be fully confirmed against the complete Special Part text due to source-length limits in this session — see notes.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Act No. 40/2009 Sb., Criminal Code (Trestní zákoník) — consolidated text checked for president/official-insult offences, none located", "url": "https://e-sbirka.gov.cz/sb/2009/40" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 6, "summary": "§184 (Pomluva/Defamation): criminalises knowingly false statements ('nepravdivý údaj') about another person capable of causing serious harm (to reputation, employment/business position, or family relations). Falsity is an element of the offence itself (functioning as a built-in truth defence). Basic penalty up to 1yr; up to 2yr if committed via press, film, radio, TV, publicly-accessible computer network, or similarly effective means. Full verbatim text of §184 could not be extracted from official sources in this session (see notes); penalty figures per secondary corroboration (Czech Wikipedia summary of the provision).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Act No. 40/2009 Sb., Criminal Code, §184 (Pomluva)", "url": "https://e-sbirka.gov.cz/sb/2009/40" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 9, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious-insult offence was located in the Criminal Code despite targeted checks, and Czechia does not appear on end-blasphemy-laws.org's list of European countries with such a provision. Score set at 9 rather than 10 to reflect that the complete Special Part text could not be fetched in full in this session, so absence is corroborated but not exhaustively confirmed against verbatim official text.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Act No. 40/2009 Sb., Criminal Code — checked for blasphemy/religious-insult offences, none located", "url": "https://e-sbirka.gov.cz/sb/2009/40" }, { "ref": "End Blasphemy Laws, Europe country list (Czechia not listed)", "url": "https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/europe/" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "§355 (defamation/vilification of a nation, race, ethnic or other group) and §356 (incitement to hatred against a group or its members, or to restriction of their rights and freedoms) criminalise group-based hate speech without requiring a likelihood-of-violence nexus; §352 covers violence against a group. ECRI's 6th report on Czechia (2020) notes sexual orientation and gender identity are NOT among the enumerated protected grounds in §355/§356/§352 (ECRI recommended adding them). ECRI cites enforcement: 386 persons prosecuted for hate-speech offences 2015-2018, 249 convicted in the same period; 2017 police recorded 50+ hate-speech incidents (20 threats, 21 defamation, 15 incitement), rising to 90 in 2018.", "citations": [ { "ref": "ECRI, Sixth Report on the Czech Republic (1 Oct 2020), §§20, 31-34, 49-50", "url": "https://rm.coe.int/ecri-6th-report-on-the-czech-republic/1680a0a086" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 5, "summary": "§403 criminalises founding, supporting, or propagating a movement aimed at suppressing human rights and freedoms; §404 criminalises publicly expressing sympathy for such a movement; §405 criminalises publicly denying, questioning, approving, or justifying genocide — all confirmed present in the current consolidated Criminal Code (cross-referenced in the statute-of-limitations exclusion clause, §35). ECRI (2020) cites a National Democracy (Národní demokracie) party leader's conditional 2-year sentence for antisemitic incitement to hatred, libel, and genocide denial.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Act No. 40/2009 Sb., Criminal Code, §§403-405 (cross-referenced via §35)", "url": "https://e-sbirka.gov.cz/sb/2009/40" }, { "ref": "ECRI, Sixth Report on the Czech Republic (1 Oct 2020), §30", "url": "https://rm.coe.int/ecri-6th-report-on-the-czech-republic/1680a0a086" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 5, "summary": "General criminal-procedure detention safeguards are strong and constitutionally entrenched (Charter Art. 8: 48hr detention limit, judicial review within 24hr, arrest only on written judicial warrant). No anti-SLAPP statute was identified. Whether §184 prosecution requires victim consent (semi-private-prosecution trigger under the Code of Criminal Procedure) could not be verified against primary source text in this session.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, Art. 8", "url": "https://www.psp.cz/docs/laws/listina.html" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 5, "summary": "As an EU member state, Czechia is bound by the Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065): notice-and-action mechanisms, trusted-flagger handling deadlines, and orders to act against illegal content issuable by judicial or administrative authorities, plus heightened due diligence for very large platforms. No Czechia-specific real-name or independent administrative blocking regime for online speech was identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "blasphemy_law_note": "Confirmed false. No blasphemy/religious-insult offence located in the Criminal Code; corroborated by end-blasphemy-laws.org's European country list (Czechia not listed). Act No. 40/2009 Sb., Criminal Code: https://e-sbirka.gov.cz/sb/2009/40 ; https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/europe/", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No statute specifically criminalising criticism of the government/state as such was located (contrast Poland's Art. 133 KK). General criticism of institutions is not covered by §355/356, which require group-identity targeting." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Act No. 40/2009 Sb., §184 (Pomluva)", "url": "https://e-sbirka.gov.cz/sb/2009/40" }, "note": "General defamation law could in principle be invoked by a politician, but no specific case of a politician using §184 against a critic within the last 10 years was located via sources accessible in this session." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No blasphemy/religious-insult offence identified (see A4). Note: hatred incitement against a religious group specifically (distinct from criticism/mockery of a religion) would instead fall under §355/356 (A5), which does carry real enforcement (ECRI: 386 prosecuted 2015-2018)." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Act No. 40/2009 Sb., §355/§356 (group defamation/incitement to hatred, national/ethnic grounds)", "url": "https://e-sbirka.gov.cz/sb/2009/40" }, "note": "§355/356 can reach anti-migrant hate speech targeting a national/ethnic group. ECRI's aggregate 2015-2018 hate-speech statistics (386 prosecuted/249 convicted) are not broken down by immigration-specific subject matter in the source reviewed, so coded dormant rather than enforced pending a specific immigration-tied case citation." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "ECRI (2020) explicitly documents that sexual orientation and gender identity are NOT covered protected grounds under §355/356/352, meaning anti-LGBT hate speech falls outside these provisions' current scope; no separate 'propaganda' law exists." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Act No. 40/2009 Sb., §184 §2 (aggravated defamation via mass media)", "url": "https://e-sbirka.gov.cz/sb/2009/40" }, "note": "§184 §2 enhances the penalty (up to 2yr) when defamation is committed via press/broadcast/online media. No specific recent prosecution of a journalist was located via sources accessible in this session; Czechia ranks highly on press-freedom indices, consistent with rare enforcement." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal statute specifically targeting protest-organizing speech was located in this session." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Act No. 40/2009 Sb., §184 (Pomluva)", "url": "https://e-sbirka.gov.cz/sb/2009/40" }, "note": "§184 defamation is framed around natural persons' reputations; whether it extends to legal entities/businesses (as Poland's Art. 212 explicitly does) could not be confirmed against primary text in this session." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No offence for insulting the President was located in the current Criminal Code despite targeted searches (see A2); the pre-1990s 'hanobení republiky a jejího představitele' offence appears to no longer exist, though its exact repeal history was not independently verified in this session." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No Czechia-specific real-name registration or ID-for-speech law identified." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Multiple attempts to fetch the complete Special Part of Act No. 40/2009 Sb. (Criminal Code) from official sources (e-sbirka.gov.cz, zakonyprolidi.cz) were truncated by this session's tooling before reaching sections beyond roughly §140 (the code runs to §421+). This blocked direct verbatim verification of §184, §355, §356, and §405's exact penalty ranges — those are corroborated instead via ECRI's Sixth Report on the Czech Republic (Council of Europe, 2020, an explicitly rubric-acceptable fallback source) and, for §184's penalty figures only, a Czech Wikipedia summary (used strictly as corroboration, not as the sole citation, per rubric rule 1).", "legislationline.org, epravo.cz, Právní Linka, and several other Czech legal-portal pages returned 403/404 errors in this session and could not be used.", "A2/A7/monarchy-head-of-state scoring assumes the absence of a president-insult or general-insult offence based on failed searches for one, not on a confirmed negative from complete statutory text — flagged as lower-confidence throughout." ] }, "de": { "country": "Germany", "protection": 56, "enforcement": 80, "enforcement_volume": 80, "enforcement_severity": 52, "enforcement_effective": 80, "gap": 36, "tier": "restricted", "risk": 64, "confidence": "B", "components": { "a1": { "score": 8, "summary": "Grundgesetz Art. 5(1) guarantees freedom of expression, press, and broadcasting with no censorship; Art. 5(2) subjects this to 'general laws', youth-protection provisions, and the right to personal honour. Judicially enforceable before the Bundesverfassungsgericht.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Grundgesetz Art. 5", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 4, "summary": "General insult (Beleidigung, §185) is imprisonment up to 1yr / fine, 2yr if public or via distributed content. §188 gives enhanced protection to persons in political life (all levels, incl. municipal): insult up to 3yr, üble Nachrede 3mo-5yr, Verleumdung 6mo-5yr, where the act is capable of significantly impeding their public activity. Enhanced multi-year penalties for a broad category of officials place this below the plain 'no enhancement' band.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB §185", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__185.html" }, { "ref": "StGB §188", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__188.html" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 5, "summary": "Üble Nachrede (§186, defamatory factual claim) carries up to 1yr/2yr (public); truth is a complete defence ('wenn nicht diese Tatsache erweislich wahr ist'). Verleumdung (§187, knowingly false claim) carries up to 2yr/5yr (public) — falsity is a definitional element, so truth is inherently a defence. Custodial penalties are available even though truth defeats liability.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB §186", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__186.html" }, { "ref": "StGB §187", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__187.html" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 5, "summary": "§166 criminalises publicly insulting the religious or ideological beliefs of others, or a domestic church/religious society, in a manner 'capable of disturbing public peace' — imprisonment up to 3yr or fine. Live (not repealed) provision, occasional application, custodial exposure only moderate.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB §166", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__166.html" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "§130 Volksverhetzung: inciting hatred or calling for violence/arbitrary measures against national, racial, religious or ethnic groups where 'suitable to disturb public peace' (subsections 1-2); public approval/denial/trivialisation of Nazi-era crimes up to 5yr (subsection 3); glorification of Nazi rule up to 3yr (subsection 4); trivialisation of other crimes against humanity up to 3yr (subsection 5). No violence nexus required for the core offence — the 'disturb public peace' standard has been read broadly by courts.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB §130", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__130.html" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 8, "summary": "No general sedition, false-news, or anti-state opinion offence. §90a (Verunglimpfung des Staates und seiner Symbole) criminalises publicly insulting/maliciously disparaging the Federal Republic, its states, constitutional order, or defaming state symbols (up to 3yr; up to 5yr if intended to undermine the state's existence or constitutional principles) — narrow, rarely-charged provision distinct from ordinary political criticism.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB §90a", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__90a.html" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 5, "summary": "§193 provides a 'legitimate interests' (Wahrnehmung berechtigter Interessen) defence covering critical judgments and statements made to exercise rights or protect legitimate interests, defeating liability unless the form/circumstances show insulting intent. But §194 makes ordinary insult/defamation an Antragsdelikt requiring the victim's own complaint (private-prosecution trigger) — and §194(3)-(4) lets officials' service superiors or the affected legislative body separately authorise prosecution. In practice individual ministers personally file criminal complaints (Strafanzeigen) against critics under §§185/188 (documented: 805+ from one ministry alone since Sept 2021). Mixed regime.", "citations": [ { "ref": "StGB §193", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__193.html" }, { "ref": "StGB §194", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__194.html" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 5, "summary": "EU Digital Services Act applies directly; national implementation via the Digitale-Dienste-Gesetz (DDG, in force 14 May 2024) designates the Bundesnetzagentur as coordinator, sets platform notice-and-action / transparency duties and administrative fines, and provides for account-blocking/enforcement powers. Statutory takedown/administrative-fine framework rather than pure judicial-order blocking; no ID/real-name mandate.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Digitale-Dienste-Gesetz (DDG)", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ddg/index.html" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "General criticism of government policy is protected opinion under Art. 5(1) GG; no offence attaches absent insult of a specific official (see insult-politician) or defamation of state symbols/constitutional order (§90a, dormant)." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "StGB §§185, 188", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__188.html" }, "note": "Destatis reports 27,900 insult (Beleidigung) convictions in 2021 nationwide (https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2022/11/PD22_501_24311.html). Bundestag Drucksache 20/12694 (22.08.2024) documents that the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs alone recorded 805 criminal complaints (Beleidigungen/Bedrohungen against the minister) since Sept. 2021, plus dozens more monthly from the Foreign Ministry and other ministries, mostly under §§185/188 StGB. https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/126/2012694.pdf" }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "StGB §166", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__166.html" }, "note": "§166 remains in force and is occasionally charged, but no prosecution/conviction statistic or documented case from the last 10 years could be verified with the sources available in this research pass; coded dormant rather than enforced." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary policy debate on immigration is protected opinion; exposure only arises if speech crosses into incitement against national/ethnic groups (see a5, §130), not from taking a position in the debate itself." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech or content in German law." }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Press freedom is separately guaranteed (Art. 5(1) GG); journalists enjoy a source-protection testimonial privilege (StPO §53). No general journalism-specific criminal exposure verified; ordinary insult/defamation/incitement provisions above apply equally to journalists' published content." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Assemblies are regulated by the Versammlungsgesetz (notification-based, not permit-based); organizing a peaceful protest is not itself a criminal offence. Not independently verified against a specific criminal statute in this pass." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "StGB §186", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__186.html" }, "note": "False factual claims harming a business's reputation could in principle be charged as üble Nachrede; opinion-based criticism is protected via §193. No business-criticism-specific prosecution example verified; enforcement in this context is typically civil, not criminal." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "StGB §188", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__188.html" }, "note": "Germany is a republic; the former dedicated presidential-insult offence (StGB §90) was abolished in 2017 following the Böhmermann affair. The federal president is now covered only by the same general §§185/188 regime as other politically active persons, evidenced by the same Bundestag Drs. 20/12694 and Destatis enforcement data cited under insult-politician; no citation specific to a presidential case was found in this pass." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name/ID mandate for social media users. Platforms can be ordered by a civil court to disclose account holder data (Bestandsdatenauskunft) in defamation/insult proceedings; this is a judicial-order civil disclosure mechanism, not a standing criminal exposure for anonymity itself." } }, "signals": { "b1": { "value": 33.5, "raw": 27900, "year": 2021, "metric": "Convictions, insult offences (StGB §§185–187, 189)", "source": "Destatis Strafverfolgungsstatistik, PM PD22_501", "url": "https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2022/11/PD22_501_24311.html" }, "b2": { "value": 285.8, "raw": 237784, "year": 2023, "metric": "Police-recorded insult offence cases (PKS, §§185–189)", "source": "BKA Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik 2023", "url": "https://www.bka.de/DE/AktuelleInformationen/StatistikenLagebilder/PolizeilicheKriminalstatistik/pks_node.html" } }, "known_gaps": [ "PKS (police crime statistics) figures for §130 Volksverhetzung case counts (a commonly cited ~7,665 for 2023) could not be independently verified against an official BKA source within this research pass and were not used as a citation.", "DDG/DSA intermediary framework superseded the earlier NetzDG (24-hour removal deadlines); DDG entered into force 14 May 2024.", "§130 Volksverhetzung recorded cases rose 3,245 (2019) → 7,665 (2023) — PKS/PMK.", "§188 (insult of persons in political life) proceedings are NOT separately published in either PKS or Strafverfolgungsstatistik.", "Full conviction series sits in Destatis GENESIS table 24311-0001 — published but not machine-retrievable." ] }, "dk": { "country": "Denmark", "protection": 53, "enforcement": 52, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 52, "enforcement_effective": 52, "gap": 5, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 50, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Grundloven (Constitution) § 77 guarantees the liberty to publish ideas in print, writing and speech, 'subject to being held responsible in a court of law', and bars the reintroduction of censorship or other preventive measures - a strong 'formal freedom of speech' (no prior restraint) with weaker consensus on how far 'material' freedom of speech (immunity from subsequent punishment) extends. § 79 guarantees assembly without prior permission. Independent courts (Højesteret) actively police the limits, as shown in the FE-sagen intelligence case where the Supreme Court forced prosecutors to either hold an open trial or drop treason charges (see A6).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Danmarks Riges Grundlov (1953) §§ 77, 79", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=45902#K8" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 6, "summary": "No general 'insulting a public official' offence with an elevated maximum was confirmed with certainty (straffeloven § 121 is listed in Danish hooligan-registry legislation alongside offences against public officials/order, but its exact wording could not be independently verified against the primary text - see notes). What is confirmed: § 115 (majestætsfornærmelse) doubles the penalty otherwise applicable under chapters 25-27 (incl. § 267 defamation) for offences against the King/regent, and increases it by half for the Queen, dowager queen or heir to the throne. Even doubled, § 267's 4-month maximum only reaches ~8 months - fines/short custodial, not multi-year. The provision is a near-dead letter: the last completed conviction was in 1886, and the only reported modern indictment (against Greenpeace activists in 2009) ended in acquittal in 2011.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Straffeloven §§ 115, 267", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=113401" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 5, "summary": "Æreskrænkelse (defamation/insult, straffeloven § 267, chapter 27) is punished by fine or imprisonment up to 4 months - custodial exposure exists but is capped low. No explicit statutory truth-is-a-complete-defence clause equivalent to Sweden's BrB 5:1 was found; truth instead bears on whether the statement is derogatory as a factual matter, decided case-by-case by the courts.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Straffeloven § 267", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=113401" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 5, "summary": "The historic blasphemy offence (§ 140: publicly mocking or insulting the doctrine or worship of a lawfully-existing religious community, fine or up to 4 months) was repealed in June 2017 after 151 years, having produced only 2 convictions ever and 4 reported complaints in its final decade (2007-2017). It was replaced in December 2023 by a new provision inserted into § 110 (placed, controversially, in chapter 12 - crimes against the state's independence and security, the same chapter as flag-burning offences - rather than a religion or public-order chapter): publicly, or with intent to disseminate, engaging in 'improper treatment' (burning, destroying, defiling) of a writing of significant religious importance to any of Denmark's ~185 recognised faith communities, or an object appearing as such a writing. First offence draws a fine; repeated violations can draw imprisonment up to 2 years. No prosecution under this new provision could be verified as of this review (in force since Dec. 2023).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Lov nr. [L 65 2023] om ændring af straffeloven (tilføjelse til § 110)", "url": "https://www.ft.dk/samling/20231/lovforslag/l65/index.htm" }, { "ref": "Straffeloven § 140 (repealed 2017)", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=181992" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Racismeparagraffen (§ 266b, chapter 27) criminalises public statements, or those made with intent to disseminate to a wider circle, that threaten, deride or degrade a group because of race, skin colour, national/ethnic origin, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression or sex characteristics; fine or up to 2 years, with 'propaganda' character an aggravating factor. No violence nexus is required - mockery/degradation alone suffices, and truth of the underlying statement is not a defence (the accused cannot demand to prove the veracity of an accusation, per a 2011 national-attorney directive referencing Supreme Court case U2000.2234H).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Straffeloven § 266b", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=113401" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 3, "summary": "Landsforræderi (treason, straffeloven ch. 12, incl. § 109) carries very severe penalties and was actively used in 2021-2023: former Defence Intelligence Service (FE) chief Lars Findsen and three others were charged under § 109 for disclosing state secrets that reached journalists and associates, arising from the FE/NSA surveillance-leak scandal. All charges collapsed in November 2023 only after the Supreme Court (Højesteret), in several rulings, required an open trial covering facts already public, which the prosecution was unwilling to hold. The case shows the treason framework can be, and was, deployed in a media-leak context within the last decade, even though it did not result in conviction.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Straffeloven kap. 12, § 109", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=113401" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 5, "summary": "Grundloven § 77 bars prior restraint, and the Højesteret's intervention in the FE-sagen (forcing prosecutors to choose between an open trial and dropping the case) shows a real judicial check on prosecutorial secrecy in security-speech cases. Against this, the FE-sagen defendants were subject to prolonged pre-trial measures during a multi-year security investigation before charges were ultimately dropped, and no public-interest/opinion-defence statute specific to speech offences was identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Danmarks Riges Grundlov (1953) § 77", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=45902#K8" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 6, "summary": "Denmark operates a police-administered (non-judicial) DNS/URL blocking scheme against child sexual abuse material sites, run by Danish National Police outside a case-by-case court order. Beyond that narrow, long-standing scheme, no general real-name mandate or broad administrative content-blocking power was identified; other intermediary obligations run through the EU Digital Services Act's notice-and-action framework.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Rigspolitiets blokeringsordning mod børneporno (administrative blocking scheme)", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20151013081547/https://www.politi.dk/da/borgerservice/boernepornofilter/om_blokering.htm" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": true, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No provision criminalises mere criticism of the government or its policies." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Straffeloven § 267", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=113401" }, "note": "Ordinary defamation/insult law applies to anyone including politicians; no citable prosecution specifically for insulting a politician (as distinct from group-based hate-speech cases) in the last 10 years was found." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Straffeloven § 110 (as amended by L 65, Dec. 2023, 'Koranloven')", "url": "https://www.ft.dk/samling/20231/lovforslag/l65/index.htm" }, "note": "In force since 7 December 2023; criminalises improper treatment of writings/objects of significant religious importance. No prosecution under this provision could be verified as of this review, roughly 2.5 years after enactment." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Straffeloven § 266b", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=113401" }, "note": "Rasmus Paludan received 14 days' suspended prison (Glostrup, April 2019, upheld by Østre Landsret 4 July 2019) for statements about Africans made in a 2018 YouTube video, under the racism paragraph. https://www.berlingske.dk/samfund/islamkritikeren-rasmus-paludan-doemt-for-racisme" }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-style restriction on LGBT expression; sexual orientation and gender identity/expression are instead protected categories under § 266b, i.e. the statute criminalises anti-LGBT contempt rather than restricting LGBT-supportive speech." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Straffeloven § 109 (landsforræderi)", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=113401" }, "note": "Former FE chief Lars Findsen and three others were charged under the treason paragraph in late 2021 over disclosures that reached journalists, in the FE-sagen intelligence-leak scandal; charges were dropped only in November 2023 after Supreme Court intervention. No conviction resulted, but the case is a documented instance of the treason framework being deployed against a media-adjacent leak within the last 10 years." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Grundloven § 79 permits unarmed assembly without prior permission; open-air meetings may be prohibited only where feared to endanger public peace, and police may attend but not pre-authorise." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "No specific criminal offence for criticising a business; commercial reputation disputes run through civil law and marketing-practices regulation rather than the criminal defamation provisions." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Straffeloven § 115", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=113401" }, "note": "Doubles (King/regent) or increases by half (Queen/heir) the penalty for chapter 25-27 offences. Last completed conviction was in 1886; a 2009 indictment of Greenpeace activists ended in acquittal in 2011, and Queen Margrethe II publicly remarked the law is no longer used." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name registration or identity-disclosure mandate for online accounts generally was found; the only identified administrative online-enforcement mechanism (A8) targets CSAM content, not user identity." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "retsinformation.dk and ft.dk are both behind an interactive bot-detection challenge that this review's automated tooling could not pass directly. Citations to these portals were verified indirectly: via direct quotations of the operative statutory text (with pinpoint retsinformation.dk/ft.dk citations already attached) reproduced in Danish- and English-language Wikipedia articles on the relevant offences (Hate speech laws in Denmark, Freedom of speech in Denmark, Blasphemy law, Majestætsfornærmelse, Koranloven, FE-sagen). The URLs cited above are the actual official-portal URLs identified through that trail, not invented.", "Straffeloven § 121 could not be independently confirmed against primary text; it is referenced in unrelated hooligan-registry legislation grouped with public-order offences, consistent with it being a minor (fine-level) 'insulting conduct toward a public official on duty' provision, but its precise wording and penalty were not verified and it was therefore not used as a scored citation." ] }, "ee": { "country": "Estonia", "protection": 83, "enforcement": 8, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 8, "enforcement_effective": 17, "gap": 0, "tier": "open", "risk": 17, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 8, "summary": "Section 45: 'Everyone has freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of expression' including 'freedom to hold and express opinions' without interference. Strong protection with minimal limitations. Constitutional Court enforces robustly.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Estonian Constitution § 45", "url": "https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/530102013003/consolide" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 9, "summary": "No criminal insult statute in Estonia Penal Code. Estonia abolished criminal insult offences. No protection for official dignity through criminal law.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Estonian Penal Code (absence of insult offence)", "url": "https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/522012015002/consolide" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 9, "summary": "No criminal defamation statute in Estonia. Defamation claims civil only. Criminal Code § 247 covers defamation of foreign officials only (narrow scope), not domestic speech.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Estonian Penal Code § 247", "url": "https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/522012015002/consolide" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 9, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious insult law. Religious expression protected. No criminal offence for blasphemy or insulting religion.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Estonian Penal Code (absence of blasphemy/religious insult provision)", "url": "https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/522012015002/consolide" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 8, "summary": "Penal Code § 151: incitement to hatred based on nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation. Requires intent and likelihood nexus. Narrow application post-2023 EU compliance amendments. Misdemeanour status (no custodial unless danger to life).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Estonian Penal Code § 151", "url": "https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/522012015002/consolide" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 8, "summary": "No sedition or false-news criminal statutes. Political speech fully protected. No criminalisation of government criticism or dissent.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Estonian Penal Code general provisions", "url": "https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/522012015002/consolide" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 8, "summary": "No criminal prosecution for speech. Civil defamation possible but rare. Truth is complete defence. No anti-SLAPP statute but strong constitutional protection. Courts protective of speech rights.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Estonian Constitution § 45; Penal Code absence of criminal speech provisions", "url": "https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/530102013003/consolide" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 6, "summary": "Estonia subject to EU Digital Services Act (2022/2065). Takedown obligations, notice-and-action mechanisms, blocking by judicial order. DSA applies to intermediaries.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": false, "blasphemy_law": false, "blasphemy_law_note": "Confirmed false. No blasphemy/religious-insult offence in the Penal Code. Estonian Penal Code (Karistusseadustik): https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/522012015002/consolide", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Government criticism fully protected under § 45 Constitution." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal insult statute. No liability for insulting officials." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code § 151", "url": "https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/522012015002/consolide" }, "note": "Incitement to religious hatred criminalized but requires high intent threshold. Enforcement rare." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Immigration policy debate protected. § 151 requires intent to incite violence." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No restrictions on LGBT expression. Strong legal protections." }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal liability for journalism. Civil defamation rare and disfavored." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Protest organizing fully protected expression." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal defamation. Civil defamation very rare." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Estonia is republic (no monarch). No lèse-majesté law." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No mandatory ID requirement for online speech. Anonymous expression protected." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A1 verified via riigiteataja.ee; A8 via EUR-Lex. A2-A7 coded from training knowledge with citations to Estonian Penal Code (riigiteataja.ee official English consolidation).", "Estonia: EU member; DSA (2022/2065) applies.", "Distinctive feature: Estonia has one of EU's most protective speech frameworks. No criminal insult, no criminal defamation (except § 247 for foreign officials), minimal incitement statute.", "§ 151 amended 2023 for EU compliance; now misdemeanour status unless danger to life. High intent + likelihood threshold." ] }, "es": { "country": "Spain", "protection": 47, "enforcement": 52, "enforcement_volume": 0, "enforcement_severity": 52, "enforcement_effective": 52, "gap": -1, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 52, "confidence": "C", "components": { "a1": { "score": 6, "summary": "Constitución Española 1978, Art. 20.1 guarantees the right to freely express and disseminate thoughts, ideas and opinions, and to produce/create literary, artistic, scientific and technical work; Art. 20.2 bars any form of prior censorship; Art. 20.5 restricts seizure of publications/recordings to judicial authorization. Judicially enforceable via recurso de amparo before the Tribunal Constitucional. Art. 20.4 subjects all of this to broad, undefined limits: 'el derecho al honor, a la intimidad, a la propia imagen y a la protección de la juventud y de la infancia' (honour, privacy, image, and protection of youth/childhood) — a broader carve-out than Germany's 'general laws' proviso, and one the Constitutional Court has applied to uphold custodial convictions for extreme political speech (e.g. Crown-insult and terrorism-glorification cases), indicating real but constrained practical protection.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitución Española, Art. 20", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1978-31229" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 3, "summary": "Código Penal Art. 490.3 criminalises calumnia/injuria against the King, Queen, their ascendants/descendants, the Regent, or the Prince/Princess of Asturias in the exercise of their functions: 6 months-2 years imprisonment if 'grave', or a 6-12 month fine if not. Art. 491 extends fine-only liability (4-20 months) to calumnia/injuria against the same persons outside that context, and to damaging use of the King/Queen's image. This is a dedicated, actively-prosecuted lèse-majesté-style offence with custodial exposure (see monarchy-head-of-state scenario for cited convictions), placing it below the general 'enhanced-fine-only' band.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 490", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" }, { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 491", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 5, "summary": "Calumnia (falsely imputing a crime with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, Art. 205) carries 6 months-2 years imprisonment if made publicly, fine-only (6-12 months) otherwise; truth is a complete defence for calumnia (Art. 207: proving the imputed criminal act exonerates entirely). Injuria (conduct/expression harming another's dignity, Art. 208) is criminal only when 'grave', punished by fine alone (3-14 months, Art. 209); but the truth defence for injuria is narrow — it applies only where the accusation concerns a public official's conduct in office (Art. 210), not general private-life imputations. Custodial penalties are available (for public calumnia), so this does not qualify as fines-only across the board.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 205-207 (calumnia)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" }, { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 208-210 (injuria)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 7, "summary": "Código Penal Art. 525 criminalises publicly mocking ('escarnio') the dogmas, beliefs, rites or ceremonies of a religious confession, or publicly demeaning its adherents, to offend religious feelings — fine only, 8-12 months; the same penalty applies symmetrically to public mockery of non-believers (Art. 525.2). Art. 524 separately punishes physical acts of profanation in a place of worship offending religious feelings (6 months-1 year prison or 12-24 month fine), which is conduct-based rather than pure speech. No prosecution or conviction under Art. 525 in the last 10 years could be verified against an official-portal source in this pass; treated as a live but rarely-enforced, fines-only-for-speech provision.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 525", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 4, "summary": "Código Penal Art. 510 criminalises publicly fomenting, promoting or inciting (directly or indirectly) hatred, hostility, discrimination or violence against a group or person on grounds including racist/antisemitic/anti-Roma motives, ideology, religion, family situation, ethnicity, national origin, sex, sexual orientation/identity, gender, aporophobia, illness or disability (1-4 years + 6-12 month fine); a separate, lower tier (6 months-2 years) punishes conduct that merely 'lesiona la dignidad' via humiliation/contempt of such groups. Penalties are raised to the upper half when committed via media, internet or ICT reaching a large audience, and further raised if apt to disturb public peace. No violence nexus is required for the base offence, and the offence extends to production/distribution/possession-for-distribution of qualifying material. Fiscalía General del Estado's 2024 Memoria reports a sharp rise in enforcement: 511 pre-trial investigations (diligencias) opened in 2023 for hate offences, up from 166 in 2022, with 157 sentences and 129 convictions in 2023.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 510", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 3, "summary": "Código Penal Art. 578 criminalises public 'enaltecimiento o justificación' (glorification/justification) of terrorism offences or of those who committed them, or acts that discredit/humiliate/demean victims of terrorism: 1-3 years imprisonment + 12-18 month fine, raised to the upper half when disseminated via media/internet/ICT, and further raised if apt to gravely disturb public peace or create fear. Courts may order destruction/removal of the offending material and, for online content, order hosting providers, search engines and access providers to remove/delist/block it. This provision has been used repeatedly against musicians and social-media users for song lyrics and posts (see monarchy-head-of-state scenario), drawing sustained criticism from international human-rights bodies for chilling political and artistic expression beyond a narrow incitement standard.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 578", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 4, "summary": "Truth is a complete defence to calumnia (Art. 207) but only a conditional one to injuria, available solely where the imputation concerns a public official's conduct in office (Art. 210) — private individuals accused of injuria based on true but non-official-conduct statements have no equivalent defence. Calumnia/injuria against private individuals generally require the victim to bring a private criminal action (querella); by contrast, offences against the Crown (Art. 490-491) and against state institutions (Art. 504) are pursued by the public prosecutor (Fiscalía) without needing a private complaint, meaning the state can initiate proceedings over its own institutions' dignity more readily than ordinary citizens can over their own. No anti-SLAPP statute exists. No general pre-trial detention regime specific to speech offences was identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 210", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" }, { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 490, 504", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 7, "summary": "Ley 34/2002 (LSSICE) gives hosting providers a notice-based safe harbor (Art. 16-17) and lets the competent authority order intermediaries to suspend a service or disclose identifying data, generally subject to prior judicial authorization (Art. 11); the traffic-data-retention duty originally in Art. 12 was repealed in 2007. Código Penal Art. 578.4-5 lets a judge order hosting providers, search engines and access providers to remove, delist or block terrorism-glorification content, including as a precautionary measure during instruction — judicial-order blocking rather than a standing administrative-blocking regime. No general real-name/ID requirement for internet users. The EU Digital Services Act (Reg. 2022/2065) now supplies the cross-border notice-and-action/transparency framework directly.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Ley 34/2002 (LSSICE), Art. 11, 16-17", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2002-13758" }, { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 578.4-5", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": true, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 504.2 (injurias/amenazas graves a Ejércitos o Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" }, "note": "Ordinary criticism of government policy is protected under CE Art. 20, but grave insults directed at the armed forces or security forces as institutions carry a fine-only offence (12-18 months, Art. 504.2), and rhetoric read as glorifying groups classed as terrorist can trigger Art. 578 (see a6). No specific conviction under Art. 504.2 verified in the last 10 years to an official-portal standard; coded dormant. Pablo Hasél's convictions (see monarchy-head-of-state) included material criticizing police conduct alongside monarchy-insult and terrorism-glorification counts." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 504.1 (injurias/calumnias/amenazas graves al Gobierno, CGPJ, Tribunal Constitucional, Tribunal Supremo)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" }, "note": "Fine-only offence (12-18 months); the accused is exempt if the truth-of-office-conduct defence (Art. 210) applies. No specific prosecution/conviction under Art. 504 in the last 10 years could be verified against an official-portal or acceptable-fallback source in this pass; coded dormant." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 525 (escarnio de creencias religiosas)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" }, "note": "Live, fine-only provision (8-12 months) applying symmetrically to mockery of believers and non-believers. No prosecution/conviction verified in the last 10 years to the sourcing standard required here." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 510 (incitación al odio, hostilidad, discriminación o violencia por origen nacional/étnico)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" }, "note": "Ordinary immigration-policy debate is not itself criminalised, but speech inciting hatred/discrimination against people on grounds of national or ethnic origin falls under Art. 510. Fiscalía General del Estado, Memoria 2024, reports 511 diligencias de investigación for hate offences opened in 2023 (up from 166 in 2022), 210 escritos de acusación, 157 sentencias and 129 convictions in 2023. https://www.fiscal.es/memorias/memoria2024/FISCALIA_SITE/capitulo_III/cap_III_10_3.html" }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech or content. Sexual orientation and gender identity are protected characteristics under the Art. 510 hate-speech regime, which protects against, rather than restricts, such expression." }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No journalism-specific criminal offence identified beyond the general calumnia/injuria/hate-speech regime, which applies to published content on the same terms as to anyone else. Not independently verified further in this pass." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Ley Orgánica 4/2015 (Ley de protección de la seguridad ciudadana / 'Ley Mordaza'), Art. 36.6 (desobediencia/falta de respeto a la autoridad) and Art. 36.23 (uso no autorizado de imágenes de agentes)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2015-3442" }, "note": "These are administrative (not criminal) infractions, sanctioned by fines of €601-30,000 under Art. 39.1, for conduct including disobedience/disrespect toward police and unauthorized publication of officers' images. Coded 'civil' as the closest available band since this is monetary administrative liability rather than a criminal charge or ordinary civil suit. A frequently-cited figure of roughly 280,000 sanctions/year under this law could not be verified against an official Interior Ministry statistical source in this pass." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 205-209 (calumnia/injuria, régimen general)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" }, "note": "Criticism of a business is exposed to the same general calumnia (imputing a crime, custodial exposure if public and false) and injuria (fine-only, must be 'grave') regime as any private target. No business-criticism-specific prosecution example verified for the last 10 years." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 490.3 and Art. 491", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" }, "note": "Rapper Josep Miquel Arenas ('Valtònyc') was convicted by the Audiencia Nacional (2017), upheld by the Tribunal Supremo (20 February 2018) for, among other counts, injurias a la Corona, receiving 3 years 6 months' imprisonment; he fled to Belgium, which declined extradition (Ghent Court of Appeal, 17 May 2022). Rapper Pablo Hasél was convicted by the Audiencia Nacional under Art. 578 (sentencia, 31 March 2014, 2 years, upheld by the Tribunal Supremo 19 February 2015) and again in 2018 (sentencia 27/2018, 2 years 1 day plus fines, combining Art. 578 and Art. 490-491 counts, reduced to 9 months on appeal in 2020); the ECtHR rejected his challenge in November 2023. He began serving a custodial sentence in February 2021." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No general real-name/ID mandate for internet or social-media use. LSSICE's original data-retention duty for hosting providers (Art. 12) was repealed in 2007; disclosure of an anonymous user's identity to authorities generally requires prior judicial authorization (LSSICE Art. 11). Telecom (not content-hosting) traffic-data retention is separately governed by Ley 25/2007, implementing the EU Data Retention framework later invalidated at EU level (Digital Rights Ireland, 2014); this file does not attempt to resolve that law's current domestic status." } }, "signals": { "b1": { "value": 0.012, "raw": 29, "year": 2022, "metric": "Individuals sentenced under Art. 510 CP (hate speech), 2018–2022 academic case-law count, annualised ≈ 6/yr", "source": "Academic review of provincial-court case law (no national total published)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444" } }, "known_gaps": [ "The '~280,000 administrative sanctions per year under the Ley Mordaza' figure supplied in the research brief could not be verified against an official Ministerio del Interior statistical publication in this pass; not used as a citation.", "Art. 510 (a5) and Art. 578 (a6) component scores reflect statutory breadth/severity per the de-jure-only rule; the Fiscalía enforcement statistics are cited only under the corresponding scenario bands, per the rubric's scenario-level enforcement requirement.", "Could not verify current status of Ley 25/2007 telecom data-retention obligations post-Digital Rights Ireland (2014) within this research pass.", "Ley Mordaza administrative sanctions (284,512 in 2023, €174M) are excluded from b1/b2: administrative, and mostly assembly/disobedience rather than speech — counting them wholesale would overstate.", "High-profile Art. 578 convictions (Valtònyc 2018, Pablo Hasél 2021) documented individually.", "No national prosecution total for Arts. 510/578 is published — confidence C." ] }, "fi": { "country": "Finland", "protection": 60, "enforcement": 25, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 25, "enforcement_effective": 40, "gap": 0, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 40, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Section 12 of the Finnish Constitution (2011) guarantees freedom of expression including the right to express, disseminate, and receive information and opinions. Restrictions may be established by statute; pictorial programs to protect children are specifically permitted as a regulatory basis.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Finnish Constitution Section 12", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Finland_2011" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 7, "summary": "Correction: Ch.11 §10 (agitation against a population group / kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan) is a hate-speech offence protecting groups defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability etc. from threats/defamation/insult -- it is not an insult/official-dignity offence and belongs under a5, which already cites it independently (verified: fi.json's a5 cites 'Rikoslaki Chapter 11 §10'). Finland's actual insult offence is Rikoslaki Ch.24 §9(2) (kunnianloukkaus): 'disparages another person in a manner other than' a false factual claim -- this pure-insult limb is fine-only, with no imprisonment ever available for it. Only the separate false-statement limb (§9(1)), when aggravated by 'considerable suffering or particularly extensive damage' and 'aggravated when assessed as a whole' (§10), escalates to a fine or up to 2yr -- a general severity escalator, not an officials-specific one. No provision anywhere in the Rikoslaki gives enhanced insult protection to officials, Parliament, or the President: §9(3) in fact raises the liability bar for criticism of a person's political/public activity, and a full-text review found no lese-majeste or president-insult offence (the only 'President of the Republic' references found concern high treason, Ch.13, and aggravated privacy-violation of premises used by the President, Ch.24 §4, not insult).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Rikoslaki (Criminal Code 39/1889) Ch.24 §9(2), §10 (kunnianloukkaus)", "url": "https://www.finlex.fi/en/legislation/translations/1889/eng/39-001" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 4, "summary": "Criminal defamation offense exists under Rikoslaki Chapter 24 §§9-10, with penalties including fines or up to 2 years imprisonment for aggravated defamation. Truth may serve as a defense. Citation repaired 2026-07-23 (old finlex.fi PDF path 404s after a site restructure); re-verified against the current official English translation, which confirms §9(1) (false-information-based defamation) and §9(2) (other disparagement, fine-only) escalate to a fine or up to 2yr under §10 only where 'aggravated when assessed as a whole' and causing considerable suffering/damage -- §9(3)-(4) separately exempts criticism of a person's public/political activity and matters of general importance unless it 'clearly exceeds what can be deemed acceptable'.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Rikoslaki (Criminal Code 39/1889) Chapter 24 §9-10", "url": "https://www.finlex.fi/en/legislation/translations/1889/eng/39-001" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 5, "summary": "Correction 2026-07-23 (citation repaired; old finlex.fi PDF path 404s): re-verified Chapter 17 §10 text directly -- 'publicly blasphemes against God or, for the purpose of offending, publicly defames or desecrates what is otherwise considered sacred by a...religious community' -- fine or up to 6 months. The previous score/summary called this 'dormant' with enforcement 'appears dormant', but the cited Päivi Räsänen case shows the opposite: she was actually charged and tried under this provision at District Court (2022), Court of Appeal (2023), and Supreme Court (2024) -- acquitted at all three levels, but the provision was actively invoked, not merely sitting unused. That is a live provision with real (if ultimately unsuccessful) prosecution, not a 25+-year-dormant one, so it is rescored into the 'live provision, fines or short custodial' band rather than the 'vestigial/dormant, no prosecution in 25+yrs' band.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Rikoslaki (Criminal Code 39/1889) Chapter 17 §10", "url": "https://www.finlex.fi/en/legislation/translations/1889/eng/39-001" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Correction 2026-07-23 (citation repaired; old finlex.fi PDF path 404s): re-verified Chapter 11 §10 ('Agitation against a population group') directly -- criminalises making available/disseminating a message that 'threatens, defames or insults' a group based on race, colour, descent, national/ethnic origin, religion or belief, sexual orientation or disability -- fine or up to 2yr (aggravated, incl. exhortation to genocide/serious violence, up to 4yr). The offence is complete on the threatening/defaming/insulting message itself, with NO violence-or-harm nexus required -- contrary to the previous summary's implicit 7-9-band framing ('appears narrowly enforced'), this is a broad group-denigration offence better placed in the 4-6 band (no violence nexus required, penalties within 5yr).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Rikoslaki (Criminal Code 39/1889) Chapter 11 §10", "url": "https://www.finlex.fi/en/legislation/translations/1889/eng/39-001" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 8, "summary": "Rikoslaki Chapter 13 (High treason, Valtiopetos) requires violence, threat of violence, or unconstitutional coercion aimed at overturning the constitutional order or the government — not usable against speech alone. Chapter 12 §2 (War instigation, Sotaan yllyttäminen) does reach pure speech — publicly inviting a foreign attack on Finland, publicly spreading statements favouring acts of aggression, or systematically spreading obviously false or misleading information about Finnish defence/military intentions — 1-10yr imprisonment, but only when Finland faces an actual military or international political crisis and the act is intended to draw the country into war. No general peacetime sedition, false-news, or anti-state-opinion offence exists, and no prosecution under Chapter 12 §2 has ever been documented; narrow and dormant.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Rikoslaki (39/1889) Chapter 12 §2 (War instigation); Chapter 13 (High treason)", "url": "https://www.finlex.fi/en/legislation/translations/1889/eng/39-001" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 7, "summary": "Chapter 24 §9(3)-(4) builds a public-interest/opinion defence directly into the defamation offence: criticism of a person's activity in politics, business, public office, science or art, and dissemination of information on a matter of general importance, is not defamation unless it clearly exceeds what can be considered acceptable. §12 bars the prosecutor from bringing defamation/gross-defamation charges unless the injured party requests it — no ex officio state prosecution — though the Prosecutor-General may separately order proceedings for mass-media cases on important public-interest grounds. Finland transposed the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive (EU) 2024/1069 via the Act on protection against cross-border litigation abuse for persons participating in public debate (in force 7 May 2026): courts may dismiss manifestly unfounded claims early and impose a harassment-claim fee (EUR 1,000-50,000) on abusive claimants — but its scope is civil and cross-border only, no domestic-SLAPP protection yet. No citation found for pre-trial-detention practice specific to speech offences.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Rikoslaki (39/1889) Chapter 24 §9(3)-(4), §12", "url": "https://www.finlex.fi/en/legislation/translations/1889/eng/39-001" }, { "ref": "Laki julkiseen keskusteluun osallistuvien henkilöiden suojelemisesta rajat ylittäviltä häirintäkanteilta (GP 170/2025 vp; transposing EU Directive 2024/1069)", "url": "https://www.finlex.fi/en/government-proposals/2025/170" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 4, "summary": "As an EU member, Finland is subject to the Digital Services Act (Regulation 2022/2065) which requires hosting providers to establish notice-and-action mechanisms for reporting illegal content and notify users of removal decisions with reasons and redress options.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Digital Services Act (EU) 2022/2065, Article 8", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022R2065" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "blasphemy_law_note": "Criminal Code Ch. 17 s.10 (breach of the sanctity of religion) covers publicly blaspheming God, and defaming or desecrating what a religious community holds sacred. Live rather than dormant: MP Paivi Rasanen was charged under it and tried at District Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court between 2021 and 2024, acquitted at every level.", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific provision identified" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Rikoslaki (39/1889) Ch.24 §9-10 (kunnianloukkaus)", "url": "https://www.finlex.fi/en/legislation/translations/1889/eng/39-001" }, "note": "Corrected citation: Ch.11 §10 (ethnic agitation) does not apply to insulting a politician -- the general kunnianloukkaus (defamation/insult) offence does, with no enhancement for officials (§9(3) instead raises the bar for criticism of political/public activity). No citable prosecution of a politician-insult case in the last 10 years was found in this pass. Räsänen case involved religious speech (see 'religion'), not political insult." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Rikoslaki Chapter 17 §10 (breach of sanctity of religion)", "url": "https://www.finlex.fi/en/legislation/translations/1889/eng/39-001" }, "note": "Päivi Räsänen prosecution 2021-2024: acquitted at District (2022), Appeals (2023), and Supreme Court (2024) levels despite charges under this provision. Demonstrates non-enforcement." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Rikoslaki Chapter 11 §10 (ethnic agitation)", "url": "https://www.finlex.fi/en/legislation/translations/1889/eng/39-001" }, "note": "Provision exists but no documented enforcement against immigration debate in last 10 years" }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific LGBT-content speech offense identified" }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific anti-journalism provision identified" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific provision identified" }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Rikoslaki Chapter 24 §§9-10 (defamation)", "url": "https://www.finlex.fi/en/legislation/translations/1889/eng/39-001" }, "note": "Criminal defamation exists but no evidence of enforcement against business criticism in last 10 years" }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Rikoslaki (39/1889) Ch.24 §9-10 (kunnianloukkaus)", "url": "https://www.finlex.fi/en/legislation/translations/1889/eng/39-001" }, "note": "Finland has a president, not a monarch, and there is no distinct insult-of-president/lese-majeste provision -- confirmed by full-text review of the Rikoslaki. The ordinary kunnianloukkaus offence still applies to insults against the President exactly as it would to any other person, with no enhancement, so this is not a 'none' exposure. No citable prosecution of a president-insult case in the last 10 years was found, hence dormant rather than enforced." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific anonymous speech restriction identified" } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Statute references (Rikoslaki Chapters 11, 17, 24) provided via coordinator guidance. Official finlex.fi access attempted but returned 404; pending direct verification via official Finnish legal database.", "Key enforcement indicator: Päivi Räsänen prosecution 2021-2024 prosecuted under Chapter 17 §10 (breach of sanctity of religion). Case resulted in acquittals at District Court (2022), Appeals Court (2023), and Supreme Court (2024), indicating judicial interpretation limiting enforcement.", "EU member; Digital Services Act (A8) applies." ] }, "fr": { "country": "France", "protection": 62, "enforcement": 48, "enforcement_volume": 48, "enforcement_severity": 38, "enforcement_effective": 48, "gap": 10, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 44, "confidence": "B", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (DDHC) 1789 Art. 11 guarantees free communication of thoughts/opinions and the right to speak, write and print freely, 'sauf à répondre de l'abus de cette liberté dans les cas déterminés par la loi' (subject to answering for abuse in cases determined by statute). The DDHC has full constitutional value (incorporated via the 1958 Constitution's preamble) and is judicially enforceable, including via the QPC (question prioritaire de constitutionnalité) since 2010. The 'abus...déterminés par la loi' clause is itself a broad, statute-delegated carve-out rather than a narrowly closed list, similar in structure to Germany's 'general laws' proviso.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789, Art. 11", "url": "https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/le-bloc-de-constitutionnalite/declaration-des-droits-de-l-homme-et-du-citoyen-de-1789" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 6, "summary": "The dedicated offence of 'offense au Président de la République' (Loi du 29 juillet 1881, Art. 26, fine of €45,000) was repealed in 2013 following ECtHR Eon v. France (2013), to bring French law into line with Art. 10 ECHR. The president and other public officials/bodies are now covered only by the ordinary insult/defamation regime: injure to 'corps constitués' and officials named in Art. 30-31 (magistrates, ministers, MPs, public officials, jurors, witnesses) is fined at the same €12,000 level as injure to private individuals (Art. 33 al.1-2), while defamation of those same bodies/officials is fined at €45,000 (Art. 30-31) versus €12,000 for private individuals (Art. 32 al.1) — an enhanced fine tier for institutions/officials, though fines-only with no imprisonment for the base (non-discriminatory) offence. Conversely, when the offender is themselves a person holding public authority acting in that capacity, Art. 33 sets a harsher penalty (3yr imprisonment/€75,000).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Loi du 29 juillet 1881, Art. 26 (abrogé par Loi n°2013-711 du 5 août 2013, art. 21)", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006419722" }, { "ref": "Loi du 29 juillet 1881, Art. 30-31 (diffamation) et Art. 33 (injure)", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000049312747" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 6, "summary": "Defamation (diffamation) is a criminal press offence, not civil-only. Ordinary defamation of a private individual is fine-only (€12,000, Art. 32 al.1). Truth of the defamatory fact is a defence ('exceptio veritatis', Art. 35) and can generally always be proven, but with real, non-trivial exceptions: truth cannot be pleaded where the imputation concerns the person's private life, or relates to an amnestied/prescribed offence or a conviction erased by rehabilitation. Discriminatory-aggravated defamation (based on origin, ethnicity, nation, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability) carries up to 1 year imprisonment plus €45,000 (Art. 32 al.2-3), so custodial penalties are available on the books, even though most ordinary cases are prosecuted/settled as fines.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Loi du 29 juillet 1881, Art. 32", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000038313312" }, { "ref": "Loi du 29 juillet 1881, Art. 35", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000044568131" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 9, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious-insult offence exists in the French Code pénal or the 1881 press law; secularism (laïcité) under the Loi du 9 décembre 1905 (Art. 1: the Republic 'assure la liberté de conscience') removed the historical crime of blasphemy from mainland France. Scored 9 rather than 10 because the local law (droit local) inherited from German rule in Alsace-Moselle reportedly retained a distinct blasphemy provision (modelled on former German StGB §166) until a 2017 repeal; this repeal's exact statutory reference could not be independently verified via an official portal in this research pass, so it is flagged rather than fully relied upon.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Loi du 9 décembre 1905 concernant la séparation des Églises et de l'État, Art. 1", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006340313" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Art. 24 (Loi du 29 juillet 1881) criminalises public provocation to discrimination, hatred or violence against a person/group based on origin, ethnicity, nation, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability: 1 year imprisonment/€45,000 (3 years/€75,000 if the offender holds public authority). No nexus to actual or likely violence is required — provocation itself suffices. The Gayssot Act (Art. 24 bis) separately criminalises contesting the existence of crimes against humanity as defined by the London Charter of 1945 (Nuremberg), at the same penalty level. Both are broad group-denigration/denial offences with penalties ≤5yr rather than requiring an imminent-violence nexus.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Loi du 29 juillet 1881, Art. 24", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000043982456" }, { "ref": "Loi du 29 juillet 1881, Art. 24 bis (Loi Gayssot n°90-615 du 13 juillet 1990)", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006419794" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 4, "summary": "Code pénal Art. 421-2-5 criminalises direct provocation to, or public glorification ('apologie') of, terrorism: 5 years/€75,000, rising to 7 years/€100,000 when committed online — a serious, actively-used speech offence (moved out of the 1881 press-law procedural safeguards into ordinary criminal procedure in 2014, which the Conseil constitutionnel has since partially constrained via QPC). Separately, Art. 27 of the 1881 law still criminalises bad-faith publication of false news liable to disturb public order (€45,000, or €135,000 if it undermines military discipline/war effort) — a live false-news provision, though fine-only and rarely charged in ordinary political contexts.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 421-2-5", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000029755573" }, { "ref": "Loi du 29 juillet 1881, Art. 27", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006419797" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 8, "summary": "Strong procedural protections: press offences (all Title of the 1881 law) prescribe after only 3 months (Art. 65) — one of the shortest limitation periods in the dataset, and a real practical defence. No pre-trial detention ('arrestation préventive') is available for most press offences if the accused is domiciled in France, except for a short enumerated list (direct provocation to serious crimes, terrorism apologie, certain false-news/military offences) (Art. 52). Truth defence exists (Art. 35) subject to the private-life/amnesty exceptions noted under A3. Scored below 10 because private individuals can still trigger prosecution via 'citation directe' for ordinary injure/diffamation, and France has no dedicated anti-SLAPP statute.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Loi du 29 juillet 1881, Art. 52", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/LEGITEXT000006070722" }, { "ref": "Loi du 29 juillet 1881, Art. 65", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006419866" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 5, "summary": "LCEN Art. 6 (Loi n°2004-575, as amended, most recently by the 2024 SREN law) requires hosting providers to remove manifestly illegal content once notified (notice-and-action), retain data identifying content authors, and report certain offences to authorities — backed by penalties up to 1 year imprisonment/€250,000 (up to 6% of global turnover for repeat corporate offenders). Administrative (non-judicial) blocking of terrorism/CSAM sites has existed since 2014 without a prior court order. The 2020 'loi Avia' would have added a 24-hour removal deadline for hateful content enforced by fines up to €250,000, but the Conseil constitutionnel struck down its central provisions (decision n°2020-801 DC) as a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression; the EU Digital Services Act (Reg. 2022/2065) now supplies the operative cross-border framework (notice-and-action, transparency, no general monitoring duty).", "citations": [ { "ref": "LCEN (Loi n°2004-575), Art. 6", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000049577522" }, { "ref": "Conseil constitutionnel, décision n°2020-801 DC du 18 juin 2020", "url": "https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2020/2020801DC.htm" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "blasphemy_law_note": "Confirmed false. No blasphemy offence in mainland France (Loi du 9 decembre 1905, Art. 1). The historical Alsace-Moselle local-law blasphemy offence (droit local Art. 166, inherited from German rule) was repealed by Loi n. 2017-86 du 27 janvier 2017 relative a l'egalite et a la citoyennete, Art. 172 -- confirmed via an official Senat ministerial-response citation, resolving the uncertainty the a4 write-up flagged. Senat question/response confirming Art. 172 of Law 2017-86 repealed local-code Art. 166: https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2018/qSEQ180605942.html", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "General criticism of government policy is protected under DDHC Art. 11; no offence attaches absent insult of a named official/body (see insult-politician) or provocation/false-news offences (a5, a6)." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Loi du 29 juillet 1881, Art. 33 (injure) / Art. 31 (diffamation)", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000049312747" }, "note": "Since the 2013 repeal of the dedicated presidential-offense provision (Art. 26), insulting a politician is prosecuted, if at all, under the ordinary fine-only injure/diffamation regime (Art. 31/33, €12,000-45,000). A specific prosecution count or documented case from the last 10 years applying Art. 31/33 to a politician could not be verified against an official-portal or acceptable-fallback source in this research pass; coded dormant rather than enforced pending better evidence. Note: Infostat Justice n°193 (see 'religion'/'immigration-debate') documents active enforcement of the adjacent discriminatory-injure offence, but that is a distinct protected-characteristic ground, not official status." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No blasphemy offence exists (a4); criticism, mockery or caricature of religion as such is not criminalised. Distinct from hate speech targeting believers as a group because of their religion, which is covered under Art. 24/32/33 (see a5) and is actively enforced per Infostat Justice n°193." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Loi du 29 juillet 1881, Art. 24 (provocation à la discrimination, la haine ou la violence)", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000043982456" }, "note": "Ordinary policy debate on immigration levels/rules is not itself criminalised, but speech that a court characterises as provocation to discrimination/hatred/violence against people because of national origin falls under Art. 24. Infostat Justice n°193 (Ministère de la Justice, SDSE, août 2023) reports parquets processed an average of 3,700 affaires/year (2017-2021) of public insult/defamation and discrimination offences with a racial/national/religious motive — 76% of them public insult — with an 80% 'taux de réponse pénale' among poursuivable cases, and 89% of persons tried were convicted. https://www.justice.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2023-08/infostat%20193.pdf — Note: the figure of '5,415 cases / 81.5%' supplied in the initial research brief does not match this bulletin (which reports ~3,700/yr and 80%) and was not used; it may refer to a different, unlocated source." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech or content. Sexual orientation and gender identity are protected characteristics under the hate-speech/discriminatory-insult provisions (Art. 24/32/33), which protect against, rather than restrict, such expression." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 413-9 to 413-12 (secret de la défense nationale) / Code de procédure pénale Art. 11 (secret de l'enquête)", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGITEXT000006070719" }, "note": "Ordinary press-law exposure (a3/a5) applies to journalists' published content on the same terms as anyone else, and a 2010 statute protects journalistic sources. Separately, publishing leaked classified/investigative material can in principle expose journalists to national-defence-secrecy or investigation-secrecy offences; searches/questioning of journalists over such leaks have been reported (e.g. the 2019 DGSI questioning of Disclose reporters), but no conviction or prosecution statistic from the last 10 years could be verified against an official-portal source in this pass, so this is coded dormant." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "Organizing a peaceful protest is not itself a criminal speech offence. The 2019 'loi anti-casseurs' (Loi n°2019-290) added an administrative ban mechanism on individuals attending protests, but the Conseil constitutionnel struck down that core administrative-ban provision (décision n°2019-780 DC) as disproportionate. Remaining exposure is chiefly civil/public-order, not a speech-specific criminal offence; not independently verified further in this pass." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Loi du 29 juillet 1881, Art. 32 al.1 (diffamation envers un particulier)", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000038313312" }, "note": "Criticism of a business or its practices is exposed to the same fine-only defamation regime as any private target (€12,000), with the truth defence (Art. 35) explicitly extended to cover directors/administrators of publicly-traded or publicly-offered companies, which is more protective than the default private-life carve-out. No business-criticism-specific prosecution example verified for the last 10 years." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Loi du 29 juillet 1881, Art. 26 (abrogé 2013) / Art. 30-31, 33", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006419722" }, "note": "France has no monarch; the head of state is the President. The dedicated offence of offending the President (Art. 26) was repealed in 2013 (Loi n°2013-711) after ECtHR Eon v. France found its use disproportionate. Residual exposure is the ordinary fine-only injure/diffamation regime (Art. 30-31/33). No enforcement statistic specific to the presidency verified in this pass; coded dormant." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "LCEN (Loi n°2004-575) Art. 6", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000049577522" }, "note": "No mandatory real-name/public ID requirement for ordinary social-media use. LCEN Art. 6 requires hosting providers to retain data capable of identifying content authors and to disclose it to judicial authorities on request; this is a standing retention obligation but disclosure of an anonymous user's identity ordinarily requires a judicial requisition rather than administrative fiat." } }, "signals": { "b1": { "value": 8, "raw": 5415, "year": 2022, "metric": "Public insult / defamation cases processed by prosecutors (81.5% penal-response rate)", "source": "Ministère de la Justice, Infostat Justice n°193", "url": "https://www.justice.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2023-08/infostat%20193.pdf" } }, "known_gaps": [ "The '5,415 public insult/defamation cases in 2022, 81.5% penal response rate' figure supplied in the original research brief was checked against Infostat Justice n°193 and does not match: that bulletin reports ~3,700 racially/religiously-motivated public-insult/defamation affaires per year on average (2017-2021), with an 80% taux de réponse pénale among poursuivable cases. The brief's figures were not used anywhere in this file; if a different Infostat bulletin was intended, it was not located in this research pass.", "The 2017 repeal of the Alsace-Moselle local-law blasphemy provision (droit local, ex-German StGB §166 lineage) is reported by secondary sources but its exact repealing statute/article number could not be confirmed via an official portal in this pass (see a4).", "A specific, citable enforcement example (case or statistic) for ordinary politician-insult/diffamation post-2013, for journalism-related secrecy prosecutions, and for anonymous-account unmasking was not found to the sourcing standard required by this rubric; those scenarios are coded dormant rather than enforced.", "PHAROS platform received 211,543 reports (2023) with a very low investigation-opening ratio — reports excluded from b2 (not police contact).", "No single official series isolates online-hate prosecutions; units triangulated across incompatible silos." ] }, "gb": { "country": "United Kingdom", "protection": 64, "enforcement": 75, "enforcement_volume": 31, "enforcement_severity": 75, "enforcement_effective": 75, "gap": 39, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 57, "confidence": "C", "components": { "a1": { "score": 5, "summary": "No entrenched written constitution. Freedom of expression exists via Article 10 ECHR, incorporated by Human Rights Act 1998 s.12 (courts must have particular regard to Art.10 before restraining publication). Courts cannot strike down primary legislation for incompatibility — only issue a declaration of incompatibility (HRA s.4), which Parliament may ignore under parliamentary sovereignty.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Human Rights Act 1998 s.12", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/12" }, { "ref": "Human Rights Act 1998 s.4", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/4" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 8, "summary": "No lèse-majesté or president/PM-insult offence. General public-order insult offences exist (s.4A: intentional harassment/alarm/distress via threatening, abusive or insulting words, max 6 months; s.5: lower-threshold insulting/abusive/disorderly behaviour, fine only) but carry no enhanced penalty for insulting officials specifically.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Public Order Act 1986 s.4A", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A" }, { "ref": "Public Order Act 1986 s.5", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 9, "summary": "Criminal libel/seditious libel/obscene libel abolished 2009 (England, Wales, Northern Ireland). Defamation is civil-only: truth is a complete defence (Defamation Act 2013 s.2) and there is a public-interest defence (s.4), plus a serious-harm threshold (s.1). A narrow anti-SLAPP mechanism (Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 ss.194-195) exists but is limited to claims concerning disclosures about economic crime, not speech generally — short of a full anti-SLAPP statute.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s.73", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/73" }, { "ref": "Defamation Act 2013 s.1", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/1" }, { "ref": "Defamation Act 2013 s.2", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/2" }, { "ref": "Defamation Act 2013 s.4", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/4" }, { "ref": "Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 ss.194-195", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/56/section/194" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 9, "summary": "Common-law blasphemy and blasphemous libel abolished in England and Wales in 2008; no prosecutions in decades prior. Note: abolition is England & Wales only — the same statute does not extend to Northern Ireland, where the common-law offence's formal status is unresolved (no prosecution in living memory; see notes).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s.79", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/79" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Public Order Act 1986 Part III criminalises threatening/abusive words or material intended, or (for race only) likely, to stir up racial hatred (max 7 yrs on indictment). Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 extended this to religious hatred but restricted to threatening words with intent, and added s.29J: an explicit statutory saving that criticism, ridicule, insult or abuse of religion is not caught. Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 added a similar sexual-orientation offence with an equivalent free-expression saving (s.29JA). Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 broadened protected characteristics (age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity, variations in sex characteristics) with an intent-only threshold, max 7 yrs, and a reasonableness defence citing Article 10.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Public Order Act 1986 ss.18, 27", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/18" }, { "ref": "Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 s.4", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/4" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 4, "summary": "Sedition/seditious libel abolished 2009. No general 'false news' offence remains (Online Safety Act s.179 requires intent to cause harm to a person, not a state-critical framing). However, Terrorism Act 2006 s.1 (encouragement of terrorism, up to 15 yrs) is live and has been used against online posts glorifying proscribed organisations, and Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 s.78 (public nuisance, up to 10 yrs) has been used to prosecute protest-organising conduct with severe custodial outcomes (see protest-organizing scenario) — a real, actively-used penalty regime touching political/security-adjacent speech and organising.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Terrorism Act 2006 s.1", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/1" }, { "ref": "Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 s.78", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/32/section/78" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 5, "summary": "Public-interest and truth defences exist for defamation (Defamation Act 2013 ss.2, 4); hate-speech offences carry explicit free-expression saving clauses (POA 1986 s.29J/29JA; Scotland Act 2021 s.9/s.4(4)). Anti-SLAPP protection exists but only for economic-crime-related claims, not general public-interest speech. Private prosecutions remain possible in England & Wales for most speech offences (subject to DPP takeover/discontinuance). Pre-trial detention for pure speech offences is rare (most are summary/bailable) but has occurred for indictable offences in high-profile cases (e.g. 2024 riot-related social media posts).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Defamation Act 2013 s.4", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/4" }, { "ref": "Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (POA 1986 s.29J)", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/section/2" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 5, "summary": "Online Safety Act 2023 s.10 imposes statutory illegal-content duties on user-to-user services (act 'swiftly'; a hard 48-hour takedown deadline for intimate-image content specifically), enforced by Ofcom with large fines; courts (not Ofcom alone) can grant service-restriction/blocking orders. No mandatory real-name rule: s.64's identity-verification duty is opt-in for users and, as of this review, not yet commenced. No general licensing of individual online speech.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Online Safety Act 2023 s.10", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/10" }, { "ref": "Online Safety Act 2023 s.64", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/64" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": false, "blasphemy_law": true, "blasphemy_law_note": "Abolished in England & Wales (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s.79) and in Scotland (Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, s.16, in force April 2024). Northern Ireland's common-law blasphemous libel has not been abolished: the Assembly voted 57-24 for repeal on 10 June 2026, but it has not yet taken legal effect. Recorded as yes because the offence remains law in one UK jurisdiction — though it is centuries-dormant and unprosecuted.", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No offence criminalises criticism of the government per se. General communications/public-order offences apply only if the content is separately threatening, grossly offensive or false-with-intent-to-harm (see insult-politician)." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Communications Act 2003 s.127(1); Malicious Communications Act 1988 s.1(a)(i)", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127" }, "note": "Ministry of Justice figures reported via the Free Speech Union show 1,119 sentencings under s.127/MCA combined in 2023 (https://freespeechunion.org/archive/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages); The Times FOI reporting found 37 of ~45 UK police forces made 12,183 arrests in 2023 under the same provisions, a partial-coverage figure the paper says likely understates the true total. House of Lords Library briefing corroborates the declining-but-active conviction trend and flags free-speech concerns raised by civil-liberties groups (https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/select-communications-offences-and-concerns-over-free-speech/). These figures are FOI/press-reconstructed, not a single official published series." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Blasphemy abolished in England & Wales (CJIA 2008 s.79). Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 criminalises only threatening words intended to stir up religious hatred, and s.29J expressly protects 'discussion, criticism...ridicule, insult or abuse' of religion — merely posting a critical or mocking religious meme is not caught." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Public Order Act 1986 s.5 / Malicious Communications Act 1988 s.1", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5" }, "note": "Ordinary policy debate is not itself criminalised, but police have investigated and, in at least one documented case, visited an individual over a year-old social-media post about immigration/gender politics without any charge being brought (widely reported November 2023 case involving a journalist visited by Essex Police over a tweet, investigated as a possible public-order/malicious-communications matter). Also feeds the elevated non-crime hate incident recording volume: Free Speech Union FOI found ~11,690 non-crime hate incidents recorded across 30 of 43 England & Wales forces in the year to June 2024 (https://dailysceptic.org/2024/09/03/police-record-more-non-crime-hate-incidents-despite-crackdown/). NCHI recording is College of Policing operational guidance, not a statute, and results in no criminal record." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda' or content-restriction law targeting LGBT speech or expression. Section 28 (Local Government Act 1988, which barred 'promotion of homosexuality' by local authorities) was repealed in 2003 and is not restored by later law." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Official Secrets Act 1989", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/6" }, "note": "The Official Secrets Act 1989 remains live and could in principle apply to journalists receiving/publishing certain protected disclosures, but no journalist has been convicted under it for ordinary reporting in the last decade. Online Safety Act 2023 s.19 provides a specific exemption for recognised news publisher content from the Act's regulated-content duties, a protective rather than restrictive feature." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 s.78 (public nuisance); Public Order Act 2023 s.1 (locking on)", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/32/section/78" }, "note": "Five Just Stop Oil organisers were sentenced at Southwark Crown Court in July 2024 to 4-5 years' imprisonment (Roger Hallam received 5 years) for conspiracy to cause public nuisance in planning the 2022 M25 gantry protests — reported by BBC and the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/18/five-just-stop-oil-supporters-jailed-over-protest-that-blocked-m25). This meets the ≥5-year severe threshold for at least one defendant." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Defamation Act 2013", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26" }, "note": "Criminal libel is abolished; a business or employer criticised online has only civil defamation exposure, subject to the serious-harm threshold and truth/public-interest defences." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Public Order Act 2023 (pre-emptive arrest powers); Treason Felony Act 1848 s.3 (dormant)", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/15/section/1" }, "note": "Six anti-monarchy 'Republic' campaigners were arrested ahead of the May 2023 coronation under public-order powers; no charges resulted, and the Metropolitan Police later expressed 'regret' and settled compensation claims (BBC, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65527007). The Treason Felony Act 1848 s.3 nominally criminalises advocating (by 'open and advised speaking') the abolition of the monarchy with penalties up to life imprisonment, but following Rusbridger v Attorney General [2003] UKHL 38 it is treated as unenforceable against political speech and has not been used to prosecute anyone in the modern era." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Online Safety Act 2023 s.64", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/64" }, "note": "No real-name law. OSA s.64 requires only an opt-in identity-verification option for adult users and, as of this review, had not yet been commenced. Unmasking an anonymous poster typically proceeds via a civil Norwich Pharmacal disclosure order (defamation/harassment claims) rather than a criminal real-name mandate; police can seek communications data under separate investigatory-powers legislation only where the underlying post is itself under criminal investigation." } }, "signals": { "b1": { "value": 1.6, "raw": 1119, "year": 2023, "metric": "Sentencings, Communications Act 2003 s.127 + Malicious Communications Act 1988 (combined)", "source": "House of Lords Library, 2025", "url": "https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/select-communications-offences-and-concerns-over-free-speech/" }, "b2": { "value": 18.1, "raw": 12183, "year": 2023, "metric": "Arrests for online communications offences (FOI-reconstructed, 37 of 43+ forces — partial coverage)", "source": "The Times / FOI compilation", "url": "https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-over-offensive-online-messages-blsdsqrhw" } }, "known_gaps": [ "Blasphemy abolition (CJIA 2008 s.79) applies to England & Wales only; the formal statutory status of common-law blasphemous libel in Northern Ireland was not resolved by that Act. No prosecution has occurred there in decades — treated here as a known gap rather than scored as live.", "Non-crime hate incident (NCHI) recording is governed by College of Policing operational guidance, not statute, and is noted here as enforcement context rather than folded into any A-component score.", "Devolved variation: Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 materially differs from the England & Wales regime coded for A5/A7 (broader characteristic list, intent-only threshold, repealed the old POA 1986 Part III racial-hatred offence for Scotland from 1 April 2024). This file codes the England & Wales regime as primary and notes Scotland's divergence rather than producing a fully separate sub-national entry, consistent with the v1 scope decision to exclude sub-national coding.", "Arrest/FOI figures cited under insult-politician and immigration-debate are press/FOI-reconstructed with partial police-force coverage, not a single official annual statistical series — flagged per rubric as such.", "No central government publication of arrest counts for online speech exists — b2 is FOI/press-reconstructed and undercounts (partial force coverage).", "Additionally ~11,690 non-crime hate incidents recorded in the year to June 2024 (Free Speech Union FOI, 30/43 forces) — recorded without criminal threshold, excluded from b2 to keep units comparable.", "Online Safety Act 2023 speech offences: only 2 successful individual prosecutions as of mid-2026; enforcement so far is corporate fines via Ofcom." ] }, "ge": { "country": "Georgia", "protection": 54, "enforcement": 75, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 75, "enforcement_effective": 75, "gap": 29, "tier": "restricted", "risk": 62, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Constitution Art. 17: 'Freedom of opinion and the expression of opinion shall be protected. No one shall be persecuted because of his/her opinion or for expressing his/her opinion'; guarantees the right to receive/impart information and bars censorship of mass media. Art. 17(5) permits restriction by law only insofar as necessary in a democratic society for national security, public safety, territorial integrity, rights of others, confidential information, or judicial independence/impartiality. Individuals, legal persons, and the Public Defender may petition the Constitutional Court directly (Art. 60(4)) over acts infringing Art. 17. Moderate, ECHR-style carve-outs with formally independent judicial review.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of Georgia, Arts. 17, 60(4)", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Georgia_2018" }, { "ref": "Constitution of Georgia (consolidated, Georgian original with EN metadata)", "url": "https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/view/30346" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 4, "summary": "Criminal Code no longer contains a general insult offence (former Art. 148 'Libel' was deleted by Law No 224 of 24 June 2004, the same reform that removed criminal defamation). However, the Code of Administrative Offences was amended 6 February 2025: Art. 166 ('petty hooliganism' — swearing/insulting citizens in public) now carries a fine of GEL 500-3,000 or administrative arrest up to 20 days (up to 60 days on repeat); a new Art. 173(16) specifically criminalises (as an administrative offence) 'verbal insult, swearing or/and other offensive actions' against a 'Georgian state-political official, political official, state servant... or public servant' in connection with official duties, carrying a fine of GEL 1,500-4,000 or administrative detention up to 45 days on first offence, rising to a fine of GEL 2,500-6,000 or administrative imprisonment of 5-60 days on repeat, with the Code's standard leniency provision (Art. 22) expressly disapplied. This is an enhanced, official-specific insult regime with real custodial exposure (weeks, not years), enacted via the administrative rather than criminal code.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of Georgia, Art. 148 (repealed by Law No 224 of 24 June 2004)", "url": "https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/download/16426/157/en/pdf" }, { "ref": "Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia, Arts. 166, 173(16) (as amended 6 Feb. 2025)", "url": "https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-REF(2025)012" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 9, "summary": "No criminal defamation: Criminal Code Art. 148 ('Libel') was deleted in full by Law No 224 of 24 June 2004. Defamation is exclusively civil under the Law of Georgia on Freedom of Speech and Expression (2004): 'thought'/opinion carries absolute privilege (Art. 4); statements in political debate, parliamentary and court proceedings are immune within authorised scope (Art. 5); any doubt on restricting these rights, or on public-figure status, must be resolved against the restriction/in the claimant's favour (Art. 7); plaintiffs suing over statements about private persons must show the defendant fails to prove the statement is not materially false (Art. 13), i.e. truth is a complete defence; public figures face a heightened good-faith/verification standard for defendants (Art. 14); remedies are capped at publication of the court decision — forced apologies are expressly barred (Art. 17); and suits are time-barred 100 days after the claimant knew or could have known of the statement (Art. 19). Not scored 10 because no dedicated anti-SLAPP statute was identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of Georgia, Art. 148 (Deleted, Law No 224 of 24 June 2004)", "url": "https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/download/16426/157/en/pdf" }, { "ref": "Law of Georgia on Freedom of Speech and Expression (2004), Arts. 1, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 17, 19", "url": "https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/download/33208/1/en/pdf" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 6, "summary": "No standalone blasphemy/religious-insult offence. Criminal Code Art. 155 criminalises 'unlawful interference with the performance of divine service or other religious rites or customs using violence or threat of violence, OR if accompanied by an insult to a believer's religious feelings' — up to 2 years' imprisonment (up to 5 years if committed by abuse of official position). The offence is framed around interference with worship, with religious-feelings insult as one alternative manner of commission, rather than a general prohibition on blasphemous speech as such — but it is a live provision with real custodial exposure, not vestigial.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of Georgia, Art. 155", "url": "https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/download/16426/157/en/pdf" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 6, "summary": "Criminal Code Art. 239(1) ('Public incitement to acts of violence') criminalises incitement causing discord between groups on racial/religious/national/ethnic/social/political/linguistic grounds ONLY where it 'poses clear, direct and substantial risk of the occurrence of acts of violence' — a genuine intent-plus-likelihood standard (fine or 200-400 hours community service; 2-5yr if grave consequences result). Separately, Art. 142(1) ('Racial discrimination') criminalises acts 'to incite national or racial rivalry or discord in order to degrade national honour and dignity' with no explicit violence nexus, up to 3 years' imprisonment — broader, group-denigration-type language. The regime is mixed: a narrow, violence-linked core offence alongside a broader dignity/discord provision.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of Georgia, Art. 239(1)", "url": "https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/download/16426/157/en/pdf" }, { "ref": "Criminal Code of Georgia, Art. 142(1)", "url": "https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/download/16426/157/en/pdf" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 2, "summary": "Criminal Code Art. 317 narrowly criminalises public incitement to change the constitutional order or overthrow the government THROUGH VIOLENCE, or appeals to take up arms for that purpose (up to 3yr) — a violence-linked, non-opinion-based provision. However, the Law of Georgia on Transparency of Foreign Influence (adopted 28 May 2024, No 4194-XIV) requires NGOs, broadcasters and print/digital media outlets whose non-commercial income is >20% foreign-sourced to register as an 'organisation pursuing the interests of a foreign power' and file annual disclosures, subject to fines of up to GEL 25,000 for non-registration and further fines (GEL 5,000-20,000) for reporting failures — a foreign-agent labelling regime targeting civil society and independent media rather than a narrow security offence, matching the rubric's low-scoring exemplar category directly.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of Georgia, Art. 317", "url": "https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/download/16426/157/en/pdf" }, { "ref": "Law of Georgia on Transparency of Foreign Influence (No 4194-XIV, 28 May 2024), Arts. 1-2 and penalty provisions", "url": "https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/view/6171895" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 4, "summary": "For ordinary defamation/insult claims, procedure is protective: the 2004 Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression puts the burden on plaintiffs (Art. 13), gives absolute privilege to opinion (Art. 4) and qualified immunity to political/parliamentary/court speech (Art. 5), and bars forced apology (Art. 17). But the February and October 2025 Administrative Offences Code / Criminal Code amendments strip comparable protections in the protest/political-speech-adjacent context: Arts. 166, 173 and 173(16) each expressly disapply the Code's standard leniency provision (Art. 22) for repeat offenders; administrative detention for these offences was extended from 15 to 60 days; and GNCC broadcast-content sanctions (see a8) are enforceable immediately rather than after appeals are exhausted. HRW (4 Dec. 2025) documents 4,444 petty-hooliganism and 6,725 police-disobedience sanctions, and 6,504 detention cases, in 2024 and the first nine months of 2025, mostly protest-related, with 'limited procedural safeguards and proportionality review.' The two regimes point in opposite directions, netting a mixed/below-midpoint score.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law of Georgia on Freedom of Speech and Expression (2004), Arts. 4, 5, 13, 17", "url": "https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/download/33208/1/en/pdf" }, { "ref": "Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia, Arts. 166, 173, 173(16), 22 (as amended 6 Feb. 2025)", "url": "https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-REF(2025)012" } ], "note": "Enforcement-scale figures (HRW, 4 Dec. 2025): https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/12/04/georgia-repressive-laws-effectively-criminalize-peaceful-protests" }, "a8": { "score": 5, "summary": "No general internet-blocking, platform real-name, or user-ID statute was verified. The Law of Georgia on Broadcasting empowers the Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC) — a state regulator, not a court — to sanction broadcasters for hate speech, obscenity and incitement to terrorism, with disciplinary measures ranging from warning to fines to licence revocation; a 2023 amendment moved this jurisdiction from broadcaster self-regulation to the GNCC directly, and sanctions are enforceable immediately rather than after exhausting appeals. This is a statutory administrative content-sanctioning regime with fines/suspension powers over broadcast media specifically, comparable to the rubric's NetzDG/DSA-type exemplar band, but narrower in scope than a general online-platform mandate.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law of Georgia on Broadcasting", "url": "https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/view/32866" } ], "note": "Could not independently verify the exact 2023 amending-law number/article granting GNCC's expanded hate-speech jurisdiction against the primary matsne text within this research pass; described here based on the base law plus corroborating reporting (CPJ, Civil.ge) as enforcement-context evidence only, not as the sole basis for the score." } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": false, "blasphemy_law": false, "blasphemy_law_note": "Confirmed false. No standalone blasphemy/religious-insult offence. Criminal Code of Georgia Art. 155 criminalises unlawful interference with the performance of divine service/religious rites using violence or threat of violence, OR where that interference is accompanied by insult to a believer's religious feelings -- insult is a qualifying mode of a worship-interference offence, not a standalone doctrine-insult provision (distinguishing it from Finland's Ch.17 s.10, which criminalises blaspheming/desecrating sacred things independent of any act of interference). Criminal Code of Georgia, Art. 155: https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/download/16426/157/en/pdf", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Plain criticism of government policy that does not insult a specific official (see insult-politician) or advocate violent overthrow (Criminal Code Art. 317, dormant) is not itself criminalised. Organisations that criticise government from a foreign-funded platform face separate registration/disclosure exposure under the Transparency of Foreign Influence Law (see a6), which is an institutional rather than individual-speech exposure." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia, Art. 173(16)", "url": "https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-REF(2025)012" }, "note": "HRW (4 Dec. 2025) reports that 'scores of Georgians, including politicians, journalists, and activists' have been summoned to court for 'insulting' ruling-party MPs on Facebook under this provision, facing fines (GEL 1,500-4,000, rising to GEL 2,500-6,000) or administrative detention up to 60 days. https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/12/04/georgia-repressive-laws-effectively-criminalize-peaceful-protests" }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code of Georgia, Art. 155", "url": "https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/download/16426/157/en/pdf" }, "note": "Art. 155 (interference with worship, aggravated by insult to religious feelings) remains in force but no prosecution/conviction statistic or documented case from the last 10 years was located in this research pass; coded dormant." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No offence identified reaching ordinary immigration-policy debate." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Law of Georgia on the Protection of Family Values and Minors (No 4437-XVI, 3 Oct. 2024), Arts. 3, 8, 9, 10, 13", "url": "https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/download/6283110/0/en/pdf" }, "note": "The law bans broadcasting, direct dissemination to minors, advertising, and public assembly/manifestation 'aimed at popularising' non-heterosexual relationships or gender transition (Art. 3 defines 'popularisation' expansively as any 'positive and exemplary' framing), with Art. 13 authorising unspecified statutory penalties; secondary reporting cites administrative fines of GEL 1,000 (individuals)/GEL 3,000 (legal entities) plus confiscation. Tbilisi Pride's director has stated the organisation would likely be forced to close. No specific fine, prosecution, or arrest under this law (in force since Oct. 2024) was verified in this pass, so coded dormant rather than enforced; a human editor should re-check for enforcement actions given the law's recency." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Law of Georgia on Transparency of Foreign Influence; Law of Georgia on Broadcasting (GNCC sanctioning power)", "url": "https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/view/6171895" }, "note": "No criminal conviction of a journalist for published content was verified. Foreign-funded outlets face registration/disclosure exposure (a6) and broadcasters face GNCC content sanctions (a8); both are institutional/administrative rather than criminal-individual exposure. Documented physical attacks on media workers (Justice for Journalists Foundation) are enforcement-context evidence of a hostile environment but not a statutory criminal exposure for journalism as such." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia, Art. 174(1) (as amended); Criminal Code of Georgia, Art. 347 (as amended, in force 16 Oct. 2025)", "url": "https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/12/04/georgia-repressive-laws-effectively-criminalize-peaceful-protests" }, "note": "October 2025 amendments reclassify repeated minor protest-related conduct (mask-wearing, road-blocking, erecting structures, joining a dispersed assembly) under Criminal Code Art. 347 as a felony: up to 1yr (first offence), up to 2yr (repeat), up to 4yr for organisers where 'serious consequences' result. HRW (4 Dec. 2025) documents 4,444 petty-hooliganism sanctions, 6,725 police-disobedience sanctions, and 6,504 detention cases in 2024-Q3 2025, overwhelmingly protest-related, and concludes the legislative package 'effectively criminalizes peaceful protest.' Coded severe on the systematic-persecution prong given the documented scale, notwithstanding that most individual sentences fall under the 5-year threshold. https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/12/04/georgia-repressive-laws-effectively-criminalize-peaceful-protests" }, "criticize-business": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No business-criticism-specific offence identified; ordinary civil defamation (a3) would apply to false factual claims but no criminal exposure was found." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia, Art. 173(16)", "url": "https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-REF(2025)012" }, "note": "Georgia is a republic; the President is a 'state-political official' within Art. 173(16)'s scope, the same provision documented in enforcement against MPs under insult-politician. No citation specific to a presidential-insult case was located in this pass; coded on the strength of the same statute and enforcement pattern." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name or ID-verification mandate for online accounts/platforms was verified. Note (not scored here, as it is a content/assembly exposure rather than an account/ID one): a October 2025 amendment bans covering one's face at protests, punishable by administrative detention up to 15 days (20 days for organisers) — see protest-organizing." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Georgia's 2004 decriminalisation of insult/defamation (Criminal Code Art. 148, repealed by Law No 224 of 24 June 2004) is confirmed directly against the current consolidated Criminal Code text, which shows the article as '(Deleted)' with that citation — the prior coder's note that this could not be verified was incorrect; it has now been verified against the primary source.", "IMPORTANT FOR HUMAN REVIEW: this file incorporates a large amount of very recent (Dec. 2024-Dec. 2025) legislative change — the Transparency of Foreign Influence Law (May 2024), the Family Values and Protection of Minors Law (Oct. 2024), and successive Administrative Offences Code / Criminal Code amendments (Feb., July, and Oct. 2025) tightening protest-related and official-insult penalties. Georgia's de jure position has moved substantially and quickly; re-verify all of a2, a6, a7, a8 and the insult-politician/protest-organizing/lgbt-content scenarios at the next review cycle, and check for further amendments post-dating this coding pass (2026-07-23).", "Could not verify whether a specific criminal (as opposed to civil/administrative) provision separately protects the President against insult beyond the general Art. 173(16) official-insult regime.", "Could not verify the exact amending-law citation for the GNCC's 2023 expansion of broadcast hate-speech jurisdiction directly against a primary matsne text; a8 relies on the base Law on Broadcasting plus corroborating secondary reporting for that specific point." ] }, "gr": { "country": "Greece", "protection": 60, "enforcement": 25, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 25, "enforcement_effective": 40, "gap": 0, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 40, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Article 14(1)-(2) of the Greek Constitution guarantees that everyone may express and propagate thoughts orally, in writing, and through the press, 'in compliance with the laws of the State'; the press is free and censorship/other preventive measures are prohibited. Art. 14(3) permits seizure of a newspaper/periodical after circulation only by public-prosecutor order and only for specified categories: offences against the Christian or any other known religion, insult of the President, disclosure of military/defence information, or obscenity manifestly offending public decency — a carve-out list, not open-ended 'public order'. Art. 14(5)-(6) adds a right of reply/redress and, after three convictions within five years for a press offence, court power to ban further publication or bar the offender from practising journalism. Judicially enforceable before ordinary courts and the Council of State/Areios Pagos; the carve-outs and post-conviction sanctions keep this below a full US-style band.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of Greece Art. 14", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Greece_2008" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 5, "summary": "Criminal insult offense under Penal Code Art. 361; criminal defamation under Arts. 362-363 with potential custodial penalties. Exact penalty structures pending verification of official source.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Greek Penal Code (Law 4619/2019) Arts. 361, 362-363", "url": "https://www.kodiko.gr/nomologia/document_navigation/" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 5, "summary": "Criminal defamation provision exists under Penal Code Arts. 362-363 with custodial penalties available. Truth defense status pending verification.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Greek Penal Code Arts. 362-363", "url": "https://www.kodiko.gr/nomologia/document_navigation/" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "Former PK Arts. 198 (kakovoulos vlasfimia — malicious blasphemy against God) and 199 (kakovoulos vlasfimia against the Eastern Orthodox Church or a tolerated religion) were not carried forward into the 2019 recodification and are marked repealed ('Καταργείται') in the consolidated Law 4619/2019 text; former Art. 201 is likewise repealed. The only surviving provision in this chapter is Art. 200 (Disturbance of Religious Gatherings): up to 2yr for maliciously obstructing/disrupting a state-permitted religious ceremony, or for insulting conduct inside a church or place of worship during such a gathering — a public-order/breach-of-the-peace offence tied to disrupting a ceremony, not a blasphemy or religious-insult-of-belief offence. No criminal blasphemy provision remains in Greek law.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Greek Penal Code (Law 4619/2019) Art. 198, marked repealed", "url": "https://www.taxheaven.gr/law/4619/2019/arthro/198" }, { "ref": "Greek Penal Code (Law 4619/2019) Art. 199, marked repealed", "url": "https://www.taxheaven.gr/law/4619/2019/arthro/199" }, { "ref": "Greek Penal Code (Law 4619/2019) Art. 200, in force (disturbance of religious gatherings, distinguished from blasphemy)", "url": "https://www.taxheaven.gr/law/4619/2019/arthro/200" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 6, "summary": "Incitement offense under Penal Code Art. 184 criminalizes incitement to hatred or discrimination. Exact scope and enforcement pending verification.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Greek Penal Code Art. 184", "url": "https://www.kodiko.gr/nomologia/document_navigation/" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 5, "summary": "Article 191 PK criminalises publicly or online disseminating false news 'capable of causing fear to an indefinite number of people... with risk of damage to the economy, the country's defence capability, or public health' — the text currently in force (effective 21.12.2022, after the widely-criticised 2021 broadening via Law 4855/2021) carries imprisonment up to 3yr or a fine, applied equally to the disseminator and to a medium's owner/publisher. This is a live, broadly-worded provision that press-freedom bodies (CPJ, HRW, RSF, Article 19) have flagged as usable against journalists; no citation of a completed conviction was found in this pass. No separate sedition or memory-law offence was identified; offences against the state (Penal Code Part Two) otherwise require organised or violent conduct, not mere speech.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Greek Penal Code (Law 4619/2019) Art. 191, as amended", "url": "https://www.lawspot.gr/nomothesia/n-4619-2019/arthro-191-poinikos-kodikas-nomos-4619-2019-diaspora/" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 5, "summary": "Art. 366 PK gives a truth defence for the honour offences: proof of truth exonerates unless the matter is exclusively private/family life raised in bad faith. Art. 368 PK requires the victim's own private complaint ('kat' enklisi') to prosecute insult/defamation (Arts. 361-365) — no ex officio state prosecution as the default rule — EXCEPT that (a) insult of an on-duty police/coast-guard/fire/health official by a person concealing or disguising their identity is prosecuted ex officio, and (b) where the victim is a public official harmed in that capacity, the official's superior authority or the competent minister may independently file the complaint on the official's behalf, mirroring the ministerial-complaint pattern seen elsewhere in the EU. Greece has not transposed the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive (EU) 2024/1069 (7 May 2026 deadline passed; the Justice Ministry's legislative committee remained in pre-legislative drafting as of mid-2026, no public bill).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Greek Penal Code Art. 366 (proof of truth)", "url": "https://www.lawspot.gr/nomothesia/pk/arthro-366-poinikos-kodikas-genikes-diataxeis/" }, { "ref": "Greek Penal Code Art. 368 (private complaint requirement)", "url": "https://www.lawspot.gr/nomothesia/pk/arthro-368-poinikos-kodikas-egklisi/" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 4, "summary": "As an EU member, Greece is subject to the Digital Services Act (Regulation 2022/2065) which requires hosting providers to establish notice-and-action mechanisms for reporting illegal content and notify users of removal decisions with reasons and redress options. Content removal must be proportionate and non-discriminatory.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Digital Services Act (EU) 2022/2065, Article 8", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022R2065" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific provision identified" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Greek Penal Code Art. 361", "url": "https://www.kodiko.gr/nomologia/document_navigation/" }, "note": "Insult provision exists; enforcement against politicians pending documentation" }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Blasphemy laws abolished in 2019. Coordinator mentioned Feb 2024 reinstatement (Law 5090/2024) but could not verify through accessible sources. Pending official confirmation." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Greek Penal Code Art. 184 (incitement)", "url": "https://www.kodiko.gr/nomologia/document_navigation/" }, "note": "Incitement provision exists; enforcement in immigration context pending documentation" }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Greek Penal Code Art. 184 (incitement)", "url": "https://www.kodiko.gr/nomologia/document_navigation/" }, "note": "Could fall under incitement provision; enforcement pending documentation" }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific anti-journalism provision identified" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific provision identified" }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Greek Penal Code Arts. 362-363 (defamation)", "url": "https://www.kodiko.gr/nomologia/document_navigation/" }, "note": "Criminal defamation exists; enforcement against business criticism pending documentation" }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Greece has a president, not a monarch. No specific insult-of-president provision identified." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific anonymous speech restriction identified" } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Statute references (Arts. 361, 362-363, 184) provided via coordinator guidance based on Penal Code 2019 (Law 4619/2019). Official kodiko.gr and WIPO Lex access attempted but returned homepage/wrong content; pending direct verification.", "Blasphemy law status: VERIFIED against the consolidated Law 4619/2019 text (taxheaven.gr) that former Arts. 198, 199, and 201 PC are marked repealed and only Art. 200 (disturbance of religious gatherings, not blasphemy) survives. The previously-flagged rumor of a Feb 2024 reinstatement via Law 5090/2024 is FALSE: Law 5090/2024 (Government Gazette, 23 Feb 2024) is a criminal-justice-acceleration and domestic-violence law with no provision touching Penal Code Arts. 198-201 or religious offences.", "EU member; Digital Services Act (A8) applies." ] }, "hk": { "country": "Hong Kong", "protection": 2, "enforcement": 85, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 85, "enforcement_effective": 98, "gap": 0, "tier": "repressive", "risk": 98, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 1, "summary": "Basic Law Art. 27 guarantees 'freedom of speech, of the press and of publication.' Art. 39 keeps the ICCPR/ICESCR 'in force' as implemented through HK law and permits restriction only 'as prescribed by law.' However, the National Security Law (NSL) 2020 Art. 62 provides that the NSL 'shall prevail where provisions of the local laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region are inconsistent with this Law,' and NSL Art. 47 requires courts to obtain a certificate from the Chief Executive on whether an act 'involves national security,' which 'shall be binding on the courts' — removing judicial determination of that threshold question for any case touching the NSL's broad subject-matter. Formal textual guarantee, not independently judicially enforceable against national-security-labelled restrictions.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Arts. 27, 39", "url": "https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/A100" }, { "ref": "Law of the PRC on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR (2020) Arts. 47, 62", "url": "https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/A406" } ] }, "a2": null, "a3": null, "a4": null, "a5": { "score": 0, "summary": "Safeguarding National Security Ordinance 2024 (Cap. 640, the 'Article 23' legislation) ss.23–25 (replacing Crimes Ordinance ss.9–10) criminalise acts, words, or publications with 'seditious intention' — defined to include bringing the constitutional order, HKSAR institutions, or specified central-authority offices 'into hatred, contempt or disaffection,' or causing 'hatred or enmity amongst different classes of residents.' Penalties reach 7yr (10yr if colluding with an external force), 3yr for mere unexplained possession of a seditious publication. Section 25 expressly provides that neither an intent to incite public disorder nor an intent to incite violence need be proved for the core offence — an explicit no-violence-nexus breadth provision reaching pure opinion.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (Cap. 640) ss. 23–25", "url": "https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap640" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 0, "summary": "NSL 2020 Art. 20 (secession) and Art. 22 (subversion, including 'seriously interfering in, disrupting, or undermining the performance of duties' of HKSAR/central bodies) carry life imprisonment for principal/grave offenders and 3–10yr for other participants; Arts. 21/23 extend liability to inciting or merely assisting these acts (5–10yr). Art. 29 (collusion with a foreign country or external elements) criminalises, among other things, 'provoking by unlawful means hatred among Hong Kong residents towards the Central People's Government' likely to cause serious consequences (3yr to life). This sits alongside the Cap. 640 sedition offence (see a5). No violence or imminent-harm nexus is required for secession/subversion; actively enforced against pro-democracy figures (see govt-critic, insult-politician scenarios).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law of the PRC on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR (2020) Arts. 20–23, 29", "url": "https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/A406" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 0, "summary": "NSL Art. 41: prosecution requires the Secretary for Justice's written consent — a political-branch gatekeeper, not a judicial check — and trials may be closed to press/public where 'State secrets or public order' are involved. Art. 42 reverses the ordinary presumption toward detention: 'No bail shall be granted...unless the judge has sufficient grounds for believing that the...defendant will not continue to commit acts endangering national security.' Arts. 44/46: the Chief Executive designates (and may remove) the only judges eligible to hear NSL cases, and the Secretary for Justice may certify a case for trial by 3 judges without a jury. No public-interest/opinion defence or anti-SLAPP mechanism appears in the Law.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law of the PRC on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR (2020) Arts. 41–42, 44, 46", "url": "https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/A406" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 0, "summary": "NSL Art. 43(4): the police national-security department may require 'a person who published information or the relevant service provider to delete the information or provide assistance' — a direct takedown/assistance mandate implemented through rules the Chief Executive is empowered to make under Art. 43's final paragraph, outside the ordinary judicial-warrant process. Art. 43(5): power to require foreign/external political organisations or their agents to provide information. Art. 43(6): interception of communications and covert surveillance on Chief Executive approval rather than judicial warrant.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law of the PRC on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR (2020) Art. 43", "url": "https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/A406" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": false, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "NSL 2020 Articles on Subversion and Sedition (specific article numbers not available in verified sources)", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China_on_Safeguarding_National_Security_in_the_Hong_Kong_Special_Administrative_Region" }, "note": "NSL 2020 used to prosecute pro-democracy figures. Jimmy Lai convicted December 2025 of sedition/collusion for criticizing government on Twitter; sentenced to 20 years. Multiple pro-democracy media outlets closed since NSL implementation." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "NSL 2020 Articles on Subversion", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China_on_Safeguarding_National_Security_in_the_Hong_Kong_Special_Administrative_Region" }, "note": "Jimmy Lai arrested August 2020 under NSL for criticizing government officials on social media; conviction secured December 2025 with 20-year sentence. Prosecutors used Twitter statements as primary evidence." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific religious speech restrictions identified under NSL 2020." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific restrictions on immigration speech identified." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific LGBT content restrictions under NSL 2020 identified." }, "journalism": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "NSL 2020 Articles on Subversion and Sedition", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China_on_Safeguarding_National_Security_in_the_Hong_Kong_Special_Administrative_Region" }, "note": "Multiple media groups shuttered after NSL implementation. Apple Daily closed June 2021. Hong Kong press freedom rank declined from 70th (2018) to 148th (2022). Jimmy Lai's arrest and prosecution targets media founder." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "NSL 2020 Articles on Sedition and Collusion", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Lai" }, "note": "Jimmy Lai faced multiple charges including unauthorized assembly from 2019 pro-democracy protests, with accumulated sentences totaling 20+ months imprisonment prior to NSL conviction." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific business criticism restrictions identified." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "NSL 2020 Articles on Subversion of Central Government", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China_on_Safeguarding_National_Security_in_the_Hong_Kong_Special_Administrative_Region" }, "note": "Subversion charges against central government (Beijing) leadership enforced via NSL 2020. Jimmy Lai's conviction included charges related to criticizing central government on social media." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "NSL 2020 Articles and ISP/Publisher Requirements", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China_on_Safeguarding_National_Security_in_the_Hong_Kong_Special_Administrative_Region" }, "note": "NSL requires ISPs and publishers to remove prohibited content; combined with mass surveillance enforced under NSL Article 43, anonymous speech has become effectively impossible. Major social media platforms implemented user verification post-NSL." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Data confidence is B (moderate) for NSL 2020 provisions and enforcement. Specific article numbers of NSL 2020 could not be verified from available sources, but the law's four main crimes (secession, subversion, terrorism, collusion) and enforcement are well-documented.", "User indicated 47 democrats trial convictions in 2024 but specific trial outcome and statutes could not be verified in available sources.", "Hong Kong press freedom rank fell from 80th (2021) to 148th (2022) - worst decline among all assessed regions.", "Jimmy Lai case provides confirmed 2025/2026 enforcement evidence: arrest August 2020, conviction December 2025, 20-year sentence.", "Components not verifiable: a2, a3, a4" ] }, "hr": { "country": "Croatia", "protection": 66, "enforcement": 25, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 25, "enforcement_effective": 34, "gap": 0, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 34, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Art. 38 Constitution guarantees freedom of thought and expression, freedom of press/media, and forbids censorship; right of correction guaranteed. Art. 16 general limitation clause allows curtailment by law to protect others' rights, legal order, public morals/health, proportionately. Art. 39 separately prohibits (at constitutional level) any call for or incitement to war, violence, or national/racial/religious hatred/intolerance. Judicially enforceable via Constitutional Court and ECtHR access (CoE/EU member).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, Art. 16, 38, 39", "url": "https://www.sabor.hr/en/information-access/important-legislation/constitution-republic-croatia-consolidated-text" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 8, "summary": "Kazneni zakon (Criminal Code) Art. 147 Uvreda (Insult) and Art. 148 (Serious Defamation) are fine-only offences (per ARTICLE 19 reporting: fine up to 90 daily rates for insult, up to 180 for serious defamation); no imprisonment appears in the base offences. No separate lese-majeste or enhanced-penalty provision for insulting the President or state officials was located in the sources consulted.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Kazneni zakon, Art. 147, 148, 148a (as amended by the 2015 Act on Amendments to the Criminal Code, NN 56/15)", "url": "https://mvep.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/files/file/dokumenti/prevodenje/zakoni/zakon-o-izmjenama-i-dopunama-kaznenog-zakona-nn-56-15-eng.pdf" }, { "ref": "ARTICLE 19, 'Croatia: Decriminalise insult and defamation' (penalty figures)", "url": "https://www.article19.org/resources/croatia-decriminalise-insult-and-defamation/" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 7, "summary": "Art. 148 (Serious Defamation): fine-only per ARTICLE 19 reporting (no custodial penalty identified). Truth is a defence (para 3: perpetrator proves factual claims true, or had serious reason to believe them true), but the defence is unavailable where the statements concern another person's private or family life (para 4) — a qualified rather than absolute truth defence.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Kazneni zakon, Art. 148 paras 3-4 (as amended, NN 56/15)", "url": "https://mvep.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/files/file/dokumenti/prevodenje/zakoni/zakon-o-izmjenama-i-dopunama-kaznenog-zakona-nn-56-15-eng.pdf" } ] }, "a4": null, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Kazneni zakon Art. 325, Public Incitement to Violence and Hatred: basic offence up to 3yr imprisonment for incitement via print, broadcast, computer network/system, public gathering or otherwise, on grounds of race, religion, national/ethnic origin, language, descent, colour, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or other characteristics; organising/leading such conduct 6mo-5yr (para 2); participation up to 1yr (para 3); genocide/war-crimes/crimes-against-humanity denial carries the same penalty as the basic offence (para 4). No violence-likelihood nexus is stated as a required element for the basic offence.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Kazneni zakon, Art. 325", "url": "https://hatecrime.osce.org/hate-crime-legislation-croatia" } ] }, "a6": null, "a7": { "score": 7, "summary": "Kazneni zakon Art. 148a excludes unlawfulness for the insult (Art. 147) and serious defamation (Art. 148) offences where the conduct occurred in academic, technical, literary, artistic, or public-information work, in performance of a statutory function, in political or other public/social activity, in journalistic work, or in defending a right — provided it was done in the public interest or for other justified reasons. This is a broad, explicit public-interest/opinion defence built into the code.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Kazneni zakon, Art. 148a (inserted by the 2015 Act on Amendments to the Criminal Code, NN 56/15)", "url": "https://mvep.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/files/file/dokumenti/prevodenje/zakoni/zakon-o-izmjenama-i-dopunama-kaznenog-zakona-nn-56-15-eng.pdf" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 5, "summary": "As an EU member state, Croatia is directly bound by the Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065): notice-and-action mechanisms for illegal content, statutory handling obligations, trusted-flagger priority, and judicial/administrative content-restriction orders, with fines for non-compliance. No Croatia-specific real-name registration or independent administrative blocking regime for online speech was identified in the sources consulted.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No anti-state-criticism, sedition, or 'damaging the reputation of the Republic' speech offence was located in the current (2011, as amended) Kazneni zakon within the sources accessible this session; an equivalent offence existed in Croatia's pre-2011 Criminal Code but its retention could not be confirmed. Coded 'none' rather than guessed — see A6 (null)." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Kazneni zakon, Art. 147 (Insult) / Art. 148 (Serious Defamation)", "url": "https://mvep.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/files/file/dokumenti/prevodenje/zakoni/zakon-o-izmjenama-i-dopunama-kaznenog-zakona-nn-56-15-eng.pdf" }, "note": "General insult/defamation offences apply equally to public officials; no enhanced official-insult provision found. No citable prosecution/conviction statistic for the last 10 years was located in this session, so coded dormant rather than enforced — this may understate actual private-prosecution activity, which is common regionally but not independently verified here." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No blasphemy/religious-insult criminal offence could be confirmed to exist in the current Kazneni zakon within sources accessible this session (A4 coded null). Coded 'none' rather than guessed." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No statute specifically criminalising immigration-policy debate identified. Art. 325 hate-speech provisions could apply only if speech amounts to incitement to violence/hatred against a protected group, not mere policy criticism." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal 'LGBT propaganda' or content-restriction statute exists; sexual orientation and gender identity are instead listed as protected characteristics under the Art. 325 hate-speech offence (i.e. the law protects LGBT people from incitement rather than restricting LGBT speech)." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Kazneni zakon, Art. 147/148, subject to the Art. 148a public-interest/journalism defence", "url": "https://mvep.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/files/file/dokumenti/prevodenje/zakoni/zakon-o-izmjenama-i-dopunama-kaznenog-zakona-nn-56-15-eng.pdf" }, "note": "Journalistic work performed in the public interest is an explicit statutory defence to insult/defamation (Art. 148a), which reduces but does not eliminate exposure since the underlying offences remain on the books. No citable enforcement statistic against journalists specifically was located this session." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No speech-specific criminal restriction on organising or promoting a protest was identified; public-assembly permitting is a separate administrative regime not reviewed as part of this speech-statute pass." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Kazneni zakon, Art. 147/148 (general insult/defamation regime)", "url": "https://mvep.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/files/file/dokumenti/prevodenje/zakoni/zakon-o-izmjenama-i-dopunama-kaznenog-zakona-nn-56-15-eng.pdf" }, "note": "The general insult/defamation regime is not limited to natural persons in its public application, but no specific confirmation that Art. 147/148 extend to corporate reputation, nor any enforcement example, was located this session." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Kazneni zakon, Art. 147/148 (general insult/defamation regime; no enhanced presidential-insult provision found)", "url": "https://mvep.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/files/file/dokumenti/prevodenje/zakoni/zakon-o-izmjenama-i-dopunama-kaznenog-zakona-nn-56-15-eng.pdf" }, "note": "Croatia is a republic; head of state is the President. No standalone president-insult/lese-majeste offence was located — the general fine-only insult/defamation regime would apply, coded dormant absent a citable enforcement example." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name registration, mandatory online ID, or specific unmasking-order statute for anonymous speech was identified within sources accessible this session. General civil-procedure disclosure mechanisms may exist for defamation claims but were not independently verified." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A4 (blasphemy) and A6 (political/security speech) coded null: no religious-insult offence, and no sedition/false-news/anti-state-speech/foreign-agent-labelling offence, could be confirmed to exist (or not exist) in the current (2011, NN 125/11, as amended) Kazneni zakon within the sources reachable this session. The pre-2011 Criminal Code contained an Art. 151 'Damaging the Reputation of the Republic of Croatia' offence, but whether an equivalent survived the 2011 recodification could not be verified.", "Primary-source access was significantly constrained this session: WebSearch was unavailable (shared session budget exhausted before this file was researched), and direct fetches of the full official consolidated Kazneni zakon (zakon.hr, narodne-novine.nn.hr) were truncated by the fetch tool well before reaching the relevant articles (~Art. 100-101 of several hundred). Citations therefore rely on (a) the official Croatian government's own English translation of the 2015 amendment act (mvep.gov.hr), which quotes the amended text of Arts. 147/148/148a directly, and (b) OSCE's hate-crime legislation portal for Art. 325. ARTICLE 19's advocacy report is used only to supplement penalty figures, not as a sole citation.", "The private-prosecution mechanism for insult/defamation (common in the region) is understood to apply in Croatia but was not independently verified against a primary source this session, so it is not asserted in A7's score, only flagged here.", "Components not verifiable: a4, a6" ] }, "hu": { "country": "Hungary", "protection": 53, "enforcement": 25, "enforcement_volume": 18, "enforcement_severity": 25, "enforcement_effective": 25, "gap": -22, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 35, "confidence": "C", "components": { "a1": { "score": 6, "summary": "Article IX of the Hungarian Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and press. Hungary recognizes and defends freedom and diversity of press and ensures conditions for free dissemination of information necessary for democratic public opinion. Detailed implementation of press freedom, media services oversight, and regulatory mechanisms are delegated to a cardinal Act (requiring two-thirds parliamentary majority). Article X provides complementary protections for scientific research, artistic creation, and teaching.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Hungarian Constitution Article IX and Article X", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Hungary_2011" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 4, "summary": "Criminal insult offense under Btk. §227; criminal defamation under Btk. §226 with potential custodial penalties. Enhanced penalties for insult of state symbols under §334.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Hungarian Criminal Code (Btk., Act C/2012) §226, §227, §334", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/17700" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 4, "summary": "Criminal defamation provision under Btk. §226 with custodial penalties available. Truth defense status and scope pending verification.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Hungarian Criminal Code §226", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/17700" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious-insult offence in Hungarian law. Btk. (Act C of 2012) §215, the Criminal Code's only religion-specific provision, criminalises restricting another person's freedom of conscience or preventing free exercise of religion 'by violence or threat' (up to 3yr; up to 5yr if the conduct also constitutes abuse of the victim's religious affiliation) — it protects religious practice from violent obstruction and says nothing about speech that mocks, insults, or blasphemes a religion or deity, which is not criminalised.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Btk. (Act C of 2012) §215", "url": "https://njt.jog.gov.hu/jogszabaly/en/2012-100-00-00" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Incitement offense under Btk. §332 criminalizes incitement against a community. Scope and enforcement pending full verification.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Hungarian Criminal Code §332", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/17700" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 4, "summary": "Scaremongering offense under Btk. §337 criminalizes false statements causing public alarm. COVID-era enforcement documented.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Hungarian Criminal Code §337", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/17700" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 6, "summary": "Btk. §229 gives a truth defence for defamation/insult/violation-of-memory (§§226-228): the perpetrator is not liable if the damaging fact is proved true, and proof of truth is specifically available where the statement was justified by public interest or a person's legitimate interest. §§226(3) and 227(3) — added by the 2023 amendment, in force 2 June 2023 — add a public-discourse defence on top: defamation/insult committed in the free discussion of public affairs via press or media is not punishable unless aimed at an 'obvious and seriously derogatory denial' of the victim's human dignity. Both offences are nonetheless 'magánvádas' (private-prosecution) crimes — the aggrieved party personally conducts the case rather than the state prosecutor — and §231 additionally requires a private motion before either can proceed at all, EXCEPT that insulting a member of a law-enforcement or national-security body is prosecutable without any private motion or private-prosecution step (an asymmetric enhancement for state agents). Hungary has not begun transposing the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive (EU) 2024/1069 (7 May 2026 deadline passed with no draft text presented).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Btk. (Act C of 2012) §§226(3), 227(3), 229, 231", "url": "https://njt.jog.gov.hu/jogszabaly/en/2012-100-00-00" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 4, "summary": "As an EU member, Hungary is subject to the Digital Services Act (Regulation 2022/2065) which requires hosting providers to establish notice-and-action mechanisms for reporting illegal content and notify users of removal decisions with reasons and redress options. Content removal must be proportionate and non-discriminatory.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Digital Services Act (EU) 2022/2065, Article 8", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022R2065" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific provision identified" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Hungarian Criminal Code §227 (insult), §226 (defamation)", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/17700" }, "note": "Insult provisions exist; enforcement against politicians pending documentation" }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific religious offense provision identified" }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Hungarian Criminal Code §332 (incitement against community)", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/17700" }, "note": "Incitement provision exists; enforcement in immigration context pending documentation" }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific LGBT-content prohibition identified (though propagand-style restrictions exist outside speech code)" }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific anti-journalism provision identified" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific provision identified" }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Hungarian Criminal Code §226 (defamation)", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/17700" }, "note": "Criminal defamation exists; enforcement against business criticism pending documentation" }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Hungary has a president, not a monarch. No specific insult-of-president provision identified." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific anonymous speech restriction identified" } }, "signals": { "b1": { "value": 1.3, "raw": 129, "year": 2020, "metric": "Criminal proceedings, Btk. 337 'scaremongering' (COVID-era enforcement wave, documented arrests/proceedings)", "source": "Hungarian Civil Liberties Union / police statements", "url": "https://hclu.hu/en/" } }, "known_gaps": [ "Statute references (Btk. §§226, 227, 332, 334, 337) provided via coordinator guidance based on Criminal Code Act C/2012. WIPO Lex access attempted but returned unrelated content; pending direct verification via WIPO Lex or Hungarian official sources.", "Scaremongering (§337): Coordinator cited COVID-era arrests documented by HCLU (Hungarian Civil Liberties Union https://hclu.hu/en/), which would constitute criminal_enforced band, but these enforcement examples could not be independently verified through accessible sources.", "EU member; Digital Services Act (A8) applies.", "Systematic annual series not published; 2020 figure reflects the documented enforcement wave." ] }, "id": { "country": "Indonesia", "protection": 23, "enforcement": 75, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 75, "enforcement_effective": 77, "gap": 0, "tier": "restricted", "risk": 77, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 4, "summary": "Constitution Art. 28E(3) guarantees the right to associate, assemble and express opinions, but Art. 28J(2) subjects all Ch. XA rights to restrictions 'established by law' for morality, religious values, security, and public order in a democratic society - a broad, values-based carve-out.", "citations": [ { "ref": "1945 Constitution of Indonesia Art. 28E(3), Art. 28J(2)", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Indonesia_2002" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 2, "summary": "New Criminal Code (KUHP), Law No. 1 of 2023, reported to have entered into force 2 January 2026. Arts. 218-219 expand criminalization of attacks on the 'honor or dignity' of the President/Vice-President; Art. 240 criminalizes insults against government/state institutions. HRW and ICNL both flag these as broadened versus the old code and likely to be applied against government-critical speech; exact prison terms per article, and the commencement date itself, could not be fetch-verified against the primary statute text this session - see top-level notes for sources attempted (commonly reported in the low multi-year range, unconfirmed).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law No. 1 of 2023 (KUHP) Art. 218-219, Art. 240", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/indonesia" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 2, "summary": "Old KUHP defamation articles carry short custodial penalties, but the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE, Law 11/2008 as amended by Law 19/2016, Art. 27(3)) imposes materially harsher penalties for the same conduct online; Dec 2023 amendments reduced maximum terms and added alternative sanctions but 'vague provisions still allow authorities sweeping discretion' (HRW). SAFEnet's tracker records 978 digital-rights criminalization cases in 2025.", "citations": [ { "ref": "UU ITE (Law 11/2008, amended by Law 19/2016) Art. 27(3)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/indonesia" }, { "ref": "SAFEnet case tracker", "url": "https://safenet.or.id/en/" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 2, "summary": "Law No. 1/PNPS/1965 on Prevention of Religious Abuse and/or Defamation criminalizes 'deviation' from the basic teachings of officially recognized religions, up to 5 years' imprisonment; actively enforced (Basuki 'Ahok' Tjahaja Purnama, North Jakarta District Court, 9 May 2017, 2 years for blasphemy/incitement over remarks on Quran Al-Ma'idah 51). The new KUHP is reported to additionally criminalize incitement to change religion or become non-religious (commonly cited as Arts. 300-305) per HRW/ICNL, but the exact article numbers and penalty ranges in the new KUHP could not be fetch-verified against primary legislative text this session - see top-level notes for sources attempted.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law No. 1/PNPS/1965; Law No. 1 of 2023 (KUHP)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/indonesia" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 2, "summary": "KUHP Arts. 156-157 (SARA - inciting hatred/hostility on grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, group) and UU ITE Art. 28(2) (electronic transmission of hate-based hostility) apply without a violence-nexus requirement; ICNL reports enforcement 'disproportionately targeting critics rather than pro-government actors.'", "citations": [ { "ref": "KUHP Art. 156-157; UU ITE Art. 28(2)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/indonesia" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 2, "summary": "New KUHP Art. 240 criminalizes insulting government/state institutions; UU ITE hoax/false-information provisions (Art. 28(1)) have also been used against critical online speech. Documented 2024-2025 cases under ITE articles against activists (Daniel Frits, jailed July 2024, shrimp-pond protest hate-speech charge; Christina Rumalatu summoned Aug 2024; 4+ activists charged Aug-Sep 2025 national protests; Yusril Koto arrested 2025 for defamation re: local-authority criticism).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law No. 1 of 2023 (KUHP) Art. 240; UU ITE Art. 28", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/indonesia" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 2, "summary": "Blasphemy and defamation cases are routinely triggered by private/police complaint rather than requiring a public-interest gate; pre-trial detention is documented in ITE cases (e.g. activists summoned/charged during 2024-2025 protest waves). No anti-SLAPP statute identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "UU ITE (Law 11/2008, amended by Law 19/2016)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/indonesia" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 2, "summary": "Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs (Kominfo/Komdigi) content-blocking and platform-registration powers (Ministerial Regulation 5/2020 PSE framework) enable administrative blocking without prior judicial order; platforms failing to register have faced blocking.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Ministerial Regulation MR5/2020 (PSE registration/blocking framework)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/indonesia" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "UU ITE Art. 27(3), Art. 28; new KUHP Art. 240", "url": "https://safenet.or.id/en/" }, "note": "SAFEnet tracked 978 digital-rights criminalization cases in 2025; multiple named 2024-2025 activist prosecutions under ITE articles documented by ICNL. https://safenet.or.id/en/" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Law No. 1 of 2023 (KUHP) Art. 218-219, Art. 240", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/indonesia" }, "note": "New presidential/state-institution insult articles in force since 2 Jan 2026; HRW/ICNL flag them as broadened versus the prior code, though a post-commencement prosecution statistic specific to these articles was not independently verified this session." }, "religion": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Law No. 1/PNPS/1965", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/indonesia" }, "note": "Up to 5 years' imprisonment; Ahok convicted and sentenced to 2 years, North Jakarta District Court, 9 May 2017, over remarks on Quran Al-Ma'idah 51 - the best-known of a recurring pattern of blasphemy prosecutions." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No provision specifically targeting immigration-related speech identified this session." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "UU ITE (anti-pornography/decency provisions); new KUHP", "url": "https://www.hrw.org/asia/indonesia" }, "note": "HRW flags the new KUHP (in force Jan 2026) as posing risks 'to the work of...LGBT people'; no specific dedicated 'propaganda' statute or recent prosecution statistic was independently verified this session." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "UU ITE Art. 27(3), Art. 28", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/indonesia" }, "note": "ICNL documents ITE provisions 'used arbitrarily against journalists and activists' with penalties harsher than the general Criminal Code." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "UU No. 9/1998 (Freedom to Express Opinion in Public); UU ITE", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/indonesia" }, "note": "24-hour advance notification required; at least four activists charged under multiple ITE articles during Aug-Sep 2025 national protests (ICNL)." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "UU ITE Art. 27(3) (criminal defamation)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/indonesia" }, "note": "Criminal defamation via ITE is available to corporate plaintiffs; a business-specific enforcement statistic was not independently verified this session." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Law No. 1 of 2023 (KUHP) Art. 218-219 (presidential-insult; Indonesia has no monarch)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/indonesia" }, "note": "New presidential-insult articles in force since Jan 2026, flagged by HRW/ICNL as broadened; treated as the head-of-state analogue since Indonesia is a republic." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Ministerial Regulation MR5/2020 (PSE registration framework)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/indonesia" }, "note": "PSE registration regime gives authorities platform-level leverage to compel identification of users during ITE investigations; a specific unmasking-prosecution statistic was not independently verified this session." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "The new Criminal Code (KUHP), Law No. 1 of 2023, is reported to have entered into force 2 January 2026 and be the operative law (superseding the colonial-era Wetboek van Strafrecht); this file codes the new KUHP where confirmed by secondary sources, but exact prison-term figures for Arts. 217-220 (presidential/VP insult) and Arts. 300-305 (blasphemy-adjacent provisions), and the exact commencement date, were not independently fetch-verified against primary legislative text this session and should be re-checked before adversarial use.", "UNRESOLVED 2026-07-22: attempted to verify Arts. 217-220 and 300-305 of Law No. 1/2023 (KUHP) against the official peraturan.go.id text (per RUBRIC task); could not resolve with WebFetch (WebSearch budget was exhausted this session, so no search fallback was available). Five distinct sources were tried and all failed: peraturan.go.id/id/uu-no-1-tahun-2023 (403), peraturan.go.id/files/uu-no-1-tahun-2023.pdf (connection refused), peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/240233 and its /Download/ PDF variant (403 both), hukumonline.com pusatdata detail page (403), jdih.setkab.go.id PDF (DNS not found). Component citations therefore still rely on ICNL's Civic Freedom Monitor (Indonesia), HRW, and SAFEnet as the best available fetchable secondary sources. Exact article numbers/penalty figures and the Jan 2026 commencement date remain unverified against primary legislative text and should be re-attempted before adversarial use." ] }, "ie": { "country": "Ireland", "protection": 68, "enforcement": 25, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 25, "enforcement_effective": 32, "gap": 0, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 32, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 6, "summary": "Article 40.6.1(i) guarantees the right of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions, judicially enforceable by courts with genuine power to strike down legislation as unconstitutional (unlike the UK). The guarantee is qualified in its own text: organs of public opinion 'shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State', and 'the publication or utterance of seditious or indecent matter is an offence' — a fairly broad, constitutionally-textualised carve-out (narrowed in 2018 by removing 'blasphemous' from that clause).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of Ireland Art. 40.6.1(i)", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ireland_2019" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 8, "summary": "No offence of insulting the President or public officials specifically. General public-order offence (threatening, abusive or insulting words/behaviour intended or reckless as to provoking a breach of the peace) carries a low penalty ceiling — fine up to €1,000 and/or up to 3 months' imprisonment — with no enhancement for officials.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 s.6", "url": "https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/6/revised/en/html" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 9, "summary": "Common-law defamatory, seditious and obscene libel offences abolished 2009 — defamation is civil-only, with a truth defence and a fair-and-reasonable-publication-on-a-matter-of-public-interest defence. The Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026 (in force from 1 March 2026) revised and simplified the public-interest defence, raised the bar for corporate claimants (serious-harm test for bodies corporate), and inserted a new Part 4A (s.34C) into the 2009 Act giving courts power to strike out proceedings identified as SLAPPs before trial — full SLAPP coverage awaits a separate general SLAPPs Bill extending the same mechanism outside defamation.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Defamation Act 2009 s.35 (abolition of common law libel offences)", "url": "https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/section/35/enacted/en/html" }, { "ref": "Defamation Act 2009 ss.16, 26 (truth; fair and reasonable publication)", "url": "https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/enacted/en/html" }, { "ref": "Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026, Part 7 (inserting Defamation Act 2009 s.34C)", "url": "https://www.mccannfitzgerald.com/knowledge/disputes/irelands-anti-slapp-framework-the-2026-act-and-general-scheme-explained" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "Blasphemy offence (Defamation Act 2009 s.36) repealed outright by the Blasphemy (Abolition of Offences and Related Matters) Act 2019, in force 17 January 2020, following the 37th constitutional amendment (26 October 2018 referendum, 64.85% yes) which deleted 'blasphemous' from Article 40.6.1(i). No religious-offence provision remains.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Blasphemy (Abolition of Offences and Related Matters) Act 2019 (No. 43/2019) s.4", "url": "https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2009/act/31/section/36/revised/en/html" }, { "ref": "Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Act 2018", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ireland_2019" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 s.2 criminalises threatening, abusive or insulting words/material that are intended OR (disjunctively, no violence nexus required) likely to stir up hatred on grounds of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation; max 2 years on indictment, 6 months summary (s.6). A 2022-24 reform effort would have added new incitement offences and characteristics, but the incitement/hate-speech sections were dropped from the bill during Seanad passage (October 2024); the enacted Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024 only adds hate-aggravated sentencing for existing offences, leaving the unreformed 1989 Act as the operative incitement law.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 s.2, s.6", "url": "https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/act/pub/0019/sec0002.html" }, { "ref": "Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024 (No. 41/2024)", "url": "https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2024/act/41/enacted/en/" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 5, "summary": "Article 40.6.1(i) itself criminalises 'seditious...matter'; Offences Against the State Act 1939 s.10 criminalises printing, publishing or distributing 'seditious' or 'incriminating' documents (max 6 months summary) and targets contributions to newspapers by unlawful organisations. Live on the books but rarely invoked against ordinary political speech in the modern era; no separate 'false news' statute exists.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Offences Against the State Act 1939 s.10", "url": "https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1939/act/13/enacted/en/html" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 5, "summary": "Public-interest and truth defences exist for defamation; the 2026 reform added a targeted SLAPP strike-out mechanism (Defamation Act 2009 s.34C) but general anti-SLAPP legislation (transposing EU Directive 2024/1069, deadline 7 May 2026) remained a General Scheme only, not yet enacted, at last review. Private prosecution is possible for minor/summary offences; the DPP has ultimate carriage of indictable matters. Pre-trial detention is not the norm for pure speech offences (most are summary/fine-level under the 1994 and 1989 Acts).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026, Part 7", "url": "https://www.mccannfitzgerald.com/knowledge/disputes/irelands-anti-slapp-framework-the-2026-act-and-general-scheme-explained" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 5, "summary": "Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022 established Coimisiún na Meán with statutory online safety codes (binding on designated platforms, covering illegal and harmful content) — replacing platform self-regulation. No general licensing of individual speech or real-name mandate; blocking/removal is code- and complaint-driven with regulatory enforcement powers rather than a single hard statutory takedown clock verified in this review.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022", "url": "https://www.cnam.ie/industry-and-professionals/codes-legislation/legislation/online-safety-and-media-regulation-act/" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": false, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No offence criminalises criticism of the government itself; general public-order and incitement offences apply only where content is separately threatening/abusive/insulting and meets the relevant test (see other scenarios)." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 s.6", "url": "https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/6/revised/en/html" }, "note": "The general public-order insult offence could apply, but no enhanced offence targets insulting a politician specifically, and no documented prosecution for merely insulting a named politician online was found in the last 10 years." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Blasphemy repealed 2019/2020 following the 2018 constitutional referendum; no religious-insult offence remains for critical or mocking speech about religion." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 s.2", "url": "https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/act/pub/0019/sec0002.html" }, "note": "Ordinary immigration-policy debate is not itself criminalised. The 1989 Act could in principle apply if content were threatening/abusive and directed at a protected group, but the Act is documented as producing only around five convictions since 1989 (Irish Times, https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts-service-reveals-five-convictions-for-hate-crime-since-1989-1.3124352) and continuing low enforcement volumes reported through 2024 (Irish Times, https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/2024/09/27/number-of-prosecutions-for-hate-crime-remains-low-despite-surge-in-attacks/)." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda' or content-restriction law targeting LGBT speech or expression." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Offences Against the State Act 1939 s.10", "url": "https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1939/act/13/enacted/en/html" }, "note": "The seditious/incriminating-document offence remains on the books and could in principle touch reporting connected to unlawful organisations, but no journalist prosecution under it was found in the last 10 years. No specific press-freedom-restricting statute otherwise applies to ordinary journalism." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994", "url": "https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/6/revised/en/html" }, "note": "General public-order offences (obstruction, breach of the peace) can apply to protest conduct, but no case of a protest organiser receiving a severe custodial sentence in Ireland in the last 10 years was found in this review, unlike the UK's Just Stop Oil prosecutions." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Defamation Act 2009", "url": "https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/enacted/en/html" }, "note": "Criminal libel abolished; criticism of a business or employer carries civil defamation exposure only, subject to truth and public-interest defences (as revised by the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026)." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No monarch; per rubric this scenario codes the President. No offence of insulting the President was identified — the only relevant constitutional carve-out (seditious/indecent matter, Art. 40.6.1(i)) is not office-specific." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2026/feb/key-defamation-changes-coming-into-effect/" }, "note": "The Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026 gives the Circuit Court a new statutory power to order identification of an anonymous online poster in defamation proceedings — a civil disclosure mechanism, not a criminal real-name mandate or general anonymity ban." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "The 2022-24 hate-speech reform effort (originally the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill) had its incitement/hate-speech provisions stripped out during Seanad passage in October 2024 after public controversy; the enacted Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024 covers only sentencing aggravation, so A5 reflects the unreformed 1989 Act.", "General anti-SLAPP legislation (transposing EU Directive 2024/1069) was at General Scheme stage only as of this review, alongside the narrower defamation-specific mechanism already enacted in the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026 Part 7 — treat A3/A7 anti-SLAPP coverage as partial, not economy-wide.", "irishstatutebook.ie blocked automated fetches during this review (HTTP 403); citations to it were verified via a text-proxy render or via revisedacts.lawreform.ie (Law Reform Commission's official revised-acts service) and are believed accurate but should be re-confirmed by a human clicking through." ] }, "il": { "country": "Israel", "protection": 46, "enforcement": 52, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 52, "enforcement_effective": 54, "gap": 0, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 54, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 6, "summary": "No enumerated free-expression clause in any Basic Law. Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992) protects dignity, life, body, property, personal liberty, movement, privacy — expression is not textually listed. Israeli courts (from Kol Ha'am, 1953, predating the Basic Law) derived a judicially-enforceable free-expression doctrine from the 'Jewish and democratic state' character clause and dignity guarantee, giving real judicial review teeth, but the guarantee remains unenumerated and Basic Laws can be amended/overridden by ordinary Knesset majority in practice (weak formal entrenchment) and are subject to a general limitation clause (proper purpose, values of the state, proportionality).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992), ss.2,3,5,6,7,8", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Israel_2013" }, { "ref": "Kol Ha'am Co. Ltd. v. Minister of the Interior, HCJ 73/53 (1953)", "url": "http://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/kol-haam-co-ltd-v-minister-interior" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 5, "summary": "Penal Law 5737-1977 s.288 criminalizes insulting a public servant in the performance of duty (confirmed present in the official consolidated statute text; enhanced protection specifically for officials, distinct from any general-insult provision). Exact penalty text (fine vs. custodial ceiling) could not be extracted from the source document within this session; scored per rubric's 'enhanced penalties for officials' criterion rather than an unverified year-count.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Law 5737-1977 (consolidated), s.288", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/15336" }, { "ref": "Full text PDF (Hebrew, official consolidated version hosted by WIPO Lex)", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/edocs/lexdocs/laws/he/il/il076iw.pdf" } ] }, "a3": null, "a4": { "score": 5, "summary": "Penal Law 5737-1977 s.173 criminalizes injury to religious sentiment/feelings ('פגיעה ברגשי דת'), confirmed present in the official consolidated statute text. No evidence located either way on prosecution frequency in the last 25 years, so scored as a live provision without asserting dormancy; exact penalty text not extracted from source.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Law 5737-1977 (consolidated), s.173", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/15336" }, { "ref": "Full text PDF (Hebrew, official consolidated version hosted by WIPO Lex)", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/edocs/lexdocs/laws/he/il/il076iw.pdf" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 2, "summary": "Counter-Terrorism Law 5776-2016 s.24: base offense (s.24(a), 3yr max) criminalizes public 'identification' with a proscribed organization (praise, symbols, flags, slogans) satisfied by a 'realistic possibility' standard, not requiring intent/likelihood of violence; s.24(b) direct incitement carries 5yr; s.24(c1) criminalizes mere 'systematic consumption' of listed-organization content (1yr) — content consumption alone, no dissemination or violence nexus required. Rights groups document application against Palestinian civil-society speech (NGO terror-designations, social-media-post indictments).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Counter-Terrorism Law 5776-2016, s.24(a)-(c1)", "url": "https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law00/141771.htm" }, { "ref": "Adalah discriminatory-laws database entry on the Counter-Terrorism Law (application examples)", "url": "https://www.adalah.org/en/law/view/598" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 2, "summary": "The same Counter-Terrorism Law s.24 functions as Israel's primary political/security speech offense; Adalah documents its use against government critics, Palestinian political figures, and civil-society organizations for social-media posts and public statements, including six Palestinian human-rights NGOs designated 'terrorist organizations' (Oct 2021) and the prosecution of aid worker Mohammed el-Halabi.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Counter-Terrorism Law 5776-2016, s.24", "url": "https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law00/141771.htm" }, { "ref": "Adalah discriminatory-laws database entry and documented cases", "url": "https://www.adalah.org/en/law/view/598" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 5, "summary": "Mixed: s.24(e) requires Attorney-General approval before any indictment under the speech-offense section (a genuine procedural check). Counterweighing this, Chapter D (ss.45-52) of the same law creates extended pre-trial detention for 'serious security offenses' — delay of production before a judge up to 96 hours (s.46), initial detention up to 20 days extendable in 15-day increments (s.47), detention hearings permitted in the detainee's absence (s.48), and truncated 30-hour appeal windows (s.50).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Counter-Terrorism Law 5776-2016, s.24(e) (AG approval); ss.45-52 (detention)", "url": "https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law00/141771.htm" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 8, "summary": "Communications Law (Telecommunications and Broadcasting) 5742-1982 s.4I requires Internet Access Providers to offer subscribers an opt-in filtering service for 'Offensive Sites' — a voluntary subscriber-side filter, not a mandatory government blocking or takedown power. No mandatory ISP takedown deadlines, no statutory real-name/ID requirement for online speech, and no online-publishing licensing regime were found in this or the Counter-Terrorism Law text.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Communications Law (Telecommunications and Broadcasting) 5742-1982, s.4I", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/15170" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": null, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Counter-Terrorism Law 5776-2016, s.24", "url": "https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law00/141771.htm" }, "note": "Adalah documents indictment of Palestinian political figure Mohammad Kana'neh (detained ~1 month, May 2021) over Facebook posts, and the October 2021 'terrorist organization' designation of six Palestinian human-rights NGOs, both under/adjacent to s.24. https://www.adalah.org/en/law/view/598" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Law 5737-1977, s.288", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/15336" }, "note": "Statute confirmed present (insulting a public servant) but no prosecution/conviction statistic from the last 10 years could be located this session." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Law 5737-1977, s.173", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/15336" }, "note": "Statute confirmed present (injury to religious sentiment) but no prosecution/conviction statistic from the last 10 years could be located this session." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal or civil provision specific to immigration/demographic-policy debate located." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type law restricting LGBT expression/content located; Israel does not criminalize same-sex conduct or its discussion." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Counter-Terrorism Law 5776-2016, s.24", "url": "https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law00/141771.htm" }, "note": "s.24 could expose journalists reporting on or appearing to identify with proscribed organizations, and press-freedom groups report a post-Oct-2023 chilling effect, but a specific cited prosecution/arrest of a journalist qua journalist within the last 10 years could not be verified this session (kept conservative rather than asserted)." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Counter-Terrorism Law 5776-2016, s.24", "url": "https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law00/141771.htm" }, "note": "Adalah documents indictment of political/organizing figures (Mohammad Kana'neh, Sheikh Kamal al-Khatib) under s.24-adjacent provisions. https://www.adalah.org/en/law/view/598" }, "criticize-business": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal speech provision specific to business criticism located; civil defamation may apply but the Defamation Law 5725-1965 could not be verified this session (see a3 null)." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Law 5737-1977, s.288 (general public-servant insult; no distinct President-insult/lese-majeste provision found)", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/15336" }, "note": "No dedicated lese-majeste clause for the President was located; s.288's general public-servant insult provision would cover the office as a public servant. No enforcement statistic found." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No statutory real-name or ID-unmasking requirement was found; Communications Law 5742-1982 s.4I creates only a voluntary subscriber-side content filter (https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/15170). Reports of an informal State Attorney 'Cyber Unit' practice of requesting platform takedowns exist in secondary literature but no citable statutory basis or case was verified this session — noted as a gap, not scored." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "This file replaces an earlier draft in which every component was null. WebSearch was unavailable for this session (budget exhausted); all sourcing here is via direct WebFetch of official/institutional URLs (WIPO Lex-hosted official consolidated Penal Law and Communications Law texts, Nevo.co.il official legislation database for the Counter-Terrorism Law, constituteproject.org, and Cardozo Law's Versa case-law archive).", "a3 (criminal defamation, Defamation Law 5725-1965) is null: the law is repeatedly referenced in secondary literature but no accessible official or WIPO Lex text was found within this session's constraints. Do not infer a score for it.", "a2 and a4: section numbers and subject matter (s.288 public-servant insult; s.173 religious sentiment) are confirmed twice over from the official consolidated Penal Law PDF hosted on WIPO Lex, but exact penalty figures (fine vs. years) could not be extracted from the PDF by the fetch tool in this session — scores are based on offense category per rubric, not on an assumed penalty tier.", "a1 reflects that Israel has no enumerated constitutional speech clause; protection is entirely judge-made (Kol Ha'am and successors) from the dignity/democratic-character provisions of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.", "flags.blasphemy_law set true on the strength of Penal Law s.173 (injury to religious sentiment); flags.lese_majeste set false because no distinct enhanced-penalty President-insult clause was located (s.288 is general).", "Components not verifiable: a3" ] }, "in": { "country": "India", "protection": 32, "enforcement": 65, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 65, "enforcement_effective": 68, "gap": 0, "tier": "restricted", "risk": 68, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 6, "summary": "Constitution Art. 19(1)(a) guarantees speech and expression; Art. 19(2) permits 'reasonable restrictions' for sovereignty/integrity, state security, foreign relations, public order, decency/morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence. Independent judiciary with an active track record of judicial review (e.g. striking down IT Act s.66A in 2015), but restriction grounds are broad and have been used to sustain wide-reaching statutes.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of India Art. 19(1)(a), 19(2)", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/India_2016" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 7, "summary": "No lese-majeste or distinct 'insulting the President/officials' offence (India is a republic with no monarch). Criticism of officials is instead exposed via ordinary criminal defamation and the anti-state provisions now in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) s.152 (see A6), rather than a dedicated official-dignity statute.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (in force 1 July 2024) - absence of a distinct official-insult offence, per ICNL survey", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/india" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 2, "summary": "Criminal defamation (IPC s.499-500) is recodified at Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) s.356 ('Defamation'), confirmed against the enacted section text: s.356(2) carries up to 2 years' imprisonment, or fine, or both, or community service; truth is a defence only when the statement was made 'for the public good' (not an absolute truth defence), preserved via the section's explanations/exceptions. The Supreme Court upheld the provision's constitutionality in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (13 May 2016). Widely used against journalists and critics.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s.356 (ex-IPC s.499-500); Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)", "url": "https://www.devgan.in/bns/section/356/" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 2, "summary": "IPC s.295A ('deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings') is recodified at BNS s.299, confirmed against the enacted section text: same conduct standard, penalty imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both (cognizable, non-bailable). Actively enforced, including high-profile arrests of comedians/commentators over jokes/commentary on religion.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s.299 (ex-IPC s.295A)", "url": "https://www.devgan.in/bns/section/299/" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 2, "summary": "IPC s.153A (promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.) is recodified at BNS s.196, confirmed against the enacted section text: up to 3 years/fine/both for the base offence, up to 5 years and fine for the aggravated form (in places of worship/religious assemblies) - a broad group-denigration offence not requiring proof of violence or its likelihood; frequently invoked.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s.196 (ex-IPC s.153A)", "url": "https://www.devgan.in/bns/section/196/" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 1, "summary": "The colonial-era sedition offence (IPC s.124A) was formally suspended by the Supreme Court in 2022 pending review, then replaced by Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita s.152 ('Acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India') when the BNS entered into force 1 July 2024. Confirmed against the enacted section text: penalty is life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 7 years plus fine (cognizable, non-bailable, triable by Court of Session) - consistent with ICNL's report of a raised 7-year minimum-exposure floor vs. s.124A's prior 3-year/life structure. Uttar Pradesh police used the new provision to charge journalists reporting on an alleged mob lynching shortly after commencement. IPC s.124A itself had previously been used against Amnesty International India (2017, following a Jammu & Kashmir human-rights panel discussion).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s.152 (in force 1 July 2024)", "url": "https://www.devgan.in/bns/section/152/" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 1, "summary": "The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) imposes stringent bail conditions that in practice function as prolonged pre-trial detention for speech-adjacent 'terrorism'/unlawful-activity charges; the European Parliament (Jan 2024, per ICNL) flagged UAPA's 'harmful effects' on civil society. Defamation and s.295A prosecutions can be triggered by private complaint. No anti-SLAPP statute identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act; European Parliament resolution Jan 2024 cited by ICNL", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/india" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 2, "summary": "IT Act s.69A empowers content blocking; the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 impose takedown deadlines on platforms and a 'first originator' traceability mandate for significant messaging services, eroding end-to-end anonymity. IT Act s.66A remains formally struck down (Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 24 Mar 2015) but has been reported to persist in some FIRs post-strike-down; the specific continuing-use statistic was not independently re-verified against a fetchable source this session.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Information Technology Act s.69A; IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/india" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita s.152; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/india" }, "note": "Uttar Pradesh police charged journalists under the new BNS s.152 shortly after its 1 July 2024 commencement, over reporting on an alleged mob lynching; the old sedition provision (IPC s.124A) was used against Amnesty International India in 2017. https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/india" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita s.356 (ex-IPC s.499-500, criminal defamation)", "url": "https://www.devgan.in/bns/section/356/" }, "note": "Criminal defamation constitutionality upheld by the Supreme Court, Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (13 May 2016); routinely used by politicians against critics and journalists." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita s.299 (ex-IPC s.295A)", "url": "https://www.devgan.in/bns/section/299/" }, "note": "Actively enforced; documented high-profile cases include the arrest of comedian Munawar Faruqui in Indore (Jan 2021) over alleged religious-insult jokes, held roughly a month before Supreme Court bail - this specific case was not independently re-verified via a fetchable primary source this session." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No provision specifically targeting immigration-related speech identified this session." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "India decriminalized homosexuality in 2018 (Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India); no 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT speech identified." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita s.152; s.356 (ex-IPC s.499-500)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/india" }, "note": "UP police used BNS s.152 against journalists covering an alleged mob lynching shortly after the July 2024 commencement (ICNL)." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/india" }, "note": "UAPA has been used against protest organizers/activists with prolonged pre-trial detention under stringent bail conditions; ICNL cites European Parliament (Jan 2024) concern over its 'harmful effects' on civil society." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita s.356 (ex-IPC s.499-500, criminal defamation)", "url": "https://www.devgan.in/bns/section/356/" }, "note": "Criminal defamation is available to corporate plaintiffs; a business-specific enforcement statistic was not independently verified this session." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita s.152 (India is a republic; no monarch)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/india" }, "note": "No lese-majeste; coded via the anti-state provision as the closest analogue. Documented enforcement (govt-critic scenario) targets government/state criticism generally rather than the President personally, so coded dormant for this specific head-of-state framing pending a more targeted case." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 (traceability/'first originator' mandate)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/india" }, "note": "Traceability mandate for significant messaging platforms creates unmasking exposure; a specific enforcement statistic for anonymous-account unmasking was not independently verified this session." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "RESOLVED 2026-07-22: BNS 2023 section-renumbering conflict checked against the enacted Act's bare-act text (devgan.in, which mirrors the official section text) after indiacode.nic.in returned HTTP 403 to automated fetch on two attempts this session. Confirmed enacted section numbers: sedition-replacement = s.152 ('acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India', life imprisonment or up to 7yr + fine), promoting-enmity = s.196 (up to 3yr, or 5yr aggravated, ex-IPC s.153A), religious-insult = s.299 (up to 3yr, ex-IPC s.295A), defamation = s.356 (up to 2yr, ex-IPC s.499-500). PRS Legislative Research's clause numbers (150/195/297) reflect an earlier bill draft superseded by these enacted numbers; ICNL's s.152 figure for sedition was correct. All four component citations and affected scenario statute refs updated accordingly. Recommend re-confirming directly against indiacode.nic.in once that portal is reachable to automated fetch.", "IT Act s.66A's continued use in FIRs despite being struck down in 2015 (Shreya Singhal v. Union of India) is well documented in secondary reporting, but a specific citable statistic could not be retrieved via a fetchable source this session; flagged qualitatively in A8 rather than scored with a statistic.", "Primary legislative text (indiacode.nic.in, mha.gov.in) and several NGO/legal-tracker sites (Internet Freedom Foundation, SC Observer, PRS bill page) returned errors or were blocked to automated fetch this session; citations rely on ICNL's Civic Freedom Monitor (India) as the principal fetchable source." ] }, "is": { "country": "Iceland", "protection": 63, "enforcement": 17, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 17, "enforcement_effective": 37, "gap": 0, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 37, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 8, "summary": "Section VII, Articles 65-79 of Constitution protects freedom of speech; Constitution directly enforceable; independent courts review restrictions", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of Iceland, Section VII", "url": "https://www.althingi.is/en/constitution" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 3, "summary": "Article 95 (previously cited for this score) protects foreign nations/states, their leaders, national symbols, the UN/Council of Europe flags, and foreign diplomats -- it does NOT reach domestic officials, so it cannot support a2 by itself. There is, however, a genuine domestic president-insult mechanism: Art. 101 doubles the penalty otherwise available under the defamation/insult chapter (Arts. 234-241) whenever such an offence is directed at the President or acting president (and allows up to +50% more if directed at his immediate household). Base insult (Art. 234, max 1yr) becomes up to 2yr; the aggravated defamatory-imputation offence (Art. 236, max 2yr) becomes up to 4yr when the victim is the President. No enhancement of any kind exists for ordinary domestic officials/politicians (see insult-politician). No evidence of prosecutions under Art. 101 was found, so this is a dormant but live multi-year president-insult enhancement -- corrected citation, same band as before.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Almenn hegningarlög nr. 19/1940 (General Penal Code), Art. 101", "url": "https://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1940019.html#G101" }, { "ref": "Almenn hegningarlög nr. 19/1940, Arts. 234 & 236 (base offences enhanced by Art. 101)", "url": "https://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1940019.html#G234" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 3, "summary": "Ordinary criminal defamation remains in force and was wrongly scored null. Art. 234: insult (móðgun), fines or up to 1yr. Art. 235: defamatory factual imputation (aðdróttun), fines or up to 1yr. Art. 236: imputation made against better knowledge, or published without probable cause to believe it true, fines or up to 2yr. Art. 237 punishes baseless reproach 'þótt hann segi satt' -- even though the speaker tells the truth -- so truth is NOT established as a complete statutory defence; Art. 238 separately bars re-litigating the truth of conduct for which the accused was already acquitted. Art. 239 allows (discretionary) discharge of Art. 234/235 penalties if the target provoked the insult. No evidence was found that Iceland repealed these provisions (a hypothesis raised during this review): the 2021 amendments to this chapter (L. 8/2021; L. 48/2021, cited in Art. 242) reformed prosecution-trigger procedure and added/updated privacy and image-based-abuse offences (Arts. 228-233b) in the same chapter, not the substantive defamation articles. Custodial penalties available + truth not a complete defence -> lower band.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Almenn hegningarlög nr. 19/1940, Arts. 234-238", "url": "https://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1940019.html#G234" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "Blasphemy law repealed July 2, 2015; no criminal religious-insult offence remains", "citations": [ { "ref": "Icelandic Act repealing blasphemy (2015)", "url": "https://www.althingi.is" } ] }, "a5": null, "a6": { "score": 7, "summary": "Correction 2026-07-23: previously miscited Art. 95 as a domestic lese-majeste/political-speech provision. Verified against the consolidated text (which also confirms Art. 95 sits in Chapter X, Landrad/treason) that Art. 95 protects FOREIGN nations/states, their heads of state, and the flags of foreign states, the UN and Council of Europe -- up to 2yr, or up to 6yr in serious cases -- a narrow diplomatic-protection offence, not a domestic anti-state-speech or sedition provision. Chapter XI (Arts. 98-100a), the actual 'crimes against the constitutional order' chapter, criminalises armed insurrection, assassination attempts on the President, and attacks on Althingi/government/courts -- all violence-based, none reach pure political speech. No domestic sedition, false-news, or anti-state-opinion offence was found in the General Penal Code. Art. 95 remains the only speech-restrictive provision with any nexus to political/security matters (protecting foreign relations), narrow in scope and with no evidence of prosecution.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Almenn hegningarlög nr. 19/1940 (General Penal Code), Art. 95", "url": "https://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1940019.html#G95" } ] }, "a7": null, "a8": { "score": 9, "summary": "No statutory takedown mandates; no ID requirements for online speech; no administrative blocking; minimal intermediary regulation", "citations": [ { "ref": "Icelandic electronic communications framework", "url": "https://www.althingi.is" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": true, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "General government criticism not criminalized; press freedom rank #12 (2026: 82.77)" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Almenn hegningarlög nr. 19/1940, Art. 234 (cf. Art. 242(2)(b))", "url": "https://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1940019.html#G234" }, "note": "Ordinary politicians get no penalty enhancement -- Art. 95 covers foreign states/heads of state only, and the Art. 101 penalty-doubling applies only to the President. But the general insult offence (Art. 234, fines or up to 1yr) criminalizes insulting anyone, including a politician, and Art. 242(2)(b) lets a sitting or former public official trigger state prosecution 'upon his request' for an insult/defamatory imputation touching his official duties, rather than requiring him to bring a private prosecution himself as an ordinary citizen would. No prosecution/conviction under this route in the last 10 years was found, so banded dormant rather than enforced or none." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Blasphemy repealed July 2, 2015; no criminal religious-insult offence" }, "immigration-debate": { "band": null, "statute": null, "note": "Could not verify Article 233a hate speech provision (user's lead); statute number not confirmed in searches. Mark null pending official verification." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal restrictions on LGBT expression or content documented" }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Press freedom rank #12; no specific journalist-targeting statutes identified" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal liability for lawful protest organizing; constitution protects assembly" }, "criticize-business": { "band": null, "statute": null, "note": "Icelandic defamation provisions mentioned (user's lead) but specific statute not verified during search; could not confirm criminal vs civil framework" }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Almenn hegningarlög nr. 19/1940, Art. 101 (penalty-doubling for offences under Arts. 234/236 directed at the President)", "url": "https://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1940019.html#G101" }, "note": "Corrected 2026-07-23: Article 95 protects FOREIGN heads of state/nations, not the Icelandic president -- confirmed against the consolidated text (Art. 95 sits in the treason chapter, Ch. X). The actual domestic mechanism is Art. 101, which doubles the penalty otherwise available under the insult/defamation chapter (Arts. 234-241) when the offence is directed at the President (up to +50% more if directed at the President's immediate household). No prosecution under Art. 101 in the last 10 years was found, hence dormant." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No ID requirement or real-name mandate for online speech" } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A5 (incitement/hate-speech) scored null: Article 233a mentioned as lead but could not verify this provision during web search; statute number unconfirmed.", "A7 (procedure & defences) scored null: Unable to verify defences and procedures specific to Iceland's speech-related prosecutions.", "2026-07-23 correction: a2 was citing Art. 95 (foreign nations/heads of state/national symbols/diplomats only) to justify a president-insult score, but Art. 95 does not reach domestic officials at all -- confirmed against the live consolidated text at althingi.is. The actual domestic mechanism is Art. 101, which doubles the penalty otherwise available under the defamation chapter (Arts. 234-241) when directed at the President specifically. a2 keeps the same band on this corrected basis.", "2026-07-23 correction: a3 was null ('could not verify'). Arts. 234-238 and 240 (insult/defamatory imputation/defaming the deceased) are live, current law -- fines or custodial up to 1-2yr, truth not established as a complete statutory defence (Art. 237 punishes baseless reproach even if true). No repeal of these provisions was found; the 2021 reform (L. 8/2021; L. 48/2021) in this chapter reformed prosecution-trigger procedure and privacy/image-based-abuse offences, not the defamation articles themselves.", "2026-07-23 correction: a6's citation (Art. 95, 404 at old URL) and the monarchy-head-of-state scenario both wrongly treated Art. 95 as covering the domestic president; corrected in both places to reflect Art. 95's actual scope (foreign nations/heads of state) and to cite Art. 101 for the genuine domestic president-penalty-enhancement in the scenario. flags.criminal_insult and flags.criminal_defamation updated to true/true given the live Arts. 234-238 provisions confirmed under a3.", "Components not verifiable: a5, a7" ] }, "it": { "country": "Italy", "protection": 53, "enforcement": 38, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 38, "enforcement_effective": 47, "gap": 0, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 47, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Art. 21 of the Italian Constitution guarantees that everyone has the right to freely express thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication; the press may not be subjected to authorisation or censorship. Seizure of press material may only occur by a reasoned judicial act specifying the offence, and only for offences expressly determined by the press law itself or for violation of rules on identifying those responsible; where delay would cause harm and the judiciary cannot act in time, judicial police may seize press material provisionally but must report to the judiciary within 24hr, with the seizure automatically void unless validated within a further 24hr. Publications, performances, and other exhibits contrary to public morality may be prohibited, with law establishing suitable measures for disclosing and repressing violations. Judicially enforceable before ordinary courts and the Corte Costituzionale; the morality carve-out and press-law-defined seizure grounds keep this below a full US-style band.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of Italy Art. 21", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Italy_2020" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 4, "summary": "Vilipendio (insult to state institutions) offenses under Codice Penale Art. 278 (insult to President) and Arts. 290-292 (insult to Parliament, institutions) with custodial penalties. Constitutional Court 150/2021 limited mandatory imprisonment but conviction still possible.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Italian Codice Penale Arts. 278, 290-292", "url": "https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1930-10-19;1398" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 4, "summary": "Criminal defamation under Codice Penale Art. 595 with custodial penalties up to 3 years, enhanced to 5 years if committed via press. Constitutional Court decision 150/2021 curbed mandatory imprisonment requirements but offense remains criminalized.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Italian Codice Penale Art. 595; Constitutional Court decision 150/2021", "url": "https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1930-10-19;1398" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 6, "summary": "Bestemmia (blasphemy, Art. 724 c.p.) was decriminalised to a purely administrative offence by Legislative Decree 507/1999 — publicly reviling the divinity now carries only an administrative fine (EUR 51-309) issued by the Prefect, not a criminal conviction. Art. 403 c.p. (rewritten by Law 85/2006 to protect all religious confessions equally, replacing the earlier Catholic-only 'religione dello Stato' version, after Corte Costituzionale sent. 440/1995 struck the disparity) remains a live criminal offence: publicly offending a religious confession through vilification (vilipendio) of its adherents — fine EUR 1,000-5,000 (EUR 2,000-6,000 if directed at a minister of the cult). Fines only, no custodial exposure, but still actively litigated (e.g. Cass. pen. n. 1253/2023), not dormant.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Codice Penale Art. 403 (Law 85/2006); Art. 724 (as administrativised by D.Lgs. 507/1999)", "url": "https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1930-10-19;1398" }, { "ref": "Art. 403 c.p. consolidated text", "url": "https://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/libro-secondo/titolo-iv/capo-i/art403.html" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Incitement to discrimination/hatred under Codice Penale Art. 604-bis (ex-Mancino law) criminalizes incitement based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality. Scope and enforcement pending full verification.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Italian Codice Penale Art. 604-bis", "url": "https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1930-10-19;1398" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 8, "summary": "Art. 656 c.p. (still in force, unamended since the 1930 codice) criminalises publishing/spreading false, exaggerated, or tendentious news 'capable of disturbing public order' — but as a minor misdemeanour: arrest up to 3 months or a fine up to EUR 309, a 'crime of danger' interpreted broadly by case law (Cass. pen. 9475/1996) yet trivial in practice. Art. 265 c.p. (Disfattismo politico) is a genuine wartime anti-state speech offence — spreading false/exaggerated information capable of alarming the public or weakening national resistance, min. 5yr (up to life for enemy contact) — but it only applies 'in time of war' and has never been triggered in the peacetime republic; a 2023 bill to repeal it was introduced but not enacted. Book II Title I ('Delitti contro la personalità dello Stato') otherwise requires organised or violent conduct (association, attentato), not mere speech. No general peacetime sedition offence targets political dissent.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Codice Penale Art. 656 (false news); Art. 265 (disfattismo politico, wartime only)", "url": "https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1930-10-19;1398" }, { "ref": "Art. 656 c.p. consolidated text", "url": "https://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/libro-terzo/titolo-i/capo-i/sezione-i/art656.html" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 4, "summary": "Art. 596 c.p. EXCLUDES proof of truth as a defence to insult/defamation as the general rule — the accused may not prove the imputed fact was true — with only narrow statutory exceptions (the offended party is a public official and the fact concerns their functions; a criminal case on the same fact is already open against the offended party; or the offended party themself asks that truth/falsity be tried). Case law has read a further judge-made 'diritto di critica' (right of criticism/journalism) defence into Art. 596, but it is jurisprudential, not codified. Art. 595 c.p. requires the victim's own 'querela di parte' to prosecute defamation — no ex officio state prosecution. Corte Costituzionale sent. 150/2021 struck down the mandatory prison sentence for aggravated press/broadcast defamation (Art. 13, Law 47/1948; Art. 30(4), Law 223/1990) as disproportionate, leaving imprisonment discretionary rather than mandatory. Italy has not transposed the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive (EU) 2024/1069 as of mid-2026 — Parliament delegated the government to legislate but no implementing decree has issued.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Codice Penale Art. 595 (querela requirement), Art. 596 (exclusion of truth defence)", "url": "https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1930-10-19;1398" }, { "ref": "Corte Costituzionale sentenza n. 150/2021", "url": "https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2021&numero=150" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 4, "summary": "As an EU member, Italy is subject to the Digital Services Act (Regulation 2022/2065) which requires hosting providers to establish notice-and-action mechanisms for reporting illegal content and notify users of removal decisions with reasons and redress options. Content removal must be proportionate and non-discriminatory.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Digital Services Act (EU) 2022/2065, Article 8", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022R2065" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific provision identified" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Italian Codice Penale Art. 278 (insult to President), Arts. 290-292 (insult to institutions)", "url": "https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1930-10-19;1398" }, "note": "Vilipendio provisions exist; enforcement against politicians pending documentation" }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": "Codice Penale Art. 403 (vilipendio di una confessione religiosa, as rewritten by Law 85/2006)", "note": "Art. 403 c.p. is a live criminal offence: publicly offending a religious confession by vilification of its adherents, fine EUR 1,000-5,000 (EUR 2,000-6,000 if directed at a minister of the cult). Fines only, no custodial exposure, so not 'severe'. Enforcement within the last 10 years is documented: Cass. pen. n. 1253/2023. Separately, bestemmia (Art. 724 c.p.) was decriminalised to an administrative fine by D.Lgs. 507/1999 and is no longer a criminal matter. https://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/libro-secondo/titolo-iv/capo-i/art403.html" }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Italian Codice Penale Art. 604-bis (incitement to discrimination)", "url": "https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1930-10-19;1398" }, "note": "Incitement provision exists; enforcement in immigration context pending documentation" }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Italian Codice Penale Art. 604-bis (incitement based on sexual orientation possible)", "url": "https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1930-10-19;1398" }, "note": "Could fall under incitement provision; enforcement pending documentation" }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific anti-journalism provision identified" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific provision identified" }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Italian Codice Penale Art. 595 (defamation)", "url": "https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1930-10-19;1398" }, "note": "Criminal defamation exists; enforcement against business criticism pending documentation" }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Italian Codice Penale Art. 278 (vilipendio of President)", "url": "https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1930-10-19;1398" }, "note": "Italy has a president. Vilipendio of President criminalized; enforcement pending documentation" }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific anonymous speech restriction identified" } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Statute references (Arts. 278, 290-292, 595, 604-bis) provided via coordinator guidance based on Codice Penale. Normattiva URL access attempted but returned TOC rather than full article text; pending direct verification via normattiva.it or other official sources.", "Criminal defamation (Art. 595): Coordinator cited Constitutional Court decision 150/2021 which curbed mandatory prison penalties. This decision could not be independently verified but indicates evolving judicial interpretation of defamation offenses.", "EU member; Digital Services Act (A8) applies." ] }, "jp": { "country": "Japan", "protection": 66, "enforcement": 38, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 38, "enforcement_effective": 38, "gap": 4, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 36, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 6, "summary": "Constitution Art. 21 guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly and expression and bars censorship (Art. 21(2)). But Arts. 12/13 subject all rights to a broad, undefined 'public welfare' (kōkyō no fukushi) proviso, and the Supreme Court has struck down speech-restricting statutes only a handful of times in the post-war era, indicating weak-in-practice judicial review of the carve-out.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of Japan, Arts. 12, 13, 21", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Japan_1946" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 6, "summary": "Penal Code Art. 231 (Insult) was amended in June 2022, effective July 2022, raising the penalty from mere misdemeanor detention (1-30 days) or a petty fine (up to ¥10,000) to imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than ¥300,000 (courts retain the lighter options for less serious cases). The amendment followed the 2020 death of reality-TV personality Hana Kimura after online abuse. There is no separate enhanced-penalty offense for insulting officials, politicians, or the state (no lese-majeste provision survives post-war); the same Art. 231 applies to everyone.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1907) Art. 231, as amended by Act No. 67 of 2022", "url": "https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3581" }, { "ref": "Secondary confirmation of 2022 amendment penalty change", "url": "https://monolith.law/en/general-corporate/contempt-severe-punishment" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 3, "summary": "Penal Code Art. 230 (Defamation): publicly alleging facts damaging to another's reputation is punishable by up to 3 years' imprisonment or a fine of up to ¥500,000 — truth of the statement is irrelevant on its own. Art. 230-2 provides a defense only where ALL THREE of: (1) the facts concern a matter of public interest, (2) the statement was made solely to advance the public interest, and (3) the facts are proven true. Truth alone is not a complete defense; a true but non-public-interest, non-public-purpose statement remains criminally defamatory.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Code Arts. 230, 230-2", "url": "https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3581" }, { "ref": "Secondary summary of the three-part public-interest/truth test", "url": "https://www.recordinglaw.com/world-laws/world-defamation-laws/japan-defamation-laws/" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious-insult offense exists in the Penal Code. The Code's religion-related provisions (Ch. on offenses against religious worship, e.g. disturbing a religious service or a funeral) protect the conduct of worship, not religious beliefs or doctrines themselves from criticism or insult.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1907), full text reviewed — no blasphemy chapter", "url": "https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3581" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 9, "summary": "No national criminal hate-speech offense. The 2016 Act on the Promotion of Efforts to Eliminate Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behavior against Persons Originating from Outside Japan is explicitly declaratory/promotional: it states that such speech 'is not permitted' but creates no criminal or civil penalty, relying instead on education, counseling and awareness campaigns run by the Ministry of Justice. (Some municipalities, e.g. Kawasaki City, have separate local ordinances with fines for repeat violations; these are sub-national and out of scope here.)", "citations": [ { "ref": "Act on the Promotion of Efforts to Eliminate Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behavior against Persons Originating from Outside Japan (Act No. 68 of 2016)", "url": "https://www.moj.go.jp/JINKEN/jinken04_00108.html" } ] }, "a6": null, "a7": { "score": 5, "summary": "Penal Code Art. 232: both defamation (Art. 230) and insult (Art. 231) are 'offenses subject to complaint' (shinkokuzai) — prosecution requires the victim to file a formal complaint; the state does not prosecute sua sponte, and there is no special mechanism for officials to personally trigger a criminal case beyond filing the same complaint any private citizen would. Available defenses are limited to the narrow three-part public-interest/truth test of Art. 230-2; no general opinion/fair-comment privilege appears in the chapter, and no anti-SLAPP statute could be identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 232 (Offense Subject to Complaint)", "url": "https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3581" } ] }, "a8": null }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No offense targeting criticism of the government or state as an institution was identified. Defamation/insult (Arts. 230, 231) require an identifiable natural person target, not an abstract government criticism." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 231", "url": "https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3581" }, "note": "Art. 231 applies uniformly — no enhanced protection for politicians, but no exemption either. Documented recent enforcement of the insult offense generally: two men were criminally fined ¥9,000 each via summary indictment (2020-2021) for online insults directed at TV personality Hana Kimura before her suicide, per Wikipedia's sourced case summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hana_Kimura. No politician-specific prosecution case could be located this session, but the same statute and enforcement practice applies without distinction by target category." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No blasphemy/religious-insult offense exists (see A4). Criticism of religion is not itself criminalized." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal hate-speech or immigration-debate-specific offense; the 2016 Hate Speech Elimination Act is non-punitive (see A5)." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda' or LGBT-content-restriction statute identified." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code Arts. 230, 230-2", "url": "https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3581" }, "note": "Journalists are exposed to the same defamation/insult regime as any speaker; the conditional public-interest truth defense (Art. 230-2) affords real but narrow protection for reporting. No enforcement statistic specific to journalists in the last 10 years was located. Separately, the Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets (2013) reportedly penalizes soliciting leaks of designated secrets via 'grossly inappropriate means' — not scored here (see A6 note, citation not verified this session)." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No national criminal speech statute targeting protest organizing was verified. Prefectural Public Safety Ordinances (kōan jōrei) are widely reported to require advance permits for public demonstrations with penalties for unauthorized assembly, but this is an assembly-permit regime rather than a content-based speech offense, and no citation could be verified this session — flagged as a gap." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 233 (Damage to Credit and Interference with Business)", "url": "https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3581" }, "note": "Spreading false information or using fraudulent means to damage another's business credit or obstruct business is punishable by up to 3 years' imprisonment or a ¥500,000 fine. Genuine opinion/honest negative review would not fall within 'fraudulent means'; no specific enforcement statistic against online reviewers/critics in the last 10 years was located this session, hence dormant rather than enforced." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Japan abolished its pre-war lese-majeste provisions (former Penal Code Arts. 73-76) after WWII; no dedicated offense protects the Emperor from criticism. In principle ordinary insult/defamation law could apply if a comment targeted the Emperor as an identifiable person, but no case of such a prosecution in the last 10 years was located, and procedural standing to file the required complaint (Art. 232) on the Emperor's behalf is unclear — coded none rather than speculating." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "Unmasking of anonymous posters in Japan is understood to proceed via a civil court-ordered disclosure mechanism under the Provider Liability Limitation Act (streamlined by a 2021/2022 amendment into a faster non-litigious procedure), rather than a government real-name mandate or administrative order. Citation not independently verified this session (see A8 note) — band assigned from general knowledge only, flagged for verification." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A6 (political/security speech) left null: could not obtain a working primary-source fetch this session for the Public Offices Election Act's campaign-speech/canvassing restrictions or the Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets (2013, penalties for leaking/soliciting designated secrets). Both are well documented in secondary literature but are not scored here without a verified citation.", "A8 (intermediary mandates) left null: could not obtain a working primary-source fetch this session for the Act on the Limitation of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers and the Right to Demand Disclosure of Identification Information of the Sender (Provider Liability Limitation Act), including its 2021/2022 amendment creating an expedited non-litigious court procedure for unmasking anonymous posters. Known to exist; not scored without verification.", "Because A6 and A8 are null, and the anonymous-account scenario band rests on unverified general knowledge rather than a cited primary source, this file should get a follow-up verification pass with working web-search access before being treated as final.", "Components not verifiable: a6, a8" ] }, "kr": { "country": "South Korea", "protection": 55, "enforcement": 52, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 52, "enforcement_effective": 52, "gap": 7, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 49, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 5, "summary": "Constitution Art. 21(1)-(2) guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly and association and bars licensing/censorship. But Art. 21(4) writes a limitation directly into the constitutional text itself: 'Neither speech nor the press shall violate the honor or rights of other persons or undermine public morals or social ethics' — an unusually broad, textually explicit carve-out (most systems leave such limits to ordinary legislation subject to independent proportionality review rather than embedding them in the guarantee itself).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Art. 21", "url": "https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=1&lang=ENG" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 7, "summary": "Criminal Act Art. 311 (Insult) criminalizes publicly insulting another; general legal literature and Freedom House both describe the penalty ceiling as imprisonment of not more than 1 year or a fine (not more than approx. 2,000,000 won). No distinct enhanced-penalty offense exists for insulting officials, politicians, or the President specifically — the same Art. 311 applies uniformly. Enforcement volume is very high in practice (see insult-politician scenario) but that is an enforcement/de facto fact, not a feature of the statute's text.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Act, Art. 311 (confirmed as the correct statute at this official database entry; exact fine figure drawn from consistent secondary legal literature, not independently re-extracted from full statutory text this session due to page-length limits on the source tool)", "url": "https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=63711&type=part&key=9" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 2, "summary": "Criminal Act Art. 307(1) criminalizes defamation by alleging TRUE facts (up to 2 years imprisonment or a fine), Art. 307(2) alleging false facts (up to 5 years), and Art. 309 aggravates both when committed via a periodical, broadcast or similar media (up to 7 years for false facts — corroborated by Freedom House's 'up to seven years' figure for aggravated/cyber defamation). Art. 310 exempts only the narrow case of a true statement under Art. 307(1)/309(1) made solely to advance a matter of public interest — truth alone is never a complete defense, and the base offense expressly reaches true statements. Cyber (Network Act) defamation carries its own, harsher penalty track (see A8).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Act Arts. 307, 308, 309, 310 (confirmed as the correct statute and chapter at this official database entry; specific penalty figures corroborated via Freedom House Freedom on the Net 2023, not independently re-extracted from full statutory text this session due to page-length limits on the source tool)", "url": "https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=63711&type=part&key=9" }, { "ref": "Freedom House, Freedom on the Net 2023 — South Korea (corroborating penalty figures and enforcement data, not a legal-text source)", "url": "https://freedomhouse.org/country/south-korea/freedom-net/2023" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious-insult offense was found in the Criminal Act's table of offenses.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Act (confirmed structure reviewed; no blasphemy chapter)", "url": "https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=63711&type=part&key=9" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 9, "summary": "No national criminal hate-speech or group-denigration offense exists. South Korea's proposed Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Act (which would address discriminatory conduct including some speech) has been repeatedly introduced and repeatedly failed to pass since 2007; absent enactment, there is no criminal exposure for group-denigrating speech as such at the national level.", "citations": [ { "ref": "No enacted national hate-speech statute identified — noted as an absence rather than cited to a specific enacted provision", "url": "https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/part.do" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 2, "summary": "National Security Act Art. 7(1): imprisonment for not more than 7 years for anyone who, with knowledge that it may endanger the state's existence, security or the free democratic basic order, 'praises, incites or propagates the activities of an antigovernment organization ... or propagates or instigates a rebellion against the State.' Art. 7(3): forming/joining such an organization, imprisonment of 1 year or more. Art. 7(5): producing, importing, reproducing, possessing, carrying, distributing, selling or acquiring expressive materials with intent to commit the above, penalized the same as the underlying paragraph. The 'praises/incites/propagates' language is vague and has been applied to satire, social-media reposts and academic writing, matching the vague-and-usable-against-opinion pattern.", "citations": [ { "ref": "National Security Act Art. 7", "url": "https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=39798&type=part&key=9" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 3, "summary": "Insult (Art. 311) is a complaint-required offense (chinjwoe) — prosecution cannot proceed without the victim's complaint. Defamation (Arts. 307, 309), by contrast, is prosecutable on the state's own initiative; a victim can only stop an already-commenced prosecution by expressly manifesting an intent not to punish (Art. 312(2) 'banuisa puljwoe' mechanism) — the state need not wait for a complaint to begin. Available defenses are limited to the narrow Art. 310 public-interest/truth exemption described in A3; no general opinion/fair-comment privilege or anti-SLAPP statute was identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Act Art. 312 (prosecution-trigger rules for Arts. 307/309/311) — confirmed as the correct statute; the chinjwoe/banuisa-puljwoe distinction is drawn from well-established secondary legal literature, not independently re-extracted from full statutory text this session due to page-length limits on the source tool", "url": "https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=63711&type=part&key=9" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 4, "summary": "Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection ('Network Act') Art. 44-7 lets the Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC), an administrative body, order platforms to reject/suspend/restrict access to nine categories of unlawful content following its own internal deliberation — not a prior judicial order. Non-compliance is a criminal offense (Freedom House cites Network Act Art. 73: up to 2 years' imprisonment or a fine of up to 20,000,000 won). The KCSC can order blocking of an entire site even where only part of its content is at issue (per Freedom House). Separately, cyber-defamation under the Network Act (not independently re-verified for exact article number this session, commonly cited as Art. 70) carries an enhanced penalty of up to 7 years / 50,000,000 won versus the base Criminal Act offense. A mandatory real-name verification requirement for major websites (2007-2012) was reportedly struck down by the Constitutional Court in 2012 as unconstitutional; that ruling was not independently verified this session.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Network Act Art. 44-7 (content categories and KCSC order power)", "url": "https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=71563&type=part&key=43" }, { "ref": "Freedom House, Freedom on the Net 2023 — South Korea (Art. 73 penalty figure, cyber-defamation penalty figures, whole-site blocking practice; not a legal-text source)", "url": "https://freedomhouse.org/country/south-korea/freedom-net/2023" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No offense was identified that criminalizes criticism of the government/state as an institution per se, as distinct from defamation of an identifiable official (see insult-politician) or National Security Act speech favorable to North Korea (see A6)." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Act Arts. 307, 311", "url": "https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=63711&type=part&key=9" }, "note": "No enhanced protection specific to politicians, but very heavy general enforcement of defamation/insult: Freedom House's Freedom on the Net 2023 reports defamation/insult cases rose from 13,348 in 2017 to 29,258 in 2022, with 62.3% of 2022 cases resulting in arrest (https://freedomhouse.org/country/south-korea/freedom-net/2023). Figures are general (not politician-specific), but the same statute and enforcement practice cover insults/defamation of public figures without a separate carve-out." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No blasphemy/religious-insult offense identified (see A4)." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No national hate-speech or immigration-debate-specific offense (see A5). Ordinary defamation/insult law could apply only if the speech targets an identifiable individual." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda' or LGBT-content-restriction statute identified." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Act Arts. 307, 309", "url": "https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=63711&type=part&key=9" }, "note": "Journalists face the same defamation exposure as any speaker, aggravated when published via media (Art. 309). HRW's World Report 2024 states the government 'uses the country's criminal defamation laws to limit scrutiny of its actions' (https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/south-korea) but does not itemize a specific journalist prosecution in the reporting year, so coded dormant rather than enforced absent a concrete cited case." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "South Korea's Assembly and Demonstration Act is widely reported to require advance notification for public assemblies and to criminalize unauthorized or unregistered demonstrations, but no citation could be verified this session — flagged as a gap requiring follow-up." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Act Arts. 307, 309", "url": "https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=63711&type=part&key=9" }, "note": "No business-specific offense (unlike some jurisdictions' 'business obstruction' statutes) was identified; general defamation law would apply to false statements about a business. No specific enforcement example against a reviewer/critic in the last 10 years was located this session." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Act Arts. 307, 311", "url": "https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=63711&type=part&key=9" }, "note": "South Korea is a republic; no lese-majeste-style statute protects the President specifically. Ordinary defamation/insult law applies to comments about the President as it would to any identifiable person. The enforcement figures cited under insult-politician (29,258 defamation/insult cases in 2022 per Freedom House) are general, not President-specific; no citation for a President-targeted prosecution in the last 10 years was located this session, so this band leans on the general enforcement pattern rather than a head-of-state-specific case." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "A mandatory real-name verification law for major websites (2007-2012) is widely reported to have been struck down by the Constitutional Court in 2012 as unconstitutional, and no general real-name mandate currently appears to be in force — but this history was not independently verified this session (fetch attempts to the Constitutional Court's site failed). The Network Act's KCSC content-blocking power (see A8) is content-based, not an identity/unmasking mechanism, so is not coded here." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Several components (a2, a3, a7, a8) cite the correct official statute page (confirmed by the tool to be the actual Criminal Act / National Security Act / Network Act) but specific numeric penalty figures and some article-internal mechanics could not be independently re-extracted from the full statutory text this session because the source tool truncates very long consolidated-law pages before reaching Arts. 300+. Those figures are instead corroborated via Freedom House's Freedom on the Net 2023 report and well-established secondary legal literature. Flagged for a follow-up pass with direct full-text access to confirm exact wording and fine amounts.", "protest-organizing scenario and the 2012 real-name Constitutional Court case could not be verified this session at all (search engines and the Constitutional Court's own site were unreachable) — both are flagged gaps, not asserted facts." ] }, "lt": { "country": "Lithuania", "protection": 49, "enforcement": 17, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 17, "enforcement_effective": 51, "gap": 0, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 51, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Constitution Article 25 guarantees freedom of expression and information; permits restrictions justified by constitutional provisions and laws", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of Lithuania, Article 25", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Lithuania_2019" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 4, "summary": "Article 155 (Insult/Įžeidimas) criminalizes intentional verbal or written disrespect; enhanced penalties for public expression or offenses based on protected characteristics", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of Lithuania, Article 155", "url": "https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.111555" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 4, "summary": "Article 154 (Defamation/Šmeižimas) criminalizes spreading false information damaging reputation; enhanced penalties when publicly disseminated or targeting officials", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of Lithuania, Article 154", "url": "https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.111555" } ] }, "a4": null, "a5": { "score": 4, "summary": "Article 170 criminalizes incitement against any nation, race, ethnic, religious or other group (Kurstymas); distinguishes basic incitement from aggravated forms with public expression or violence advocacy", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of Lithuania, Article 170", "url": "https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.111555" } ] }, "a6": null, "a7": null, "a8": { "score": 6, "summary": "DSA Article 8 applies as EU member; statutory takedown deadlines with fines, some admin blocking permitted", "citations": [ { "ref": "Digital Services Act, Article 8", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022R2065" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": null, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific restrictions on government criticism verified" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code Article 155 (Insult)", "url": "https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.111555" }, "note": "Article 155 applies with enhanced penalties for public expression; enforcement data from last 10 years not accessible" }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No dedicated blasphemy law; Article 170 covers incitement based on religious group" }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code Article 170 (Incitement to hatred)", "url": "https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.111555" }, "note": "Article 170 criminalizes incitement against ethnic, racial groups; enforcement data from last 10 years not accessible" }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No LGBT propaganda law verified" }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific restrictions verified; EU/ECHR press freedom applies" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No restrictions verified" }, "criticize-business": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No business-specific restrictions verified" }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Lithuania is a republic; no lèse-majesté provisions" }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No mandatory ID/real-name requirements verified" } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Constitutional framework and key criminal code articles (154, 155, 170) verified via e-seimas.lrs.lt.", "User lead referenced Article 313 (memory laws); provisions not accessible in this research.", "Article 169 (discrimination) also exists but not coded as separate component.", "Specific penalties and enforcement data from 2016-2026 not accessible.", "a4: Blasphemy or religious offense provisions could not be verified", "a6: Political and security speech offences could not be verified", "a7: Procedural defences and protections could not be verified", "Components not verifiable: a4, a6, a7" ] }, "lu": { "country": "Luxembourg", "protection": 63, "enforcement": 52, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 52, "enforcement_effective": 52, "gap": 15, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 45, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 8, "summary": "Constitution Art. 23 (revised text in force 1 July 2023, formerly Art. 24): 'The freedom of expressing opinions and freedom of the press are guaranteed, except for offences committed in the exercise of these freedoms.' Censorship may never be established. Judicially enforceable before the Cour constitutionnelle; the carve-out is narrow (offences actually committed, not a broad 'public order/values' clause).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Art. 23 (consolidated 01/07/2023)", "url": "https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/constitution/1868/10/17/n1/consolide/20230701" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 5, "summary": "General insult (injure, Art. 448) of a person or 'corps constitué': 8 days-2 months + fine 251-5,000 EUR. Enhanced protection for deputies, government members and magistrates (Art. 275, outrage): 15 days-6 months + fine 500-3,000 EUR, rising to 2 months-2 years + 500-10,000 EUR if committed during a Chamber sitting or court hearing. No separate lese-majeste offence protects the Grand Duke specifically (see monarchy-head-of-state scenario) — ordinary Art. 448 applies to him as to any person. Enhanced multi-year exposure for a defined class of officials places this in the mid band.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 275", "url": "https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/code/penal/20250804" }, { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 448", "url": "https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/code/penal/20250804" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 5, "summary": "Calomnie/diffamation (Art. 443-444): imputing a specific dishonouring fact; custodial penalty 8 days-1 year + fine 251-2,000 EUR when made publicly. Truth (exceptio veritatis) is a defence only where the law admits legal proof of the fact — Art. 447 grants this expressly for imputations against public officials/bodies concerning their functions, but bars it for facts belonging to private life (only a prior judgment or authentic act may be offered). No general truth defence for ordinary private disputes; custodial exposure remains on the books.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 443-444", "url": "https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/code/penal/20250804" }, { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 447", "url": "https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/code/penal/20250804" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 8, "summary": "Art. 144 punishes insulting 'the objects of a cult' by act, word, gesture, threat, writing or drawing, committed in places habitually used for worship or during public religious ceremonies — imprisonment 15 days-6 months + fine. Narrow scope (protects ritual objects/settings, not belief or divinity as such, per commentary) and no prosecution or conviction under this article could be verified in the last 25 years despite searching Luxembourg court-decision sources — vestigial/dormant.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 144", "url": "https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/code/penal/20250804" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Art. 457-1 (Law of 19 July 1997): 8 days-2 years + fine 251-25,000 EUR for inciting hatred or violence, via public speech/writings/audiovisual media, against a person, group or community on grounds listed in Art. 454 (origin, skin colour, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, family status, age, health, disability, morals, political or philosophical opinion, trade-union activity, ethnicity, nation, race, religion). No violence nexus is required beyond the incitement itself; grounds are broader than most comparators (includes political/philosophical opinion). Art. 457-3 separately punishes denial/minimisation of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (same penalty range). Ministry of Justice reporting cited by press: 183 cases registered in 2020, fewer than 10 convictions/year typical.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 454, 457-1, 457-3", "url": "https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/code/penal/20250804" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 8, "summary": "No general sedition, false-news or anti-state opinion offence for ordinary citizens. Two narrow, judicially-confined provisions remain: Art. 268 ('Pulpit Law') punishes ministers of religion who attack the government, a law or an act of public authority in a sermon or pastoral writing (8 days-3 months; 3 months-3 years if it directly provokes disobedience or armed resistance) — confined to clergy acting in a religious ceremony, not general political speech; Art. 135-11 punishes 'provocation to terrorism' (incitement, direct or indirect, to commit a terrorism offence) — requires intent to incite an actual terrorism offence, not mere criticism.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 268", "url": "https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/code/penal/20250804" }, { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 135-11", "url": "https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/code/penal/20250804" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 6, "summary": "Mixed. Loi du 8 juin 2004 sur la liberté d'expression dans les médias, Art. 17, gives media publishers a defence against reputation/honour claims where truth is proven OR, absent proof, the publisher shows reasonable grounds to believe the facts true after due diligence AND a predominant public interest in the information — a real public-interest/good-faith defence, but scoped to publications 'by way of a medium', not all speech. Art. 7-8 protects journalistic sources except for a list of serious offences (violent crime, terrorism, money-laundering, drug trafficking, state security). Against this: Art. 450 makes ordinary calomnie/diffamation/injure prosecutable only on the victim's own criminal complaint (private-prosecution trigger); Art. 275 outrage against deputies likewise requires the victim's complaint or the Chamber's denunciation (absent flagrant délit). No anti-SLAPP statute yet in force (EU Anti-SLAPP Directive 2024/1069 transposition deadline is May 2026, not yet implemented as far as verified).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Loi du 8 juin 2004 sur la liberté d'expression dans les médias, Art. 17, 7-8", "url": "https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2004/06/08/n4/jo" }, { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 450", "url": "https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/code/penal/20250804" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 6, "summary": "EU Digital Services Act applies directly. Art. 9 lets national judicial or administrative authorities issue binding orders to act against specific items of illegal content (form/reasoning/redress requirements attached — not unconstrained). Art. 16 obliges hosting providers to run notice-and-action mechanisms for user-flagged illegal content, without a fixed statutory removal deadline (unlike NetzDG's 24h) but with a duty to act 'in a timely, diligent, non-arbitrary and objective manner'. Loi du 11 avril 2025 designates the Autorité de la Concurrence as national Digital Services Coordinator with enforcement powers. No real-name/ID mandate for users; blocking runs through the Art. 9 order mechanism rather than unilateral administrative blocking.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act), Arts. 9 & 16", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022R2065" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary criticism of government policy is protected opinion under Constitution Art. 23; no anti-state opinion offence reaches it (see a6). Exposure arises only if a specific official is insulted (see insult-politician) or the act crosses into incitement under Art. 457-1 (see a5)." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 275, 448", "url": "https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/code/penal/20250804" }, "note": "L'essentiel (13.06.2019) reports 18 convictions under Art. 275 (outrage to a deputy/minister/magistrate) since 1973, including 3 in 2016 (the most in a single year) and a minor convicted in 2013; none reported in 2017-2018. https://www.lessentiel.lu/fr/story/que-risque-t-on-a-insulter-un-ministre-419765973648" }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 144", "url": "https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/code/penal/20250804" }, "note": "Art. 144 remains in force; no prosecution or conviction under it could be verified in the last 25 years with the sources available in this research pass." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary policy debate on immigration is protected opinion. Exposure arises only if speech crosses into incitement to hatred/violence on grounds of origin, nation, race etc. under Art. 457-1 (see a5), not from taking a position in the debate itself." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech or content in Luxembourg law; same-sex marriage has been legal since 2014." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Code pénal (theft, breach of professional secrecy, disclosure of trade secrets) applied in the LuxLeaks prosecutions", "url": "https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-222617" }, "note": "French journalist Edouard Perrin was criminally prosecuted (2016 trial and 2016-2018 retrial on appeal) alongside whistleblowers Antoine Deltour and Raphael Halet over the 2012 LuxLeaks disclosures; acquitted twice, on the second occasion because judges found he had acted as a 'responsible journalist' (Le Quotidien, https://lequotidien.lu/affaire-luxleaks/proces-luxleaks-un-acquittement-au-gout-amer-pour-edouard-perrin). Source Halet was convicted domestically (9-month suspended sentence); the ECHR Grand Chamber held in Halet v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 21884/18 (14 Feb 2023) that this conviction violated Article 10. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-222617" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Outdoor public gatherings require prior municipal (bourgmestre) authorisation rather than mere notification (guichet.public.lu), an administrative rather than criminal or speech-specific requirement. No criminal statute specifically criminalising the organizing of a peaceful protest was verified in this pass; this administrative-authorisation point is a known gap, not independently confirmed against the current municipal police-regulation texts." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 443-444, 446", "url": "https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/code/penal/20250804" }, "note": "False factual claims harming a company's reputation could in principle be charged as calomnie/diffamation (Art. 446 extends the offence to 'corps constitués'); no business-criticism-specific prosecution was verified, and this exposure is typically pursued civilly in practice." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Code pénal Art. 448", "url": "https://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/code/penal/20250804" }, "note": "Luxembourg has no dedicated lese-majeste/insult-of-the-Grand-Duke speech offence — verified by direct review of the Code penal's crimes-against-the-Grand-Duke chapter (Arts. 101-113), which covers only assassination attempts and plots against his life/person (up to life imprisonment) and armed sedition, not insult or criticism. Insulting the Grand Duke through speech would fall under the ordinary injure offence (Art. 448) applicable to any person, requiring a private complaint under Art. 450; no such prosecution was found." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name/ID mandate for social media or internet users was found in Luxembourg law or in the national DSA-implementation law (Loi du 11 avril 2025)." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Constitution renumbered 1 July 2023 (freedom-of-expression guarantee moved from Art. 24 to Art. 23); all citations here use the current numbering.", "Could not verify whether any additional national legislation beyond the Loi du 11 avril 2025 (DSA implementation) imposes intermediary duties; the Autorite de la Concurrence's DSA enforcement record was not reviewed for concrete blocking/takedown case counts.", "Enforcement statistics for Art. 457-1 (hate speech) are aggregate press/NGO figures (183 registrations in 2020, <10 convictions/year) rather than an official annual Ministry of Justice report verified directly by this researcher; used only as background context, not as the citation for a5's score.", "Protest-organizing scenario left at 'none' despite an apparent authorisation requirement because the underlying municipal police-regulation texts were not directly reviewed; flagged as a gap for editorial follow-up." ] }, "lv": { "country": "Latvia", "protection": 71, "enforcement": 3, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 3, "enforcement_effective": 29, "gap": 0, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 29, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Satversme (Constitution) Art. 100: 'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to freely receive, keep and distribute information and to express his or her views. Censorship is prohibited.' Art. 116 permits restriction by law of rights including Art. 100 'in circumstances provided for by law in order to protect the rights of other people, the democratic structure of the State, and public safety, welfare and morals.' Judicially enforceable before the Satversme tiesa (Constitutional Court); the Art. 116 carve-out (democratic structure/public safety/welfare/morals) is broad but courts apply an ECHR Art. 10 necessity/proportionality test.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Satversme, Arts. 100 & 116", "url": "https://www.saeima.lv/en/legislative-process/constitution" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 9, "summary": "Latvia has decriminalised insult as such: Section 156 (Denigration, general insult) was repealed 19 November 2009, and Section 158 (Denigration and Defamation in Mass Media) was repealed the same date. Section 271 (Defamation and Injuring Dignity of a Representative of Public Authority or Other Public Official) — the enhanced official-insult offence — was repealed 22 January 2004, and no replacement provision protecting officials specifically was found. Only Section 157 (Defamation, a3) survives, and it requires a knowingly false factual claim, not mere insult or offensive opinion.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Krimināllikums (Criminal Law), Sections 156, 158, 271 (repealed, texts retained showing repeal dates)", "url": "https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/88966-the-criminal-law" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 7, "summary": "Section 157: knowingly distributing fabrications known to be untrue and defamatory of another, committed publicly — punishable by probationary supervision, community service or fine (para 1); if via mass media, temporary deprivation of liberty (custodial) or probationary supervision/community service/fine (para 2). Falsity-known-to-the-speaker is a definitional element, so truth (or honest belief in truth) precludes the offence outright. Since a 2010 Criminal Procedure Law amendment, defamation is prosecuted publicly by the state prosecutor rather than requiring the victim's private criminal complaint. Custodial exposure for mass-media defamation keeps this below the top band.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Krimināllikums Section 157", "url": "https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/88966-the-criminal-law" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious-insult offence in force. Section 151 (Interference with Religious Rituals) was repealed 13 December 2012, and no other provision criminalising insult to religion, religious objects or belief was found in the Krimināllikums.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Krimināllikums Section 151 (repealed, text retained showing repeal date)", "url": "https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/88966-the-criminal-law" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Section 78 (Triggering of National, Ethnic and Racial Hatred): acts directed towards triggering national, ethnic, racial or religious hatred or enmity — up to 3 years (up to 5 if by a group, public official, or via an automated data-processing system). No violence nexus is required beyond the incitement itself. Section 150 (Incitement of Social Hatred and Enmity) separately covers hatred based on gender, age, disability 'or any other characteristic', but requires 'substantial harm' to have been caused — up to 1 year (aggravated forms higher).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Krimināllikums Sections 78 & 150", "url": "https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/88966-the-criminal-law" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 5, "summary": "Section 81 ('Invitation Directed against the Republic of Latvia'): a public invitation (or distributing materials inviting) action against national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, State authority or administrative order 'in a manner that is not provided for in the Constitution' — up to 5 years (up to 6 if by a group/official). Section 80 punishes the underlying action itself (up to 8 years, 5-15 if aggravated). Separately, Section 231.2 (added 2022, per Ministry of Justice) criminalises deliberate public dissemination of false information/fiction causing gross disturbance of public order, up to 5 years, but explicitly excludes 'opinions, beliefs, caricatures, predictions or promises' from its scope. Real penalties, live provisions, narrowed by an unconstitutional-means/actual-disturbance requirement rather than reaching ordinary criticism.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Krimināllikums Sections 80 & 81", "url": "https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/88966-the-criminal-law" }, { "ref": "Krimināllikums Section 231.2 (per Ministry of Justice clarification)", "url": "https://www.tm.gov.lv/en/article/ministry-justice-republic-latvias-clarification-amendments-criminal-law-concerning-deliberate-dissemination-false-information-both-public-sphere-and-digital-environment" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 7, "summary": "Since the 2010 Criminal Procedure Law amendment, defamation (Section 157) is prosecuted publicly rather than on the victim's private complaint (no private-prosecution trigger). The 'knowingly untrue' element of Section 157 functions as a built-in truth/good-faith defence. Against this: no anti-SLAPP statute is yet in force (the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive 2024/1069 transposition deadline is May 2026 and was not verified as transposed), and pre-trial detention rules specific to speech offences were not independently reviewed.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Krimināllikums Section 157 (element structure)", "url": "https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/88966-the-criminal-law" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 6, "summary": "EU Digital Services Act applies directly. Art. 9 lets national judicial or administrative authorities issue binding orders to act against specific items of illegal content (form/reasoning/redress requirements attached); Art. 16 requires hosting providers to run notice-and-action mechanisms without a fixed statutory removal deadline. No real-name/ID mandate for users was found. Latvia's national Digital Services Coordinator designation and any additional national implementing statute were not independently verified in this pass.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act), Arts. 9 & 16", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022R2065" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary criticism of government or its policies is protected opinion under Satversme Art. 100; Section 81 reaches only public invitations to act against the State's independence/sovereignty/authority by unconstitutional means, not policy criticism as such." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Bare insult of a politician carries no criminal exposure: general insult (former Section 156) and the enhanced officials' dignity offence (former Section 271) were both repealed (2009 and 2004 respectively) and not replaced. A knowingly false factual claim about a politician could still be charged as ordinary defamation (Section 157, see a3), but insult per se is not an offence." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No blasphemy or religious-insult offence in force; Section 151 (Interference with Religious Rituals) was repealed in 2012." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary policy debate on immigration is protected opinion. Exposure arises only if speech crosses into incitement to hatred/enmity based on national/ethnic/racial origin under Section 78 (see a5), not from taking a position in the debate itself." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech or content was found in Latvian law, unlike neighbouring Lithuania's (since-invalidated) restriction; this was specifically checked and not merely assumed." }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No journalism-specific criminal offence found. Ordinary defamation law (Section 157) applies equally to journalists' published claims of fact; no documented recent prosecution of a journalist was found in this research pass." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "The 1997 Law on Meetings, Processions and Pickets establishes a notification system (3 days' advance notice), not a permit requirement (Satversme Art. 103; legislationline.org text of the law). Organizing a peaceful, notified assembly is not a criminal offence; failure to notify is understood to be an administrative rather than criminal matter, though this was not independently confirmed against the administrative-violations code." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "False factual claims harming a business could in principle be charged under Section 157 in the same way as claims about individuals, but no business-criticism-specific criminal prosecution was verified; Section 2352.1 of the Civil Law provides a civil retraction/compensation remedy for injury to honour and dignity, which is the ordinarily-used route." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Latvia is a republic; no dedicated offence protecting the President from insult or criticism was found — this was specifically checked (the former enhanced-officials offence, Section 271, was repealed in 2004 and nothing President-specific was found to replace it). Ordinary defamation law (Section 157) would apply to false factual claims about the President as it would to anyone." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name/ID mandate for social media or internet users was found in Latvian law." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Section 231.2 (false-information/public-order offence) was verified via the Ministry of Justice's own English-language clarification rather than a direct likumi.lv article citation, because the English translation of the Krimināllikums accessed in this pass (likumi.lv id/88966) did not display this article by number; a human editor should re-confirm the exact article text and current penalty against the Latvian-language original.", "Latvia's 2022 administrative ban on public display of 'Z'/'V' war-aggression symbols (Law on the Safety of Public Entertainment and Festivity Events, fines up to EUR 400) is an administrative, not criminal, measure and was therefore not scored into any component or scenario.", "Latvia's national Digital Services Coordinator designation and any DSA-implementing statute were not independently identified/verified in this pass (see a8)." ] }, "ma": { "country": "Morocco", "protection": 41, "enforcement": 85, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 85, "enforcement_effective": 85, "gap": 26, "tier": "restricted", "risk": 73, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Constitution (2011) Art. 25 guarantees 'freedoms of thought, opinion and expression under all their forms'; Art. 28 guarantees press freedom, 'may not be limited by any form of prior censure', subject to limits 'expressly provided by law'. Judicial review exists via ordinary courts and the Constitutional Court, but 'expressly provided by law' has in practice permitted the broad Penal Code carve-outs described under a2/a4/a6 below.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of Morocco (2011), Arts. 25 & 28", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Morocco_2011" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 2, "summary": "Penal Code Art. 179 (as amended by Law 73-15, 2016): defamation, insult or offence against the King or Crown Prince, or violation of the respect due to the King, punished by 6 months-2 years imprisonment and/or fine of 20,000-200,000 MAD; offences against other royal family members' private life, 3 months-1 year and/or 10,000-100,000 MAD. Penalty doubled if committed via public speech, press, print or broadcast (i.e. up to 4 years for public offence against the King). By contrast, insult/defamation of ordinary public officials and institutions was decriminalised to fines-only by the 2016 Press Law (Art. 84, see a3) — Morocco runs a clear two-tier system: fines for ordinary officials, custodial lese-majeste specifically for the monarch.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Code penal Art. 179 (as amended by Loi n. 73-15)", "url": "https://www.onousc.ma/storage/code_penal.pdf" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 8, "summary": "Ordinary defamation (diffamation, Art. 78 Press Law) and insult (injure) of private individuals and of institutions/officials (Arts. 84-85, Law 88-13 of 2016) are punished by fine only (10,000-100,000 MAD diffamation, 10,000-50,000 MAD injure against individuals; 100,000-200,000 MAD against courts/army/public bodies/ministers/officials) — no custodial penalty for the general run of defamation/insult cases since the 2016 press-law reform. Truth of defamatory facts may always be proven (Art. 109) except where the imputation concerns the person's private life or an amnestied/expunged/prescribed offence (narrow exceptions). This is a materially more protective regime than the pre-2016 Penal Code (which the Press Law's Art. 444 now defers to for public defamation/insult).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Loi n. 88-13 relative a la presse et a l'edition, Arts. 84, 85, 109", "url": "https://mjcc.gov.ma/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Code_Presse2016_FR-1.pdf" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 2, "summary": "Penal Code Art. 267-5 (added by Law 73-15, 2016): imprisonment of 6 months-2 years and/or fine of 20,000-200,000 MAD for harming the Islamic religion or the monarchical regime, or inciting harm to the Kingdom's territorial integrity; penalty rises to 2-5 years and/or 50,000-500,000 MAD if committed via public speech, press, print or broadcast. Live provision with documented recent enforcement (see religion scenario) and serious custodial exposure, short of the death penalty.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Code penal Art. 267-5 (added by Loi n. 73-15)", "url": "https://www.onousc.ma/storage/code_penal.pdf" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Penal Code Art. 431-5 (added by Law 73-15, 2016): incitement to discrimination or hatred between persons, 1 month-1 year and/or fine 5,000-50,000 MAD; 1-2 years if committed via public speech, print, placards, or any medium including electronic. Grounds (Art. 431-1) are broad: national/social origin, colour, sex, family status, health, disability, political opinion, trade-union membership, ethnicity, nation, race, religion. No violence nexus is required beyond the incitement itself.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Code penal Arts. 431-1, 431-5 (added by Loi n. 73-15)", "url": "https://www.onousc.ma/storage/code_penal.pdf" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 2, "summary": "Penal Code Art. 206: 1-5 years imprisonment and fine 1,000-10,000 MAD for receiving foreign funds, gifts or other advantages intended to conduct or fund in Morocco 'an activity or propaganda of a nature to harm' territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence, 'or to shake the loyalty citizens owe to the State and its institutions' — a broad, vaguely-worded foreign-funding/foreign-agent-style provision. Art. 191: 1-5 years for maintaining contact with a foreign power's agents to harm Morocco's military or diplomatic position (external state security). Art. 267-5 also separately criminalises inciting harm to territorial integrity (see a4). These provisions have been used against journalists and activists rather than only genuine espionage (see govt-critic/journalism scenarios).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Code penal Arts. 191, 206", "url": "https://www.onousc.ma/storage/code_penal.pdf" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 4, "summary": "Mixed, and the split tracks the a2/a4/a6 divide. For ordinary press-law matters: Art. 98 explicitly bars arrest or pre-trial detention ('Le prevenu ne peut etre arrete ni place en detention provisoire en vertu de la presente loi'); Art. 109 gives a truth defence (narrow exceptions); Art. 86 gives a fair-report privilege for faithful, good-faith reporting of public judicial proceedings; Art. 97 requires the prosecution to proceed by formal citation with a 90-day trial deadline. None of these protections extend to prosecutions brought under the Penal Code's special categories (Arts. 179, 191, 206, 267-5) — the cases actually used against journalists and activists (Radi, Bouachrine, Raissouni, El Alami) proceeded under ordinary criminal procedure including pre-trial detention. No anti-SLAPP statute was found.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Loi n. 88-13, Arts. 86, 97, 98, 109", "url": "https://mjcc.gov.ma/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Code_Presse2016_FR-1.pdf" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 3, "summary": "Press Law Art. 106: the president of the competent first-instance court may, on request of the public prosecutor or a government authority, order via an ex parte summary (refere) ruling issued within 8 hours of the request the seizure of a periodical issue or the blocking/takedown of electronic journalistic content, where it falls within the Art. 71 special categories (religion, monarchy, territorial integrity, King's private life). This is judicial in form but fast, ex parte, and government/prosecutor-triggered — closer in practice to administrative blocking than a considered judicial order. Separately, mandatory SIM-card registration (subscriber's national ID required, ANRT-enforced disconnection of unregistered/anonymous SIMs, per industry sources) removes anonymity at the telecom-infrastructure level, though this was not verified against a specific ANRT regulatory text.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Loi n. 88-13, Arts. 71, 104, 106", "url": "https://mjcc.gov.ma/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Code_Presse2016_FR-1.pdf" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": true, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Code penal Arts. 191, 206", "url": "https://www.onousc.ma/storage/code_penal.pdf" }, "note": "Journalist/activist Omar Radi was arrested 26.12.2019 after tweeting criticism of a judge's handling of the Hirak Rif protest case, later prosecuted and convicted (19.07.2021, upheld on appeal 04.03.2022 with a 6-year sentence) for 'atteinte a la securite de l'Etat avec financement de l'etranger' under Penal Code Arts. 191/206 (up to 5 years), tried jointly with separate sexual-assault charges (Arts. 485/486); pardoned by the King July 2024. France24 (04.03.2022): https://www.france24.com/fr/afrique/20220304-le-journaliste-marocain-omar-radi-condamn%C3%A9-en-appel-%C3%A0-six-ans-de-prison-ferme ; Le Desk: https://ledesk.ma/encontinu/omar-radi-poursuivi-en-etat-darrestation-pour-atteinte-la-securite-de-letat-et-viol/" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Loi n. 88-13 Art. 84", "url": "https://mjcc.gov.ma/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Code_Presse2016_FR-1.pdf" }, "note": "Defamation of ministers/officials 'a raison de leur fonction' is a fine-only offence (100,000-200,000 MAD) since the 2016 press-law reform; no custodial exposure. No specific recent prosecution under this article was verified in this pass, so coded dormant rather than enforced." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Code penal Art. 267-5", "url": "https://www.onousc.ma/storage/code_penal.pdf" }, "note": "A Moroccan woman was sentenced to prison for insulting the Quran and Islam (Gulf News report, cited via international wire coverage): https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/moroccan-woman-gets-jail-for-insulting-quran-islam-1.80375651 . Multiple similar prosecutions under Art. 267-5 and its predecessor provisions have been documented by Moroccan press over the past decade." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary policy debate on immigration/emigration is not independently criminalised; no specific statute or case was found targeting this scenario." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech or content specifically was verified. Separately (and outside this scenario's scope per the rubric), Penal Code Art. 489 criminalises 'an indecent or unnatural act with an individual of the same sex' with 6 months-3 years imprisonment plus fine — a criminalisation of conduct/identity rather than of speech about it; noted here as a known gap the speech-content scenario does not capture." }, "journalism": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Code penal Arts. 191, 206, 485, 486 (Radi); other Penal Code provisions (Bouachrine, Raissouni)", "url": "https://www.onousc.ma/storage/code_penal.pdf" }, "note": "Three journalists were imprisoned on multi-year sentences within the last 10 years before being pardoned by the King in July 2024 as part of a mass clemency marking his 25th throne anniversary: Omar Radi (6 years, upheld 2022; see govt-critic), Taoufik Bouachrine, and Soulaimane Raissouni. RSF has separately documented the conviction of journalist Hamid El Mahdaoui: https://rsf.org/en/morocco-unjust-conviction-journalist-hamid-el-mahdaoui-must-be-overturned . 6-year sentences exceed the 5-year 'severe' threshold." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "The 1958 Dahir on Public Gatherings (as amended by Law 76-00, 2002) establishes a notification system (3 days' advance notice) rather than prior authorisation, but allows prohibition where 'public security' would be disturbed (rightofassembly.info summary) — a broad standard whose application was not independently verified against recent case law in this pass." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "No business-specific criminal provision was found; reputational claims by companies are understood to be pursued primarily through civil/commercial litigation rather than the individual-facing criminal defamation provisions of the Press Law." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Code penal Art. 179", "url": "https://www.onousc.ma/storage/code_penal.pdf" }, "note": "Multiple recent lese-majeste convictions documented: Saida El Alami sentenced 24.05.2023 to 2 additional years plus fine for lese-majeste and insulting a magistrate (article19.ma: https://article19.ma/accueil/archives/168173); Said Boukioud initially sentenced to 5 years in August 2023 for Facebook posts criticising Morocco-Israel normalisation, reduced to 3 years on appeal (article19.ma: https://article19.ma/accueil/archives/174032). The initial 5-year sentence meets the 'severe' threshold and the recurring pattern of prosecutions across multiple recent years supports a systematic-persecution reading." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal penalty attaches to online anonymity itself, but mandatory SIM-card registration (national ID required at point of sale; ANRT reportedly requires operators to disconnect unregistered/anonymous SIMs) removes anonymity at the telecom-infrastructure level for mobile-linked accounts. This was sourced from telecom-industry commentary (rentaphone.ma, extensia.tech), not a specific ANRT regulatory text, and should be re-verified against the primary ANRT decision before being treated as authoritative." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Primary Penal Code citations use a consolidated text hosted at onousc.ma (a Moroccan public body, Office National des Oeuvres Universitaires Sociales et Culturelles); its article text for Arts. 179, 191, 206, 267-5 and 431-5 was cross-checked against Human Rights Watch's independent 2017 summary (https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/05/05/red-lines-stay-red/moroccos-reforms-its-speech-laws) and matches exactly on article numbers and penalty ranges. An editor with access to the Bulletin Officiel or adala.justice.gov.ma should substitute a sgg.gov.ma/Bulletin Officiel citation if available.", "Press Law 88-13 citations use the Ministry of Culture and Communication's (mjcc.gov.ma) hosted PDF of the Bulletin Officiel text (Dahir n. 1-16-122 du 6 kaada 1437, B.O. n. 6522 du 1er decembre 2016).", "Could not verify a specific criminal statute or case for the protest-organizing and anonymous-account scenarios beyond the sources cited; both are flagged for editorial follow-up rather than scored more assertively.", "Constitution citation (constituteproject.org) reflects the 2011 text; no subsequent constitutional amendment affecting Arts. 25/28 was identified." ] }, "mt": { "country": "Malta", "protection": 69, "enforcement": 15, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 15, "enforcement_effective": 31, "gap": 0, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 31, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 6, "summary": "Article 41 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression (opinion, receiving and communicating information), enforceable via the Constitutional Court. Sub-article (2) permits restrictions 'reasonably required' for a broad list — defence, public safety, public order, public morality/decency, public health, reputations/rights of others, confidence, authority/independence of courts, parliamentary privilege, and regulation of broadcasting/telecoms — provided they are 'reasonably justifiable in a democratic society'. A typical Commonwealth-constitution structure: real judicial enforceability, but a wide enumerated carve-out.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of Malta Art. 41", "url": "https://www.constitution.mt/constitution/chapter/4/article/41" } ] }, "a2": null, "a3": { "score": 8, "summary": "The Media and Defamation Act 2018 (Cap. 579), in force 14 May 2018, abolished criminal libel outright (pending criminal defamation cases were discontinued) and moved defamation to a civil-only regime with a mediation-first procedure and statutory damages caps (reported at up to €2,000 for the ordinary civil track under s.15's damages provisions, per press reporting of the Act). Full text of the truth/public-interest defence sections could not be independently extracted from the official portal in this review.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Media and Defamation Act 2018 (Cap. 579)", "url": "https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/579/eng/pdf" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "'Vilification of religion' (Malta's blasphemy-type offence) was repealed by the Criminal Code (Amendment) Act 2016 (Bill 133 / Act of 2016), with then-Justice Minister Owen Bonnici stating people should be free to satirise religion provided they do not incite violence or hatred. The same reform simultaneously introduced Criminal Code Articles 82A-82C (see A5) so that only incitement, not criticism or mockery of religion, remains criminal.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code (Amendment) Act, 2016", "url": "https://www.parlament.mt/12th-leg/acts-12th/act-xxxvii-of-2016/" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Criminal Code Art. 82A criminalises threatening, abusive or insulting words/behaviour or material with intent to stir up violence or hatred (or where such violence/hatred is a likely consequence) on grounds including gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, ethnic origin, age, disability, religion/belief and political or other opinion; penalty 6-18 months' imprisonment. Art. 82C separately criminalises publicly condoning/trivialising genocide or crimes against humanity where likely to incite violence, hatred or disturb public order; penalty 8 months-2 years. Broad characteristic list and a 'likely' alternative to intent, but tied to a violence/hatred outcome rather than pure opinion.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code (Cap. 9) Art. 82A", "url": "https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/9/eng/pdf" } ] }, "a6": null, "a7": null, "a8": { "score": 5, "summary": "As an EU member state, Malta is directly bound by the EU Digital Services Act (Regulation 2022/2065), which requires hosting providers to operate notice-and-action mechanisms for illegal content and empowers the national Digital Services Coordinator to levy substantial fines for non-compliance; no additional national takedown statute was identified. No real-name/ID mandate or general licensing of individual speech was found.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act) Art. 16", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": null, "criminal_defamation": false, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": null, "official_insult_enhanced": null }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No offence identified that criminalises criticism of the government itself." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No verified offence specific to insulting a politician; general defamation is civil-only since 2018. Could not confirm presence/absence of a general personal-insult contravention — see A2 null." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Vilification of religion repealed 2016; only threatening incitement to religious hatred (Art. 82A) remains criminal, not criticism or mockery." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code Art. 82A", "url": "https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/9/eng/pdf" }, "note": "Art. 82A could apply if immigration-debate content were threatening/abusive and directed at a protected group, but no documented prosecution for ordinary immigration-policy debate was found in the last 10 years." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No propaganda-type law restricting LGBT speech; Art. 82A instead protects sexual orientation/gender identity as characteristics against incitement." }, "journalism": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Media and Defamation Act 2018 (Cap. 579)", "url": "https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/579/eng/pdf" }, "note": "Criminal libel abolished 2018; journalists face civil defamation exposure only for defamatory reporting, subject to mediation-first procedure." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No protest-organising offence or documented severe prosecution of protest organisers was identified in this review." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Media and Defamation Act 2018 (Cap. 579)", "url": "https://legislation.mt/eli/cap/579/eng/pdf" }, "note": "Civil defamation exposure only." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No monarch; Malta's head of state is the President. No offence of insulting the President was verified in this review (see A2 null)." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name or ID-verification mandate identified for online accounts." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "legislation.mt (the official Laws of Malta portal) returned only metadata/navigation content to automated fetches during this review rather than full article text; several components (A2, A6, A7) are nulled rather than guessed as a result and should be re-verified by a human directly on the portal.", "A3's specific damages-cap figure (€2,000) and A5's penalty figures are sourced partly through secondary reporting (press coverage, an LGBT-rights legal summary site) corroborating the same provisions rather than a direct quote of the primary text — flagged per the citation-or-null rule as the best available verification in this review.", "a2: Could not verify whether Malta's Criminal Code contains a general personal-insult offence or an offence specific to insulting the President/public officials. legislation.mt's article-level pages returned only metadata to automated fetches, and no secondary legal source found in this review quoted a specific article number and penalty for such an offence.", "a6: Could not verify whether Malta's Criminal Code retains a sedition offence or any false-news/anti-state speech provision distinct from the Art. 82A-82C hate-speech regime already coded under A5. Official portal text was not extractable in this review; no secondary source located quoted a specific sedition article.", "a7: Could not verify Malta's procedural framework for speech offences (private-prosecution triggers, pre-trial detention exposure, anti-SLAPP provisions) in this review — the Media and Defamation Act 2018's full procedural sections were not extractable from the official portal, and no secondary legal source with the relevant detail was located.", "Components not verifiable: a2, a6, a7" ] }, "mx": { "country": "Mexico", "protection": 82, "enforcement": 3, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 3, "enforcement_effective": 18, "gap": 0, "tier": "open", "risk": 18, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 6, "summary": "Arts. 6 and 7 guarantee freedom of expression/press with no prior restraint, but Art. 6 subjects expression to inquiry where it 'goes against the moral, privacy or the rights of third parties, causes perpetration of a felony, or disturbs the public order' — a broad carve-out set incorporated by reference into Art. 7.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Arts. 6, 7", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mexico_2015" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 10, "summary": "Federal Penal Code contains no live criminal-insult offense of any kind. The Título Vigésimo 'Delitos Contra el Honor' (injurias/difamación, Arts. 344-355) and the 'ultrajes a funcionarios públicos' provision (Art. 190) are both marked '(Se deroga)' in the consolidated text. No lèse-majesté or enhanced official-insult offense exists federally.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal Federal, Arts. 190, 344-355 (derogados)", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/20113" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 8, "summary": "Criminal defamation and calumny are fully repealed federally: Arts. 348-363 (Capítulos II-IV, Título Vigésimo — injurias, difamación, calumnia, and their common provisions) are all marked '(Se deroga)'. Honor claims proceed as civil actions federally. Truth-defense and anti-SLAPP specifics of the civil regime were not independently verified this session, so this is not scored 9-10.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal Federal, Arts. 348-363 (derogados)", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/20113" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious-insult offense exists in the Federal Penal Code (full-text search found no such provision), consistent with the constitution's church-state separation clause.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal Federal (no blasphemy/religious-offense title in Libro Segundo)", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/20113" }, { "ref": "Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Art. 130", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mexico_2015" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 8, "summary": "Art. 149 Ter criminalizes discriminatory denial of services/rights/labor/education on a broad protected-characteristic list (including 'opiniones políticas'), but requires a concrete denial-of-service act, not mere speech, and is privately prosecuted (querella). Art. 208 penalizes public provocation to commit a crime or apología of a crime/vice with community-service-only sanctions unless the crime is actually attempted. No broad group-denigration or pure hate-speech offense found.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal Federal, Art. 149 Ter", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/20113" }, { "ref": "Código Penal Federal, Art. 208", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/20113" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 8, "summary": "Sedición (Art. 130) requires actual 'tumultuaria' resistance/attack on authority (not mere speech); the old 'disolución social' offense (Art. 145-Bis) is repealed. The only 'false news' speech offenses are narrow electoral-integrity provisions applying solely to electoral officials (Art. 405-XI) or party officials/candidates (Art. 406-V) who maliciously spread false news about election-day proceedings/results — not general political speech by citizens.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal Federal, Art. 130 (sedición); Art. 145-Bis (derogado)", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/20113" }, { "ref": "Código Penal Federal, Arts. 405-XI, 406-V", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/20113" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 6, "summary": "Art. 149 Ter (the one live speech-adjacent offense) is privately prosecuted ('se perseguirá por querella'). No federal anti-SLAPP statute or codified public-interest/opinion defense was located. Pre-trial detention exposure for speech is minimal given how few criminal speech offenses remain on the federal books.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal Federal, Art. 149 Ter (perseguible por querella)", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/20113" } ] }, "a8": null }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": false, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Federal difamación/calumnia and 'disolución social' offenses are repealed; sedición requires actual tumultuous/violent conduct, not criticism." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Federal desacato/ultrajes a funcionarios (CPF Art. 190) and injurias/difamación (Arts. 344-355) are repealed. Some state penal codes are understood to retain criminal defamation/injurias — out of scope for this national-level file (known gap, see notes)." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No blasphemy/religious-insult offense found in federal law." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific statute restricting immigration-policy speech identified." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT expression identified in federal law." }, "journalism": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "Criminal defamation/injurias repealed federally in 2007 (CPF Arts. 344-363); honor claims against journalists proceed civilly at the federal level. Some states retain criminal defamation (known gap, not scored here). Violence against journalists, including killings sometimes linked to organized-crime surveillance networks ('halcones'), is extra-legal — it is not a statutory speech restriction and is not coded as a scenario band in this de jure file; it belongs in the separate enforcement dataset." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Motín (Art. 131) and sedición (Art. 130) require actual violent/tumultuous conduct against authority, not mere organizing of a peaceful protest." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No federal criminal offense for commercial criticism identified; federal defamation is repealed. Civil unfair-competition/honor claims may apply but were not scored as they are not speech-specific criminal exposure." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Mexico is a republic; federal insult-of-officials/president provisions are repealed (Art. 190 derogado) and no lèse-majesté offense exists." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No federal statute mandating real-name registration for general internet/social-media use was verified this session. A mandatory mobile-phone user registry (PANAUT) was reported to have been litigated at the Supreme Court around 2021-2022; its current status was not independently verified with a primary source this session and is flagged as a gap rather than scored." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Scope limitation: Mexico's 32 state penal codes are not individually coded here. Several are understood to retain criminal difamación/calumnia provisions after the 2007 federal decriminalization (CPF Arts. 344-363 derogado). Per project scope (SPEECH-LAYER-BRIEF §2), sub-national variation is an explicit known gap for v1, not a scored component.", "Violence against journalists (including killings sometimes associated with cartel lookout/surveillance networks known as 'halcones') is extra-legal conduct, not a statutory speech restriction, and is not coded in this de jure file.", "Ley Olimpia (2021 federal reform criminalizing non-consensual distribution of intimate images, plus corresponding state penal-code amendments) addresses image-based sexual abuse, not political speech, and was excluded from scoring per task scope.", "a8 (intermediary & infrastructure mandates) is null: no primary-source federal statute on takedown mandates, ID requirements, or blocking powers was located and verified within available sources this session.", "Components not verifiable: a8" ] }, "my": { "country": "Malaysia", "protection": 23, "enforcement": 65, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 65, "enforcement_effective": 77, "gap": 0, "tier": "restricted", "risk": 77, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 4, "summary": "Federal Constitution Art. 10(1) guarantees speech, but Art. 10(2) allows Parliament to restrict it for security, foreign relations, public order/morality, parliamentary privilege, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement; Art. 10(4) additionally bars questioning of Malay special rights, the Rulers, or Islam's position. Broad, entrenched carve-outs.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Federal Constitution of Malaysia Art. 10", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Malaysia_2007" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 1, "summary": "Sedition Act 1948 (amended 2015) criminalizes speech bringing 'hatred or contempt' against, or exciting disaffection with, any Ruler, with a mandatory prison term of 3-15 years (raised from a fine/up-to-3-years in the 2015 amendment). Actively enforced 2020-2021 including a student activist investigated for comments on the monarchy's role in the 2020 emergency declaration.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15), as amended 2015", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 3, "summary": "Criminal defamation under the Penal Code (s.499-500, custodial penalty available) alongside the civil Defamation Act 1957; ICNL documents criminal defamation as an active constraint on expression. Exact s.499-500 penalty figures could not be verified against primary legislative text this session - see top-level notes. Communications and Multimedia Act s.233 is used in parallel against online statements deemed 'offensive,' with penalty up to RM50,000 or 1 year - documented 2024 cases include a journalist questioned (Tashny Sukumaran, May 2024) and an actor arrested/remanded (Patrick Teoh, May 2024).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Code s.499-500; Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 s.233", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 4, "summary": "Penal Code s.298 (uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings) and s.298A (causing disharmony/enmity on religious grounds) criminalize religious insult; ICNL confirms both sections are live and applied. Exact current penalty figures could not be verified against primary legislative text this session - see top-level notes for the ten distinct sources attempted, all blocked/unreachable (commonly reported as up to 1 year for s.298, a mandatory custodial range for s.298A, but this remains unverified against the enacted text).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Code (Act 574) s.298, s.298A", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 2, "summary": "Sedition Act's definition of 'seditious tendency' includes promoting 'feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes,' a broad standard not requiring proof of violence or its likelihood, usable against ordinary speech about race/religion relations.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15), as amended 2015", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 1, "summary": "Sedition Act's broader 'seditious tendency' categories (exciting disaffection against the Government/administration of justice) carry the same mandatory 3-15 year term; ICNL documents continued use through 2020-2021 and confirms the Act remains in force (a 2018 moratorium was withdrawn after Nov 2018 riots; repeal promises abandoned in 2014). Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA) s.4(5) 28-day detention without trial was reinstated by parliamentary vote 20 July 2022 (111-88) and can reach speech-adjacent 'security offence' cases.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15); Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 s.4(5)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 1, "summary": "SOSMA permits 28 days' detention without trial for 'security offences,' reinstated July 2022; Sedition Act carries a mandatory minimum custodial sentence (no fine-only option since 2015), removing judicial discretion to impose non-custodial penalties even for minor speech.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 s.4(5); Sedition Act 1948 (amended 2015)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 2, "summary": "Printing Presses and Publications Act requires publishers to hold a ministerial license, revocable at any time (no independent judicial check documented). From January 2025, social media platforms above a user threshold must obtain an MCMC operating license, per an August 2024 policy announced by ICNL's monitor - raising centralized administrative control over platform operation, not merely content blocking.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984; Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (MCMC licensing framework, social media licensing from Jan 2025)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": true, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Sedition Act 1948 (amended 2015); Communications and Multimedia Act s.233", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" }, "note": "ICNL documents continued Sedition Act use against government critics through 2020-2021 and CMA s.233 cases against journalists/commentators in 2024 (e.g. Tashny Sukumaran questioned May 2024, Patrick Teoh arrested/remanded May 2024). https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 s.233; Penal Code s.499-500", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" }, "note": "CMA s.233 (RM50,000/1yr) documented in use against public figures/commentators in 2024. https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code s.298, s.298A", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" }, "note": "Provisions are live on the books; a specific prosecution statistic/case from the last 10 years was not independently verified this session, so coded dormant rather than enforced." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No provision specifically targeting immigration-related speech identified this session." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (content code); state-level Sharia enactments (Muslims only)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" }, "note": "LGBT-affirming content/materials have faced administrative bans (e.g. banned books, 2023 Swatch Pride-collection seizure) under content-control powers rather than a dedicated 'propaganda' statute; a specific criminal-prosecution-of-speech statistic was not independently verified this session." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984; Communications and Multimedia Act s.233", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" }, "note": "Publisher licensing is revocable at ministerial discretion; journalists face CMA s.233 exposure (Tashny Sukumaran, SCMP correspondent, questioned May 2024). https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Peaceful Assembly Act 2012", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" }, "note": "Street protests are prohibited outright; organizers face compound fines (RM5,000) escalating to criminal prosecution on non-payment; notification period was 10 days, reduced to 5 in 2019, with further reform proposed Feb 2025. https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code s.499-500 (criminal defamation)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" }, "note": "Criminal defamation is available to corporate plaintiffs; no business-specific enforcement statistic was independently verified this session." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Sedition Act 1948 (amended 2015); Constitution Art. 10(4)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" }, "note": "Mandatory 3-15 year term for exciting disaffection against a Ruler; a student activist was investigated (Oct 2020) over comments on the monarchy's role in the emergency declaration. https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (MCMC licensing framework)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/malaysia" }, "note": "New social media platform licensing (from Jan 2025) raises identification/traceability exposure; no specific unmasking-prosecution statistic was independently verified this session." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "UNRESOLVED 2026-07-22: attempted to verify exact Penal Code s.298/298A and s.499-500 penalty figures against a primary source; could not resolve with WebFetch (WebSearch budget was exhausted this session, so no search fallback was available). Ten distinct sources were tried and all failed: agc.gov.my federalgazette PDF (DNS not found), commonlii.org index and per-section pages /s298.html, /s499.html (HTTP 403 on all three), wipolex text/223303 (404), refworld.org (403), ILO NATLEX PDF (403), UNODC/Sherloc PDF and HTML pages (404 after redirect resolved), lom.agc.gov.my act-detail page for Act 574 (loaded, but its Download column states 'Not available in this portal' - no fetchable document), epenal.gov.my (DNS not found), hg.org (DNS not found). Component citations therefore still rely on ICNL's Civic Freedom Monitor (Malaysia) as the best available fetchable secondary legal-review source. Exact penalty figures for Penal Code s.298/298A and s.499-500 remain unverified against primary legislative text and should be re-attempted (e.g. via a non-automated fetch of lom.agc.gov.my, which blocks/omits documents for automated tools) before adversarial use.", "Sedition Act repeal/replacement has been proposed multiple times (2012, and a 'National Harmony Act' proposal) but was not in force as of the ICNL monitor's most recent update reviewed (Oct 2025); status should be re-checked given the pace of Anwar-government reform announcements (e.g. Feb 2025 Peaceful Assembly Act reforms)." ] }, "nl": { "country": "Netherlands", "protection": 61, "enforcement": 38, "enforcement_volume": 21, "enforcement_severity": 38, "enforcement_effective": 38, "gap": -1, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 38, "confidence": "B", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Grondwet Art. 7: no prior permission/censorship needed to publish thoughts via the press (para. 1) or other media (para. 3), 'subject to everyone's responsibility according to law' (i.e. subsequent liability under ordinary statute is permitted). Enforceability is structurally limited: Art. 120 GW bars courts from reviewing the constitutionality of Acts of Parliament and treaties, so a statute cannot be struck down for violating Art. 7 itself. In practice, protection is largely delivered instead via Art. 93/94 GW, which give directly-applicable treaty provisions (incl. ECHR Art. 10) automatic priority over conflicting domestic statutes.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Grondwet Art. 7", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840/2023-02-22#Hoofdstuk1_Artikel7" }, { "ref": "Grondwet Art. 120", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840/2023-02-22#Hoofdstuk6_Artikel120" }, { "ref": "Grondwet Art. 94", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840/2023-02-22#Hoofdstuk3_Artikel94" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 5, "summary": "Art. 266 Sr (eenvoudige belediging, simple insult): up to 3mo or fine (2nd category); para. 2 gives an explicit built-in defence for statements aimed at judging matters of public interest, unless intent to harm exceeds that purpose. Art. 267 increases any Title-XVI penalty by a third when the target is the King/King's spouse/heir apparent/Regent, an official during/because of lawful exercise of duty (excluding parliament members), or a public body/institution. Crucially, Art. 269(2)-(3) exempts these same categories (plus, separately, members of representative bodies) from the ordinary complaint requirement — meaning the state can prosecute such insults ex officio. The dedicated stand-alone royal-insult offences (former Arts. 111-113 Sr) were repealed 1 Jan 2020, leaving only this milder enhancement mechanism.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Sr Art. 266", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2024-01-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelXVI_Artikel266" }, { "ref": "Sr Art. 267", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2024-01-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelXVI_Artikel267" }, { "ref": "Sr Art. 269", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2024-01-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelXVI_Artikel269" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 7, "summary": "Art. 261 Sr (smaad, factual defamation intended to publicise): up to 6mo, or 1yr for smaadschrift (written/distributed form); para. 3 provides a necessity/good-faith-plus-public-interest defence. Art. 262 (laster, knowingly false defamation) carries up to 2yr plus possible forfeiture of civic rights. Custodial penalties available but capped at 2yr even for the aggravated knowing-falsity offence, with a working good-faith/public-interest defence for the base offence.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Sr Art. 261", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2024-01-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelXVI_Artikel261" }, { "ref": "Sr Art. 262", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2024-01-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelXVI_Artikel262" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "The former blasphemy offence, Art. 147 Sr ('smalende godslastering', scoffing at God/religion), was repealed effective 1 March 2014 and confirmed 'Vervallen' on the official statute register. No blasphemy or religious-insult offence currently exists (insulting adherents as a group falls instead under the general group-insult provision, Art. 137c — see a5).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Sr Art. 147 (repealed 2014)", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2024-01-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelV_Artikel147" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 4, "summary": "Art. 137c Sr: publicly, intentionally insulting a group of people because of race, religion/belief, hetero-/homosexual orientation, or physical/psychical/mental disability — up to 1yr, 2yr if habitual/professional or by 2+ persons. Art. 137d: publicly inciting hatred, discrimination, or violence against people on the same grounds plus sex — up to 2yr, 4yr aggravated. No violence nexus required for the core 137c denigration offence, and it has been applied even to a sitting national parliamentarian (see immigration-debate scenario), confirming real, non-dormant breadth.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Sr Art. 137c", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2024-01-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelV_Artikel137c" }, { "ref": "Sr Art. 137d", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2024-01-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelV_Artikel137d" } ] }, "a6": null, "a7": { "score": 4, "summary": "Art. 269(1) makes ordinary insult offences prosecutable only on the victim's complaint (klacht) — a protective, private-prosecution-style gate for ordinary citizens. But Art. 269(2)-(3) expressly removes that gate for insults covered by Art. 267 (King/officials-in-duty/public bodies) AND for insults of members of general representative bodies (parliament) — meaning the state can prosecute critics of these categories ex officio, without waiting for a complaint. Art. 266(2) gives a public-interest opinion defence for the base insult offence.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Sr Art. 269", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2024-01-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelXVI_Artikel269" }, { "ref": "Sr Art. 266", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2024-01-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelXVI_Artikel266" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 5, "summary": "EU DSA applies directly; the Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM) was designated the Dutch Digital Services Coordinator effective 4 Feb 2025, supervising platform notice-and-action, transparency and due-diligence obligations with administrative enforcement powers. Statutory notice-and-action/administrative-fine framework rather than pure judicial-order blocking; no ID/real-name mandate found.", "citations": [ { "ref": "ACM — Digital Services Coordinator role", "url": "https://www.acm.nl/nl/digitale-economie/verkiezingen-en-online-platforms" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "General criticism of government policy is protected under Art. 7 GW; no domestic sedition/anti-state speech offence was found to apply." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Sr Art. 266, 267, 269(3)", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2024-01-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelXVI_Artikel269" }, "note": "Insults of MPs/officials are prosecutable ex officio (Art. 269(2)-(3), see a7), a real statutory mechanism, but no specific prosecution/conviction statistic or case of an ordinary citizen being enforced against for insulting a politician was located in this pass." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Blasphemy (Art. 147 Sr) was repealed in 2014; a purely anti-religious opinion not targeting 'a group of people' does not fall under the remaining group-insult provision (Art. 137c, see a5), which requires targeting adherents as a group rather than mocking a belief/deity in the abstract." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Sr Art. 137c", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2024-01-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelV_Artikel137c" }, "note": "Gerechtshof Den Haag, 4 Sept 2020, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:1606, convicted PVV leader Geert Wilders of groepsbelediging (Art. 137c) over his 2014 'fewer Moroccans' rally remark (acquitted of incitement under 137d; no penalty imposed). Upheld by the Hoge Raad, ECLI:NL:HR:2021:1036 (2021). https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:1606" }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech or content. Hetero-/homosexual orientation is itself a protected ground under Art. 137c/137d (anti-LGBT hatred/insult is criminalised, not LGBT expression)." }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No journalism-specific criminal exposure verified beyond the general provisions coded above." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Public demonstrations are governed by the Wet openbare manifestaties (notification-based); this pass did not independently re-verify its current text against an official source, so no citation is given, but no criminal prohibition on organizing a peaceful protest was found." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Sr Art. 261", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2024-01-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelXVI_Artikel261" }, "note": "False factual claims damaging a business's reputation could in principle be charged as smaad; opinion-based criticism is unaffected. No business-criticism-specific prosecution example verified." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Sr Art. 267(1)(1°), 269(2)", "url": "https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2024-01-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelXVI_Artikel267" }, "note": "Insulting the King/his spouse/heir apparent/Regent carries a one-third sentence enhancement and is prosecutable ex officio (no complaint needed). The dedicated stand-alone majesteitsschennis offences (former Arts. 111-113 Sr) were repealed 1 Jan 2020. No specific post-2020 prosecution/conviction was located in this pass, so coded dormant." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name/ID mandate for social media users was found. A civil-disclosure route for identifying an anonymous account holder in defamation/insult proceedings likely exists (as in comparable EU jurisdictions) but was not independently verified against a specific Dutch statute in this pass." } }, "signals": { "b2": { "value": 3, "raw": 535, "year": 2023, "metric": "Discrimination-speech facts registered by the prosecution service (OM), Art. 137c-e Sr", "source": "OM Cijfers in Beeld 2023", "url": "https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/discriminatie" } }, "known_gaps": [ "Article 268 Sr (insulting a friendly foreign head of state) and the Wet openbare manifestaties (assembly law) were referenced from background knowledge of Dutch law but not independently re-verified against wetten.overheid.nl in this pass; no citation or score weight was placed on them.", "wetten.overheid.nl serves complete statute text but truncates/paginates very long consolidated documents (e.g. the full Grondwet or Wetboek van Strafrecht) when fetched as one page; specific articles were retrieved by querying the page DOM directly for each article's anchor element.", "a6 nulled in editorial pass: original coding (9) cited no source and its own summary flagged Art. 268 Sr as \"not independently re-verified\" — citation-or-null rule. Original summary: No general sedition, false-news, or anti-state political-speech offence was located. Art. 268 Sr (not independently re-verified in this pass) is understood to protect only friendly foreign heads of st", "Registered complaints, not convictions — prosecuted/dismissed split not cleanly published.", "Components not verifiable: a6" ] }, "no": { "country": "Norway", "protection": 86, "enforcement": 25, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 25, "enforcement_effective": 25, "gap": 11, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 20, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 8, "summary": "§100 Grunnloven (Constitution) guarantees freedom of speech; Chapter E (articles 92-113) modernized 2014 to enhance human rights protections; independent courts enforce judicially", "citations": [ { "ref": "Grunnloven §100", "url": "https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1814-05-17" } ] }, "a2": null, "a3": { "score": 9, "summary": "Defamation decriminalized 2015; now civil remedies only under Defamation Act 1992 equivalent; truth is complete defence", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code reform 2015 (straffeloven 2005-05-20)", "url": "https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-05-20-28" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "Blasphemy law repealed; no religious-insult offence remains in criminal code", "citations": [ { "ref": "Straffeloven 2005, reform effective October 2015", "url": "https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-05-20-28" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 7, "summary": "§185 straffeloven (Chapter 20) criminalizes hate speech with intent and likelihood of group violence/discrimination; requires both intent and effects nexus", "citations": [ { "ref": "Straffeloven §185", "url": "https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-05-20-28" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 9, "summary": "No sedition or anti-state speech offences in modern code; no false-news criminalization; independent judiciary protects political speech", "citations": [ { "ref": "Straffeloven 2005 (no political/security speech chapter)", "url": "https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-05-20-28" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 8, "summary": "Truth defence available; public-interest commentary protected; no private-prosecution trigger for speech offences; no pre-trial detention for opinion. Citation repaired 2026-07-23: domstolverket.no (court-administration homepage, and unreachable) replaced with Grunnloven §100, verified directly -- 'Everyone shall be free to speak his or her mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever. Clearly defined limitations...may only be imposed when particularly weighty considerations so justify', and any liability must be 'prescribed by law' and justified against the grounds for free expression (truth-seeking, democracy, free opinion-forming). Combined with defamation/insult having been decriminalised (see a3/a4), there is no surviving criminal-prosecution trigger (private or public) for ordinary speech, consistent with the score.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Grunnloven (Constitution) §100", "url": "https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1814-05-17" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 9, "summary": "No statutory takedown mandates; no ID requirements for online speech; no blocking powers without judicial order; minimal intermediary regulation", "citations": [ { "ref": "Norwegian electronic communications framework", "url": "https://lovdata.no" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": false, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal exposure for government criticism; strong constitutional protection and top-ranked press freedom (rank #1)" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal insult offence; civil defamation (now civil-only) requires proving falsity and harm" }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Blasphemy repealed 2015; no criminal religious-insult offence" }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Straffeloven §185", "url": "https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-05-20-28" }, "note": "Hate speech law (§185) enforced if speech incites discrimination/violence against immigrant or nationality groups; requires intent to incite; convictions documented but relatively rare compared to EU peers" }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal restrictions on LGBT content or expression; strong equality protections under constitution and Human Rights Act" }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Press freedom rank #1 globally (2026: 92.72); strong legal protections for journalists and editorial discretion" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal liability for organizing lawful protest; constitution guarantees assembly and association rights" }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Defamation Act (civil-only framework post-2015)", "url": "https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-05-20-28" }, "note": "Civil defamation exposure only; no criminal liability; truth is complete defence" }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Constitutional monarchy; no lèse-majesté or special insult protections for King; treated same as other official criticism" }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No ID requirement or real-name mandate for online speech; anonymous accounts permitted" } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A2 (criminal insult/official-dignity) scored null: no specific statute for insult of officials found during verification. Criminal code does not appear to contain standalone insult offence.", "§185 hate speech provision verified in Chapter 20 (public order offences) but specific conviction statistics from last 10 years not located during web search. Band marked criminal_enforced based on user's lead (convictions exist) but cite-specific prosecutions unavailable.", "Defamation confirmed decriminalized 2015 with new Penal Code; now civil-only framework. Truth defence confirmed per comparative defamation law review.", "Components not verifiable: a2" ] }, "nz": { "country": "New Zealand", "protection": 85, "enforcement": 15, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 15, "enforcement_effective": 15, "gap": 0, "tier": "open", "risk": 15, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Section 14, Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees freedom of expression; not entrenched (can be amended by simple majority); courts apply proportionality review but scope is broad", "citations": [ { "ref": "Bill of Rights Act 1990, s.14", "url": "https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 10, "summary": "No criminal insult of officials; defamation decriminalized; Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 addresses online abuse but does not criminalize mere insult", "citations": [ { "ref": "Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015", "url": "https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 10, "summary": "Defamation Act 1992: civil remedies only; no criminal defamation; truth is complete defence; compensatory, injunctive, and punitive damages available", "citations": [ { "ref": "Defamation Act 1992", "url": "https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1992/0105/latest/whole.html" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "Blasphemy law (s.123 Crimes Act 1961 'blasphemous libel') repealed March 12, 2019; no religious-insult offence remains", "citations": [ { "ref": "Crimes Amendment Act 2019 (repeal of s.123)", "url": "https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2019/0009/latest/whole.html" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 6, "summary": "Correction 2026-07-22: reclassified from HDCA (a targeted-harassment statute, see a2/a8) to New Zealand's actual hate-speech/incitement provisions. HRA 1993 s.61 (civil, HRC/Human Rights Review Tribunal) and s.131 (criminal) prohibit threatening/abusive/insulting matter likely to excite hostility or bring into contempt/ridicule a group on grounds of colour, race, or ethnic/national origin. No violence nexus required (fits broad group-denigration band), but grounds are narrow (race/ethnicity only, not religion/opinion generally), an intent element is required, and s.131 prosecutions require Attorney-General consent. No prosecution under s.131 of the 1993 Act has been identified; the frequently-cited precedent, King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531, was decided under the predecessor Race Relations Act 1971 s.25.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Human Rights Act 1993, ss.61, 131", "url": "https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304212.html" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 9, "summary": "No sedition, false-news, or anti-state speech crimes in modern code; no memory laws; incitement exists as common-law charge with high intent threshold", "citations": [ { "ref": "New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 (no sedition section)", "url": "https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/whole.html" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 8, "summary": "Truth defence available for defamation; public-interest commentary protected; no private-prosecution trigger for digital communications; anti-SLAPP principles developing via case law", "citations": [ { "ref": "Defamation Act 1992; Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015", "url": "https://legislation.govt.nz" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 7, "summary": "Harmful Digital Communications Act enables complaints to Netsafe (approved agency); investigation and takedown possible; no statutory 24-hour deadline; no ID requirements; no mandatory blocking", "citations": [ { "ref": "Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, s.19-28", "url": "https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": false, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal exposure for government criticism; Bill of Rights s.14 protects expression; no sedition law" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Defamation Act 1992", "url": "https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1992/0105/latest/whole.html" }, "note": "Civil defamation exposure only; no criminal liability; public-interest commentary may be defended" }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Correction 2026-07-22 (was wrongly banded criminal_enforced under HDCA s.4(1)(i)): blasphemous libel (Crimes Act 1961 s.123) repealed 2019, and HRA racial-disharmony offences (ss.61/131) do not extend to religion as a ground. HDCA s.22 is a targeted-harassment offence requiring intent to cause harm to a specific identifiable victim (see a2/a8) — it does not criminalize religious speech or debate as a topic, only harassment of a person that happens to invoke religion." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Human Rights Act 1993, s.131", "url": "https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304212.html" }, "note": "Correction 2026-07-22 (was wrongly banded criminal_enforced under HDCA s.4(1)(i), which targets harassment of individuals, not topic speech). The provision that could in theory reach extreme immigration-debate rhetoric crossing into inciting hostility against an ethnic/national-origin group is HRA s.131 (criminal; prosecution requires Attorney-General consent) with a civil parallel at s.61 (HRC/Human Rights Review Tribunal). No s.131 prosecution under the 1993 Act has been identified in the last 10 years or since enactment; the last comparable conviction, King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531, was under the predecessor Race Relations Act 1971 s.25 — hence criminal_dormant, not criminal_enforced." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Correction 2026-07-22 (was wrongly banded criminal_enforced under HDCA s.4(1)(i)): HRA racial-disharmony offences (ss.61/131) apply only to colour/race/ethnic or national origin grounds, not sexual orientation, so they do not reach LGBT content at all. No criminal restriction on LGBT-related speech/expression exists in NZ law. HDCA s.22 requires intent to cause harm to a specific identifiable victim (see a2/a8/anonymous-account) and does not create topic-speech exposure for LGBT content generally." }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No journalist-specific speech crimes; press freedom rank #22 (2026: 77.38, declined from #7 in 2019)" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal liability for lawful protest organizing; s.14 BORA protects assembly" }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Defamation Act 1992", "url": "https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1992/0105/latest/whole.html" }, "note": "Civil defamation exposure; no criminal liability; truth defence available. Added 2026-07-22: if criticism of a business tips into targeted harassment of an identifiable individual (e.g. an owner/employee) with intent to cause serious emotional distress, HDCA s.22 (up to 2yr imprisonment / $50,000 fine) can add criminal exposure — but this is harassment-of-a-person exposure, not exposure for criticizing the business itself, so the band here is left at civil." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No lèse-majesté or special insult protections for head of state; treated same as other officials" }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, ss.19-21", "url": "https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html" }, "note": "Correction 2026-07-22 (was 'none'): no prospective ID/real-name mandate for online speech — that part stands — but this scenario codes ID/unmasking exposure specifically, and HDCA ss.19-21 let a District Court order an online content host to disclose identifying information about an anonymous author once a harmful-digital-communication complaint is substantiated. That is a civil-proceeding unmasking mechanism (reactive to a specific complaint, not a general registration regime), hence civil rather than none." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Bill of Rights Act 1990, s.14 not entrenched; can be amended by simple parliamentary majority. This limits A1 score to 7 (vs 10 for entrenched guarantees).", "Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015: criminal penalties up to 2 years imprisonment or $50,000 fine (individuals); $200,000 for companies. Netsafe (approved agency) enforces; 500+ people charged as of 2021.", "New Zealand press freedom declined significantly (rank #7 in 2019 → #22 in 2026, loss of 11.87 points).", "Defamation Act 1992 permits compensatory damages, injunctions, corrections/retractions, and punitive damages in certain cases.", "CORRECTION 2026-07-22: the previous coding banded religion, immigration-debate, and lgbt-content as criminal_enforced using HDCA s.4(1)(i), on the theory that its 'demeaning on protected characteristics' communication principle criminalizes topic speech. It does not: the only HDCA criminal offence (s.22) requires intent to cause harm to a specific identifiable victim (see a2/a8), and s.4(1)(i) is one of ten non-binding communication principles used in civil complaints/District Court orders, not an element of the s.22 offence. This inflated NZ's say-do gap to an implausible +52 (largest in dataset). Fixed: religion -> none, lgbt-content -> none (HRA racial-disharmony grounds don't cover either), immigration-debate -> criminal_dormant citing HRA 1993 s.131 (the actual, narrow, Attorney-General-consent-gated incitement offence; no prosecution identified under the 1993 Act, predecessor conviction King-Ansell v Police [1979] under Race Relations Act 1971 s.25). a5 recited/rescored accordingly. HDCA's genuine relevance was relocated to anonymous-account (ss.19-21 court-ordered unmasking of anonymous authors, none -> civil) and noted on criticize-business (targeted-harassment overlay, band unchanged).", "VERIFICATION STATUS on the 2026-07-22 correction: live re-verification via legislation.govt.nz and NZLII was attempted and blocked (HTTP 403) on every URL tried, including the whole-Act pages and specific DLM anchors, and via secondary sources (Wikipedia, tikatangata/HRC, Community Law, the Royal Commission of Inquiry report) which either lacked the detail or also 403'd/404'd; this mirrors the original coder's own note that these sections 'could not be verified during web search.' The correction above rests on the statutory elements as they are well-documented in secondary NZ legal literature and cross-checked against the audit brief, not a freshly fetched primary text. Flagging per rubric rule 2 (null preferred over invention) for anyone with working access to legislation.govt.nz to confirm the s.131 Attorney-General-consent detail and zero-prosecutions claim directly against the primary text." ] }, "pa": { "country": "Panama", "protection": 70, "enforcement": 33, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 33, "enforcement_effective": 33, "gap": 3, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 32, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 6, "summary": "Const. Art. 37 bars prior censorship and lets anyone express opinion freely, but allows legal liability where 'the reputation or honor of persons is assailed, or when social security or public order is attacked' — broad, undefined carve-outs ('public order') of the type the rubric flags as a 4-6 case. Independent judicial review exists: the Supreme Court's Pleno struck down Código Penal Art. 170 (an anti-protest provision) as unconstitutional on 30 Dec 2015, evidencing a functioning constitutional-review channel.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitución Política de la República de Panamá (1972, rev. 2004), Art. 37", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Panama_2004" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 8, "summary": "Injuria (offending a person's dignity/honor, Código Penal Art. 193) is fine-only (60-120 días-multa) at baseline, rising to 6-12 months' prison (or fine equivalent) only when committed via mass media or an 'informatic system' (Art. 195) — under the 1-year line. There is no enhanced penalty for insulting officials; the opposite is true: Art. 196 removes criminal liability entirely (civil only) when the offended party is a public official listed in Const. Art. 304 (incl. the President and VP), a popularly elected official, or a governor.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal de Panamá (Ley 14 de 18 de mayo de 2007), Arts. 193, 195, 196", "url": "https://ministeriopublico.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/codigo-penal-2016.pdf" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 6, "summary": "Calumnia (falsely attributing a punishable act, Art. 194) is fine-only at baseline (90-180 días-multa) but escalates to 12-18 months' custody when published via media or an informatic system (Art. 195) — criminal with real custodial exposure, so it does not clear the 7-9 'fines-only' band despite truth being a complete defense (Art. 197: 'El acusado de calumnia quedará exento de pena probando la verdad de los hechos imputados'). Art. 198 additionally exempts criticism/opinion on officials' official conduct, and literary/artistic/historical/scientific criticism, from honor offenses generally.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal de Panamá, Arts. 194, 195, 197, 198", "url": "https://ministeriopublico.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/codigo-penal-2016.pdf" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious-insult offense exists in the current Código Penal. Título's 'Delitos contra la Libertad de Culto' (Art. 172) protects the freedom to practice religion — it punishes disrupting an actual act of worship 'mediante amenaza, violencia o ultraje' — it does not criminalize insulting a religion, deity, or sacred symbol in the abstract, and a full-text review of the Ministerio Público's commented Código Penal found no separate blasphemy provision.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal de Panamá, Art. 172 (Delitos contra la Libertad de Culto)", "url": "https://ministeriopublico.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/codigo-penal-2016.pdf" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 6, "summary": "No hate-speech or group-denigration offense tied to protected characteristics was found (Law 16 of 2002 on discrimination in public establishments is administrative, not a speech crime). The one general provision reachable by speech is Art. 398 ('Apología del Delito'): 'Quien públicamente incite a cometer delito será sancionado con prisión de uno a tres años' — it requires intent to incite an actual crime (narrower than a vague 'extremism'/'discord' offense) but does not require likelihood of imminent violence (broader than Brandenburg), so it lands mid-scale.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal de Panamá, Art. 398", "url": "https://ministeriopublico.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/codigo-penal-2016.pdf" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 6, "summary": "Two live provisions with real penalties: Art. 260 criminalizes divulging 'noticias falsas' that endanger the national economy or public credit (2-4 years, 4-5 years if actual harm results) — a narrowly-scoped false-news law confined to economic security, not general political criticism. Art. 398 (public incitement to commit a crime, 1-3 years) could theoretically reach calls to disobey the law. Rebellion/sedition (Arts. 434-437, 5-15 years) require an actual armed uprising or usurpation of force, not mere speech, so they were not weighted here.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal de Panamá, Arts. 260, 398", "url": "https://ministeriopublico.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/codigo-penal-2016.pdf" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 7, "summary": "Honor offenses are a private-instance crime requiring the victim's own complaint (querella) to proceed — a private-prosecution trigger — but truth (Art. 197) and an opinion/official-criticism carve-out (Art. 198) are available defenses, public retraction excludes liability (Art. 196 para. 1), and — critically — public officials/elected officials cannot use the criminal route against critics at all (Art. 196 para. 2, civil only). No citation was found either way on pre-trial detention practice for honor offenses specifically, so that sub-element is not reflected in the score.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal de Panamá, Arts. 196, 197, 198", "url": "https://ministeriopublico.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/codigo-penal-2016.pdf" } ] }, "a8": null }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Art. 198", "url": "https://ministeriopublico.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/codigo-penal-2016.pdf" }, "note": "Art. 198 excludes 'discusiones, críticas y opiniones sobre los actos u omisiones oficiales de los servidores públicos' from honor offenses; Art. 196 additionally removes criminal (not civil) liability where the offended party is a public official. Residual exposure: Art. 260 criminalizes false claims that endanger the national economy/public credit (2-5 yrs) if criticism strays into fabricated economic claims." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Art. 196; Constitución Art. 304", "url": "https://ministeriopublico.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/codigo-penal-2016.pdf" }, "note": "Insulting/defaming an official listed in Const. Art. 304 (President, VP, ministers, Supreme Court justices, Comptroller General, President of the National Assembly, Ombudsman, police directors, etc.) or any popularly elected official carries no criminal penalty under Art. 196 — civil liability only. A politician outside that list remains subject to ordinary injuria/calumnia (Arts. 193-195)." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Art. 172", "url": "https://ministeriopublico.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/codigo-penal-2016.pdf" }, "note": "No blasphemy/religious-insult offense exists. Art. 172 only criminalizes disrupting an actual act of worship via threat, violence, or insult — it does not reach criticism of religion in general or an online religious meme." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No statute specific to immigration-policy speech was identified; falls under the general Art. 37 constitutional protection, with ordinary defamation exposure only if a specific person is falsely accused (Arts. 193-195)." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-style restriction on LGBT content/expression was identified in the Código Penal. No provision criminalizing homosexual conduct or identity was found in a full-text review of the Ministerio Público's Texto Único (searched for 'homosexual' and related terms, zero hits)." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Art. 195", "url": "https://ministeriopublico.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/codigo-penal-2016.pdf" }, "note": "Art. 195 aggravates injuria/calumnia to 6-12 / 12-18 months' custody when committed via a mass medium or an informatic system. Dutch journalist Okke Ornstein was jailed on 15 Nov 2016 over a 2012 criminal-defamation conviction and released under a presidential pardon on 23 Dec 2016. https://cpj.org/2016/11/dutch-journalist-okke-ornstein-jailed-in-panama-fo/ and https://cpj.org/2016/12/dutch-journalist-okke-ornstein-due-to-be-freed-fro/ . Presidential pardons of journalists convicted of criminal defamation are a recurring pattern in Panama, exercised under the President's constitutional pardon power (Const. Art. 184.12)." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Arts. 169, 170", "url": "https://ministeriopublico.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/codigo-penal-2016.pdf" }, "note": "Art. 169 punishes illegally impeding a peaceful, lawful assembly (i.e., protects organizers/participants), with an aggravated penalty (2-4 yrs) if the interferer is a public official. Art. 170, which had punished protesters for obstructing traffic, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court's Pleno on 30 December 2015 per the annotation in the official Texto Único, so no live custodial provision targets protest organizing itself." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Arts. 193-195", "url": "https://ministeriopublico.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/codigo-penal-2016.pdf" }, "note": "Ordinary injuria/calumnia rules apply — the Art. 196 exemption is limited to public/elected officials and does not cover a private business or employer. Truth is a complete defense to calumnia. No prosecution or conviction specific to business/employer criticism in the last 10 years was located." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal Art. 196; Constitución Arts. 304, 184(12)", "url": "https://ministeriopublico.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/codigo-penal-2016.pdf" }, "note": "The President and Vice-President are named in Const. Art. 304, so insults/defamation of them are exempted from criminal liability under CP Art. 196 (civil only) — no lèse-majesté offense exists. The President also holds the constitutional power to pardon political offenses (Const. Art. 184.12), historically exercised for journalists convicted of criminal defamation (see 'journalism' scenario)." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name registration mandate or platform-unmasking statute for online speech was located in the sources reviewed (the Código Penal's cybercrime chapters and the Ministerio Público's commented text). This was not checked against Panama's telecommunications or data-protection statutes (e.g., Ley 51 de 2008, Ley 81 de 2019), so absence is not exhaustively verified — flagged as a gap." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "The Código Penal text relied on for Arts. 169-260, 398 and 434-449 (Ministerio Público 'Texto Único ... Comentado', uploaded 2016) reflects amendments through roughly 2015-2016 (Leyes 82/2012, 36/2013, 10/2015, 34/2015 are noted inline); any amendments after 2016 were not independently checked.", "a8 (intermediary/infrastructure mandates) left null: no dedicated takedown-deadline, real-name, or general content-blocking statute for online political/personal speech was located. A narrow site-blocking mandate aimed at online gambling plus an e-commerce identity-certification requirement (referenced in press coverage as 'Ley 302', reportedly near a third legislative reading as of March 2026) surfaced during research but (a) does not govern political/personal speech and (b) could not be verified against an official gazette text in this pass, so it was not used to score A8.", "Desacato (contempt of authority) as a distinct political-speech offense does not appear in the current Código Penal; the only 'desacato' hit in the reviewed text (Art. 397) is disobedience of a court order such as an alimony ruling, unrelated to criticism of officials. This is consistent with Panama's 2007 penal-code reform, which multiple secondary sources describe as eliminating desacato in line with IACHR Special Rapporteur recommendations, though the primary basis for that conclusion here is the absence of any desacato-against-officials provision in the current text plus Art. 196's explicit civil-only treatment of official complainants, not a direct citation to the IACHR record itself.", "No hate-speech statute tied to protected characteristics (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) was found as a criminal speech offense; Law 16 of 2002 addresses discrimination in access to public establishments and appears administrative/civil rather than criminal — it was not scored into A5 for that reason.", "Components not verifiable: a8" ] }, "ph": { "country": "Philippines", "protection": 48, "enforcement": 65, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 65, "enforcement_effective": 65, "gap": 13, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 59, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "1987 Constitution Art. III, Sec. 4: 'No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.' Facially strong, judicially enforceable guarantee with independent courts, though other statutes (libel, cyberlibel, anti-terrorism) create significant carve-outs in practice.", "citations": [ { "ref": "1987 Constitution of the Philippines Art. III, Sec. 4", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Philippines_1987" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 8, "summary": "The Revised Penal Code criminalizes ordinary oral defamation/slander (Art. 358, penalty in the arresto menor/mayor range - days to a few months) but there is no separate lese-majeste-style or enhanced 'insulting the President/officials' offence; officials rely on the same general libel/slander/cyberlibel provisions as private citizens (see A3).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Revised Penal Code Art. 353-355, Art. 358 (defamation/slander framework)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/philippines" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 1, "summary": "Revised Penal Code Art. 353-355 criminalize libel (custodial penalty available); Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) s.4(c)(4) applies the same elements online 'with harsher penalties' than the RPC (one degree higher per RA 10175 s.6). Maria Ressa and Reynaldo Santos Jr. were convicted of cyberlibel (Manila RTC, June 2020), upheld by the Court of Appeals Oct 2022 - the paradigmatic case of criminal libel used against a journalist. In March 2026 the Solicitor-General recommended their acquittal following the Supreme Court's Berteni Causing v. People ruling shortening the cyberlibel prescription period to one year, under which the original 2019 filing (over a 2014 article) is time-barred.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Revised Penal Code Art. 353-355; Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) s.4(c)(4), s.6", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/philippines" } ] }, "a4": null, "a5": { "score": 7, "summary": "No broad group-denigration/hate-speech criminal statute was identified in the surveyed source; the Safe Spaces Act (RA 11313) addresses gender-based online harassment specifically rather than general hate speech/incitement. Scored on the permissive end but this reflects absence of evidence of a broad provision rather than a confirmed 'no offence' finding - should be re-checked directly against RPC Art. 154 (unlawful use of means of publication and false news) and any anti-discrimination bills.", "citations": [ { "ref": "ICNL Civic Freedom Monitor: Philippines (survey of restrictive statutes, no broad hate-speech offense surfaced)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/philippines" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 2, "summary": "RPC provisions on inciting to sedition/rebellion have been used to prosecute government critics per ICNL. Anti-Terrorism Act 2020 (RA 11479) broadened the terrorism definition and surveillance/detention powers and let the Anti-Terrorism Council designate persons/organizations as 'terrorists'; the Supreme Court (Dec 2021) struck down the clause criminalizing advocacy/protest 'based on perceived intention or purpose' and curtailed the Council's unilateral designation power, but the broader Act remains in force.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (RA 11479)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/philippines" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 3, "summary": "Libel/cyberlibel prosecutions are private-complaint-driven (any offended party can file), a documented driver of repeat SLAPP-style suits against journalists (e.g. multiple libel complaints against Rappler/Maria Ressa). No anti-SLAPP statute identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Revised Penal Code Art. 353-355; Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) s.4(c)(4)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/philippines" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 3, "summary": "SIM Registration Act (RA 11934, 2022) mandates real-identity registration of all SIM cards with telecom entities; registered names/addresses can be disclosed to authorities on court subpoena or 'when disclosure is required by law.' No general platform-takedown-deadline or licensing regime identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "SIM Registration Act (RA 11934, 2022)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/philippines" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) s.4(c)(4); Anti-Terrorism Act 2020 (RA 11479)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/philippines" }, "note": "Maria Ressa/Rappler cyberlibel conviction (Manila RTC 2020, CA upheld Oct 2022) is the leading documented case; NUJP documents ongoing 'red-tagging' and legal harassment of government critics and journalists, e.g. Frenchie Mae Cumpio (imprisoned journalist/activist). https://nujp.org/" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Revised Penal Code Art. 353-355; Cybercrime Prevention Act s.4(c)(4)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/philippines" }, "note": "No separate official-insult offence; ordinary criminal/cyber libel is used by and against politicians. Ressa case is the best-documented example of the pattern against a critic of a sitting administration." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No blasphemy or religious-insult statute identified this session." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No provision specifically targeting immigration-related speech identified this session." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No national 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT speech identified this session; some local ordinances reported but not independently verified." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) s.4(c)(4); Revised Penal Code Art. 353-355", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/philippines" }, "note": "Maria Ressa/Reynaldo Santos Jr. cyberlibel conviction (2020, CA-upheld 2022); NUJP's Media Safety Office documents ongoing killings/attacks including the 2025 killing of journalist Johnny Dayang. https://nujp.org/" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 (Public Assembly Act)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/philippines" }, "note": "Permit required 5 working days in advance; non-compliance punishable by imprisonment of one month and one day to six months (BP 880), independent of Anti-Terrorism Act exposure for organizers." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Revised Penal Code Art. 353-355 (criminal libel)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/philippines" }, "note": "Criminal libel is available to corporate plaintiffs; a business-specific enforcement statistic was not independently verified this session." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) s.4(c)(4) (Philippines is a republic; no monarchy)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/philippines" }, "note": "No lese-majeste; coded via the ordinary (cyber)libel exposure applicable to criticism of the President, as in the Ressa case." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "SIM Registration Act (RA 11934, 2022)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/philippines" }, "note": "Mandatory real-name SIM registration creates identification exposure for mobile-linked accounts; disclosure to authorities is possible via court subpoena or other legal process. No criminal penalty specific to anonymous online speech itself was identified, hence 'civil' rather than a criminal band." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A4 (blasphemy/religious offence) is coded null: the Revised Penal Code is understood to contain a narrow 'offending religious feelings' provision (Art. 133) but its exact text/penalty could not be confirmed against a citable source this session.", "A2 and A5 are scored on the permissive end partly on absence of evidence (no official-insult or broad hate-speech statute surfaced in the surveyed source) rather than an exhaustive negative confirmation; both should be re-checked directly against the full Revised Penal Code text.", "Primary legislative text (official gazette / lawphil.net) was not reachable this session; component citations rely on ICNL's Civic Freedom Monitor (Philippines) and NUJP as the best available fetchable secondary sources. Exact custodial terms for libel/cyberlibel were not independently re-verified against the primary statute text this session.", "Components not verifiable: a4" ] }, "pl": { "country": "Poland", "protection": 44, "enforcement": 65, "enforcement_volume": 24, "enforcement_severity": 65, "enforcement_effective": 65, "gap": 9, "tier": "restricted", "risk": 61, "confidence": "B", "components": { "a1": { "score": 6, "summary": "Art. 54(1) guarantees freedom to express opinions and disseminate information; no press licensing/censorship (Art. 54(2)). General limitation clause Art. 31(3) allows restriction of any constitutional freedom by statute for security, public order, environmental protection, health, morals, or others' rights/freedoms — broader than a speech-specific proviso. Constitutional Tribunal (Ch. VIII) provides judicial review.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of the Republic of Poland (1997, rev. 2009), Art. 54, Art. 31(3)", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Poland_2009.pdf" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 3, "summary": "Ordinary criminal insult (Art. 216 KK): fine or restriction of liberty; up to 1yr if via mass media. Enhanced protection for officials: insulting a public official on duty (Art. 226 §1) up to 1yr; insulting/degrading a constitutional organ (Art. 226 §3) up to 2yr; publicly insulting the President (Art. 135 §2) up to 3yr — a distinct multi-year president-insult offence.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Ustawa z 6 czerwca 1997 r. Kodeks karny, Art. 135 §2, Art. 216, Art. 226", "url": "https://api.sejm.gov.pl/eli/acts/DU/1997/553/text.html" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 5, "summary": "Defamation (Art. 212 KK) is criminal: fine or restriction of liberty (§1); fine, restriction of liberty, or up to 1yr imprisonment if committed via mass media (§2). Private prosecution only (§4 refers to §5). Art. 213 provides a truth defence, but for non-public/private-life allegations truth is a defence only if raised to prevent danger to life, health, or protect a minor — i.e. not a complete defence in all cases.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Kodeks karny, Art. 212, Art. 213", "url": "https://lexlege.pl/kk/art-212/" }, { "ref": "Kodeks karny, Art. 213", "url": "https://lexlege.pl/kk/art-213/" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 4, "summary": "Art. 196 KK: offending religious feelings by publicly insulting an object of religious worship or a place of worship — fine, restriction of liberty, or up to 2yr. Live and increasingly used: reporting cites 29 indictments in 2020 versus 10 in all of 2016. Flagship 2019 'Rainbow Madonna' prosecution (three LGBT activists) ended in acquittal (Płock District Court, 2 Mar 2021), but the prosecution itself proceeded to trial.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Kodeks karny, Art. 196", "url": "https://lexlege.pl/kk/art-196/" }, { "ref": "Notes from Poland, 'Polish LGBT activists found not guilty of offending religious feelings with \"rainbow Virgin Mary\"' (2 Mar 2021)", "url": "https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/03/02/polish-lgbt-activists-found-not-guilty-of-offending-religious-feelings-with-rainbow-virgin-mary/" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Art. 256 KK criminalises public promotion of Nazi/communist/fascist/totalitarian systems or ideology inciting hatred/violence (up to 3yr), including production/possession of related materials (with artistic/educational/scientific exemption). Art. 257 KK criminalises public insult of, or assault motivated by, a group or individual's national, ethnic, racial or religious affiliation (up to 3yr). No violence-likelihood nexus is required; ceiling is 3yr.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Kodeks karny, Art. 256", "url": "https://lexlege.pl/kk/art-256/" }, { "ref": "Kodeks karny, Art. 257", "url": "https://lexlege.pl/kk/art-257/" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 4, "summary": "Art. 133 KK criminalises publicly insulting the Nation or the Republic of Poland — up to 3yr, a broadly-worded 'insulting the state' offence usable against political speech. Separately, Art. 55 of the IPN Act criminalises public denial, contrary to facts, of the crimes listed in Art. 1(1) of that Act (Nazi/communist genocide and crimes against humanity) — fine or up to 3yr. The more controversial Jan. 2018 IPN amendment (Art. 55a, criminalising attribution of Nazi crimes to the Polish Nation) was withdrawn/amended in June 2018 after international backlash; the current consolidated text no longer contains Art. 55a/55b, but the exact present-day civil-liability replacement could not be independently verified in this session (see notes).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Kodeks karny, Art. 133", "url": "https://api.sejm.gov.pl/eli/acts/DU/1997/553/text.html" }, { "ref": "Ustawa o Instytucie Pamięci Narodowej, Art. 55", "url": "https://api.sejm.gov.pl/eli/acts/DU/1998/1016/text.html" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 4, "summary": "Mixed regime: Arts. 212 and 216 defamation/insult are prosecuted only on private complaint (private prosecution), meaning any individual — not just the state — can trigger a prosecution. A truth/public-interest defence exists (Art. 213) but is qualified for private-life allegations. No anti-SLAPP statute identified. Constitutional detention safeguards apply generally (Art. 41 Constitution: 48-hour limit before judicial disposal), but these are general criminal-procedure protections, not speech-specific.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Kodeks karny, Art. 212 §4, Art. 213", "url": "https://lexlege.pl/kk/art-212/" }, { "ref": "Constitution of the Republic of Poland, Art. 41(3)", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Poland_2009.pdf" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 5, "summary": "As an EU member state, Poland is bound by the Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065): notice-and-action mechanisms, statutory handling timelines for 'trusted flagger' notices, and orders to act against illegal content issuable by judicial or administrative authorities, plus heightened due-diligence for very large platforms. No Poland-specific real-name registration or independent administrative blocking regime for online speech was identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": true, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Kodeks karny, Art. 212/216", "url": "https://lexlege.pl/kk/art-212/" }, "note": "Balkan Insight, 'Poland's Ruling Party Abuses Insult and Defamation Laws' (27 Apr 2021), documents PiS-affiliated officials filing private-prosecution defamation/insult complaints against journalists and critics since 2015. https://balkaninsight.com/2021/04/27/polands-ruling-party-abuses-insult-and-defamation-laws/ (fetch of full article blocked in this session; content per search index only — treat the specific case count as unverified)." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Kodeks karny, Art. 216 §2 (mass-media insult), Art. 226 §3 (constitutional organs), Art. 135 §2 (President)", "url": "https://lexlege.pl/kk/art-216/" }, "note": "Same Balkan Insight (2021) reporting pattern as govt-critic; Art. 135 §2 additionally singles out insult of the President for a distinct up-to-3yr penalty. No specific Art. 135 §2 case could be independently verified via fetch in this session — coded on statute + documented pattern of official-insult litigation generally, not a confirmed named §2 case." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Kodeks karny, Art. 196", "url": "https://lexlege.pl/kk/art-196/" }, "note": "Podleśna and others ('Rainbow Madonna' case), Płock District Court, acquitted 2 Mar 2021 after ~2-year prosecution; Notes from Poland reports 29 Art. 196 indictments in 2020 vs 10 in 2016. https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/03/02/polish-lgbt-activists-found-not-guilty-of-offending-religious-feelings-with-rainbow-virgin-mary/" }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No statute specifically criminalising immigration-policy debate identified. Arts. 256/257 hate-speech provisions could apply only if speech targets a protected group (nationality/ethnicity/race/religion) with insult/incitement, not mere policy criticism." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal 'LGBT propaganda' statute exists. 2019-2021 'LGBT-free zone' local council resolutions were symbolic/administrative, not criminal speech provisions, and were later withdrawn amid EU cohesion-funding pressure. Not independently re-verified with a primary source in this session." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Kodeks karny, Art. 212 §2 (aggravated defamation via mass media)", "url": "https://lexlege.pl/kk/art-212/" }, "note": "Art. 212 §2 specifically enhances the penalty (up to 1yr) when defamation is committed via mass media, i.e. directly applicable to journalism. Balkan Insight (2021) and IPI/press-freedom monitors document recurring suits against journalists; full source could not be re-fetched in this session (403)." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "The 2016 Law on Assemblies amendment created priority 'cyclical assemblies' (zgromadzenia cykliczne), a regulatory/administrative scheme affecting assembly permitting, not a criminal speech offence for organizing protest. Could not verify a specific criminal statute targeting protest-organizing speech itself in this session; left as 'none' rather than guessed." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Kodeks karny, Art. 212 (defamation of an 'institution or organisational unit')", "url": "https://lexlege.pl/kk/art-212/" }, "note": "Art. 212's defamation offence explicitly extends to institutions/organisational units (i.e. businesses), but no specific recent enforcement example against a business critic was located in this session — coded dormant rather than enforced." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Kodeks karny, Art. 135 §2", "url": "https://lexlege.pl/kk/art-135/" }, "note": "Statute verified (public insult of the President, up to 3yr). No specific prosecution/conviction under Art. 135 §2 within the last 10 years could be independently verified via the sources accessible in this session, so coded dormant rather than enforced." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No Poland-specific real-name registration or ID-for-speech law identified. EU DSA due-diligence obligations apply to platforms generally but do not mandate user real-name registration." } }, "signals": { "b1": { "value": 2, "raw": 758, "year": 2021, "metric": "Convictions, Art. 212 (defamation) + Art. 216 (insult) KK — H1 2021 (184+195) annualised", "source": "Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości statistics (isws.ms.gov.pl)", "url": "https://isws.ms.gov.pl/pl/baza-statystyczna/" } }, "known_gaps": [ "The frequently-cited aggregate figure of ~380 combined Art. 212+216 convictions in H1 2021 could not be independently verified against a fetchable primary source in this session (Ministry of Justice judicial statistics portal and several NGO reports were unreachable — 403/404/connection errors). Scenario citations instead rely on directly-fetched sources (Notes from Poland for Art. 196) and a search-index summary of Balkan Insight (2021) for Arts. 212/216/226/135 enforcement pattern, flagged as such above.", "IPN Act Art. 55a/55b (the 2018 'Polish death camps' provision and its post-backlash civil-liability replacement) could not be located in the current consolidated text fetched via api.sejm.gov.pl; only the older Art. 55 (denial of Art. 1(1) crimes) was confirmed. A6 scoring and the notes above reflect this gap.", "legislationline.org and several NGO/press-freedom sites (ARTICLE19, Balkan Insight, ECPMF, HFHR) returned 403/404/connection errors to this session's fetch tool; where their content had already surfaced via search-result summaries prior to the session's search budget being exhausted, that is noted as lower-confidence (search-index paraphrase, not directly verified full text).", "Full-year 2022–2023 totals require direct MS database query — latest clean figures are partial-year." ] }, "pt": { "country": "Portugal", "protection": 51, "enforcement": 25, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 25, "enforcement_effective": 49, "gap": 0, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 49, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Constituição da República Portuguesa (CRP), Art. 37.1 guarantees the right to freely express and disseminate thought by word, image or any other means; Art. 37.2 bars any form of censorship; Art. 37.4 guarantees a right of reply/rectification. Art. 37.3 subjects infractions committed in exercising these rights to 'os princípios gerais de direito criminal ou do ilícito de mera ordenação social' — i.e. ordinary criminal/administrative law, rather than a textually narrow carve-out list. Judicially enforceable before the Tribunal Constitucional. In practice, ordinary criminal law carves out substantial exceptions (criminal defamation, a dedicated presidential-insult offence up to 3yr, and a hate-speech offence up to 8yr — see a2/a3/a5), so protection is real but constrained.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constituição da República Portuguesa, Art. 37", "url": "https://www.parlamento.pt/Legislacao/Paginas/ConstituicaoRepublicaPortuguesa.aspx" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 3, "summary": "Código Penal Art. 328 criminalises insulting or defaming ('injuriar ou difamar') the President of the Republic (or their constitutional substitute): up to 3 years imprisonment or a fine (§1), rising to a mandatory 6 months-3 years / fine of at least 60 days when done publicly, in writing/drawing, or via any technical means of public communication (§2). Unlike ordinary defamation (which generally requires a private criminal complaint, Art. 188), proceedings under Art. 328 continue unless the President personally and expressly withdraws them (§3) — a dedicated, still-current lèse-majesté-style offence with multi-year custodial exposure.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 328", "url": "https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?artigo_id=109A0328&nid=109&tabela=leis" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 5, "summary": "Difamação (Art. 180) — imputing a fact or forming a judgement offensive to another's honour/reputation to a third party — carries up to 6 months imprisonment or a fine up to 240 days; injúria (Art. 181, made directly to the target) up to 3 months/120-day fine. A defence exists where the imputation serves legitimate interests and the accused proves its truth or had serious grounds in good faith to believe it true (Art. 180 §2), but this defence is unavailable for imputations concerning private/family life (§3) — a real, non-trivial carve-out. Penalties rise by a third if disseminated in a way that facilitates publicity or the falsity was known (Art. 183), and up to 2 years / 120+ day fine if via mass media. Custodial penalties are on the books even though most cases likely resolve as fines.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 180-183", "url": "https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?artigo_id=109A0180&nid=109&tabela=leis" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 5, "summary": "Código Penal Art. 251 criminalises publicly offending or mocking a person because of their religious belief or role, or profaning a place/object of worship, 'in a manner apt to disturb public peace': up to 1 year imprisonment or a fine up to 120 days. Art. 252 separately punishes impeding worship by violence/threat or publicly vilifying/mocking an act of worship, same penalty range. Both require the public-peace-disturbance element rather than criminalising private disbelief or mere theological criticism outright; no prosecution/conviction under either in the last 10 years could be verified against an official-portal source in this pass.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 251", "url": "https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?artigo_id=109A0251&nid=109&tabela=leis" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 4, "summary": "Código Penal Art. 240 is a broad, severe hate-speech regime: founding/organizing, or engaging in propaganda for, an organisation that incites discrimination, hatred or violence on grounds including ethnic/racial or national/religious origin, colour, nationality, ancestry, territory of origin, religion, language, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, or disability carries 1-8 years imprisonment (§1); publicly provoking violence, defaming/insulting, threatening, or inciting discrimination/hatred/violence against such a group or person — including via apology, denial or gross trivialisation of genocide/war/crimes against humanity — carries 6 months-5 years (§2). No violence nexus is required for the incitement-to-discrimination/hatred limb; courts may order deletion of computer data/content (§3). The 1-8 year ceiling for organisational conduct exceeds the ≤5yr band, pulling the overall score down despite the individual-conduct tier sitting within it.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 240", "url": "https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?artigo_id=109A0240&nid=109&tabela=leis" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 7, "summary": "Código Penal Art. 330 criminalises inciting collective disobedience to public-order laws, spreading false/tendentious news liable to cause alarm, provoking division within/against the armed forces, or inciting political struggle by violence — but only when done 'com intenção de destruir, alterar ou subverter pela violência o Estado de direito constitucionalmente estabelecido' (with intent to violently destroy/alter/subvert the constitutional state): up to 2 years imprisonment or a 240-day fine. The narrow, violent-subversive-intent qualifier distinguishes this from a general false-news or anti-state-opinion offence and confines it to conduct well beyond ordinary political criticism.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 330", "url": "https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?artigo_id=109A0330&nid=109&tabela=leis" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 6, "summary": "Criminal proceedings for ordinary honour offences (Art. 180, 181, 185) generally require the victim to bring a private prosecution ('acusação particular', Art. 188 §1) — the state does not prosecute of its own motion — except for the aggravated form (Art. 184, e.g. victim is a public authority acting in that capacity) and offences against public bodies exercising public authority (Art. 187), where a simple complaint (queixa) suffices. This is favourable for ordinary citizens but is inverted for presidential insult (Art. 328), which proceeds unless the President personally withdraws it. A good-faith/truth defence exists (Art. 180 §2) subject to the private-life carve-out (§3, see a3). No anti-SLAPP statute or general pre-trial-detention rule specific to speech offences was identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 188", "url": "https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?artigo_id=109A0187&nid=109&tabela=leis" } ] }, "a8": null }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": true, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary criticism of government policy is protected under CRP Art. 37; exposure only arises from insulting a named official/body (see insult-politician) or from violent-subversive-intent offences (a6, narrowly confined and not triggered by ordinary criticism)." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 187 (ofensa a organismo, serviço ou pessoa colectiva) / Art. 184 (agravação para titulares de cargos)", "url": "https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?artigo_id=109A0187&nid=109&tabela=leis" }, "note": "Insulting an ordinary politician (not the President) falls under the general defamation/injury regime (Art. 180-181), aggravated under Art. 184 when the victim holds one of the offices listed via Art. 132 §2(l) and the offence relates to their functions. No prosecution/conviction statistic verified for the last 10 years to an official-portal standard in this pass; coded dormant." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 251 (ultraje por motivo de crença religiosa)", "url": "https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?artigo_id=109A0251&nid=109&tabela=leis" }, "note": "Live provision requiring a public-peace-disturbance element; no prosecution/conviction verified in the last 10 years to the sourcing standard required here." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 240 §2 (incitamento à discriminação, ódio ou violência em razão de origem nacional)", "url": "https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?artigo_id=109A0240&nid=109&tabela=leis" }, "note": "Ordinary immigration-policy debate is not criminalised; speech inciting hatred/discrimination against people because of national/ethnic origin falls under Art. 240. A specific prosecution/conviction statistic under Art. 240 from the last 10 years could not be verified against an official-portal source in this pass; coded dormant rather than enforced pending better evidence." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech or content. Sexual orientation and gender identity/expression are protected characteristics under Art. 240, which protects against, rather than restricts, such expression." }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Press freedom is separately guaranteed (CRP Art. 38), with statutory source-confidentiality protection for journalists. No journalism-specific criminal offence identified beyond the general defamation/hate-speech regime, which applies to published content on the same terms as to anyone else; not independently verified further in this pass." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Organizing a peaceful protest is not itself a speech offence. Not independently verified against a specific criminal or administrative statute in this pass (known gap)." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 187 (ofensa a organismo, serviço ou pessoa colectiva)", "url": "https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?artigo_id=109A0187&nid=109&tabela=leis" }, "note": "Publicly asserting untrue facts capable of harming the credibility/prestige/trust owed to a company, institution or corporation, without good-faith grounds to believe them true, is criminal: up to 6 months imprisonment or a 240-day fine. No business-criticism-specific prosecution example verified for the last 10 years." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal, Art. 328 (ofensa à honra do Presidente da República)", "url": "https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?artigo_id=109A0328&nid=109&tabela=leis" }, "note": "Portugal has no monarch; the head of state is the President, protected by a dedicated insult/defamation offence (up to 3 years, mandatory prosecution unless the President personally withdraws it). No specific prosecution/conviction statistic from the last 10 years could be verified against an official-portal source in this pass; coded dormant rather than enforced pending better evidence." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No general real-name/ID mandate for internet or social-media use identified. Portugal's specific hosting-provider data-retention/disclosure framework could not be verified against an official portal in this pass (see a8 gap); coded none rather than guessed." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A8 (intermediary/infrastructure mandates) is null/unscored: this research pass could not locate and verify Portugal's national e-commerce/hosting-liability statute (transposing the EU e-commerce directive, originally Decreto-Lei n.º 7/2004) against an official portal, so no citation-backed score could be assigned. The EU Digital Services Act (Reg. 2022/2065) applies directly regardless and supplies a cross-border notice-and-action/transparency floor, but that alone was not treated as sufficient to score the national mandate landscape.", "No enforcement statistic or documented recent case could be verified to the rubric's sourcing standard for: insult-politician, religion, immigration-debate, criticize-business, or monarchy-head-of-state; all are coded criminal_dormant rather than criminal_enforced pending better evidence, even though several of the underlying statutes (esp. Art. 240, Art. 328) are plainly live.", "Anonymous-account and journalism scenarios reflect an absence of identified restrictions rather than a confirmed absence — Portugal's press-shield and data-retention/hosting statutes were not independently verified in this pass.", "Components not verifiable: a8" ] }, "qa": { "country": "Qatar", "protection": 16, "enforcement": 85, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 85, "enforcement_effective": 85, "gap": 1, "tier": "repressive", "risk": 85, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 2, "summary": "Constitution Art. 47: 'Freedom of expression of opinion and scientific research is guaranteed under the conditions and circumstances set forth in the Law.' Art. 48: 'Freedom of the press and media shall be guaranteed in accordance with the Law.' Both guarantees are entirely subordinated to ordinary legislation with no independent substantive floor. Qatar is an absolute monarchy with no elected legislature holding full lawmaking power (the Shura Council is partly appointed), no constitutional court exercising real judicial review over speech legislation, and no separation-of-powers check on the Emir identified in this research. Nominal guarantee, not judicially enforceable in practice.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Permanent Constitution of the State of Qatar (2004), Arts. 47 & 48", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/LawArticles.aspx?LawArticleID=25801&LawId=2284&language=en" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 1, "summary": "Penal Code Art. 134: imprisonment up to 5 years (raised to 7 years by Law No. 14 of 2024) for any person who 'challenges by any public means the exercising by the Emir of his rights or authorities, or criticizes his person'; the same penalty applies to offences against the Deputy Emir or Crown Prince. Separately, Art. 201(2) (added by Law No. 14 of 2024) punishes insulting or harming the reputation of the judiciary/Public Prosecution with up to 2 years. Actively used: poet Mohammed Ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2012 for a poem deemed critical of the Emir, reduced to 15 years on appeal (2013), and was imprisoned until a 2016 Emir pardon (Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/qatari-poet-jailed-for-insulting-emir/2012/11/29/eb5e095c-3a41-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html ; Gulf News on the appeal reduction: https://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/qatar/qatar-slashes-life-term-against-poet-to-15-years-1.1150824).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Code (Law No. 11 of 2004) Art. 134", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/LawArticles.aspx?LawArticleID=726&LawId=26&language=en" }, { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 201(2) (as amended by Law No. 14 of 2024)", "url": "https://qatarlaw.com/article/commentary-on-the-amendments-to-the-qatari-penal-code-under-law-no-14-of-2024" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 3, "summary": "Penal Code Art. 326: imprisonment up to 2 years and/or fine up to QR 10,000 for accusing someone of a punishable crime, or otherwise harming their dignity/honour or exposing them to public disdain — no truth defence is stated in the article text. Cybercrime Prevention Law (No. 14 of 2014) Art. 8 separately punishes, via any information-network means, disseminating information 'related to the sanctity of people's private or family life, even if the same is true,' or insulting/slandering others, with up to 3 years and/or fine up to QR 100,000 — truth is explicitly NOT a defence for the privacy-adjacent limb of this online provision. Custodial penalties available with no verified truth-based defence.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 326", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/LawArticles.aspx?LawArticleID=919&LawId=26&language=en" }, { "ref": "Law No. 14 of 2014 (Cybercrime Prevention Law), Art. 8", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/EnglishLaws/142014.pdf" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 1, "summary": "Penal Code Art. 256: imprisonment up to 7 years for insulting Allah, misinterpreting/violating the Quran, offending the Islamic religion or its rites, cursing the other divine religions (Christianity, Judaism) 'according to the regulations of Islamic law', or insulting any prophet. Art. 257: imprisonment up to 10 years for establishing/organising/running an assembly or association aimed at opposing or challenging the foundations of Islam, or calling for/favouring/promoting another religion or creed (criminalises proselytising for a non-Islamic religion). Actively enforced very recently: Remy Rowhani, head of the Baha'i Faith community in Qatar, was arrested and sentenced on 13 August 2025 to 5 years' imprisonment for 'promoting a deviant sect' and 'casting doubt on Islamic religious principles', before being acquitted on appeal 1 October 2025.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 256", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/PrintArticle.aspx?LawArticleID=848&language=en" }, { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 257", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/PrintArticle.aspx?LawArticleID=849&language=en" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 2, "summary": "Law No. 8 of 1979 on Publications and Publishing, Art. 47(f), prohibits printing any opinion that ridicules or shows contempt for a divine religion or doctrine, or that helps incite communal, racial, or religious sectarianism (general penalty provisions of the law apply, reported as up to 6 months imprisonment and/or fine up to QR 3,000 for violations of the law's prohibited-content articles). Cybercrime Prevention Law Art. 8's 'violates social values or principles' clause functions as an additional broad, undefined catch-all reachable without any violence nexus. Actively enforced: four individuals were arrested 8 July 2024 and referred to the Public Prosecution for 'inciting hatred and spreading discord among members of the community' via social media content (The Peninsula Qatar: https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/08/07/2024/four-arrested-in-qatar-for-inciting-hatred-discord).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law No. 8 of 1979 on Publications and Publishing, Art. 47", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/LawArticles.aspx?LawTreeSectionID=3123&lawId=414&language=en" }, { "ref": "Law No. 14 of 2014 (Cybercrime Prevention Law), Art. 8", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/EnglishLaws/142014.pdf" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 1, "summary": "Penal Code Art. 136: life imprisonment for instigating by public means the overthrow of the regime, or conducting propaganda/calls for adoption of a doctrine 'aiming to destroy the fundamental values of the State'. Art. 136bis (added by 2020 amendment): up to 5 years and/or fine up to QR 100,000 for broadcasting, publishing or republishing rumours or false/malicious news intended to harm national interests, incite public opinion, or disturb public/social order (doubled in wartime). Cybercrime Prevention Law Art. 6: up to 3 years for operating a site publishing 'incorrect news' threatening State safety/security/public order, and up to 1 year for merely promoting/sharing such news. Actively enforced: on 7 March 2026 a person was arrested for tweets containing 'direct insults to the State of Qatar and its institutions' and content described as aiming to 'stir public opinion' and undermine the armed forces, per the Ministry of Interior (Qatar Tribune: https://www.qatar-tribune.com/article/223024/latest-news/individual-arrested-for-tweets-including-direct-insults-to-qatar-and-its-institutions/amp).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 136", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/LawArticles.aspx?LawArticleID=728&LawId=26&language=en" }, { "ref": "Law No. 14 of 2014 (Cybercrime Prevention Law), Art. 6", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/EnglishLaws/142014.pdf" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 1, "summary": "No truth, opinion, or public-interest defence is stated in the defamation/insult provisions reviewed (Penal Code Art. 326; Cybercrime Law Art. 8, which explicitly disregards truth for its privacy-adjacent limb). No anti-SLAPP mechanism was found. Prosecutions under the state-security and 'false news' provisions (Arts. 134, 136, 136bis) are initiated by the Public Prosecution/Ministry of Interior rather than requiring a private complaint, and the recent arrests documented above (a5, a6) show the Ministry of Interior acting directly and referring suspects to prosecution. Qatar's Criminal Procedure Code permits pre-trial detention as a standard tool, though this was not independently re-verified against speech-specific cases beyond the documented arrests.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 326", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/LawArticles.aspx?LawArticleID=919&LawId=26&language=en" }, { "ref": "Law No. 14 of 2014 (Cybercrime Prevention Law), Art. 8", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/EnglishLaws/142014.pdf" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 2, "summary": "Cybercrime Prevention Law Art. 21 requires service providers to: supply subscriber/traffic data to authorities on Public Prosecution order; block internet links on judicial-authority order; retain subscriber information for one year; and preserve traffic/content data for 19 days, renewable on request of the competent body or investigating/judicial authorities. Blocking is nominally judicial-order-gated, but operates within the very broad, low-threshold content-crime framework of Arts. 5-9 (false news, 'violates social values', 'insults or slanders others'), meaning the judicial gate is a low bar in practice. One-year mandatory subscriber-data retention functions as a de facto real-identity/traceability requirement for internet and mobile use.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law No. 14 of 2014 (Cybercrime Prevention Law), Art. 21", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/EnglishLaws/142014.pdf" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": true, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code Arts. 136, 136bis; Cybercrime Law Art. 6", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/LawArticles.aspx?LawArticleID=728&LawId=26&language=en" }, "note": "A person was arrested 7 March 2026 for social media posts with 'direct insults to the State of Qatar and its institutions' and content aimed at 'stirring public opinion', referred to prosecution by the Ministry of Interior. https://www.qatar-tribune.com/article/223024/latest-news/individual-arrested-for-tweets-including-direct-insults-to-qatar-and-its-institutions/amp" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 166 (insulting public officers); Art. 201(2) (judiciary/prosecution)", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/LawView.aspx?opt=&LawID=26&language=en" }, "note": "General insult of public officers (Art. 166) and, since 2024, of the judiciary/Public Prosecution (Art. 201(2)) is criminal, but no specific recent prosecution distinct from the Emir-specific Art. 134 cases (see monarchy-head-of-state) was verified in this pass." }, "religion": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code Arts. 256, 257", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/PrintArticle.aspx?LawArticleID=848&language=en" }, "note": "Remy Rowhani, head of Qatar's Baha'i Faith community, was sentenced 13 August 2025 to 5 years' imprisonment for 'promoting a deviant sect' and 'casting doubt on Islamic religious principles', before being acquitted on appeal 1 October 2025 (reported in HRW World Report 2026, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2026/country-chapters/qatar). The initial 5-year sentence meets the 'severe' threshold." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No statute specifically targeting immigration/labour-migration policy debate was found; Qatar's demographic composition (large non-citizen majority) makes this a politically sensitive topic in practice, but no specific criminalisation of the debate itself was verified." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 296", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/LawArticles.aspx?LawArticleID=889&LawID=26&language=en" }, "note": "Art. 296 (1-3 years) punishes 'leading, instigating or seducing a male in any way to commit sodomy' or 'inducing or seducing' anyone to 'illegal or immoral actions' — worded broadly enough to reach expression/advocacy relating to sexual orientation, per Human Dignity Trust's legal analysis (https://www.humandignitytrust.org/country-profile/qatar/). No specific speech-content (as opposed to conduct) prosecution was verified in this pass, hence dormant rather than enforced. Separately and outside this speech-scenario's scope: Art. 285 criminalises same-sex sexual conduct itself with up to 7 years, and Sharia courts retain a theoretical death-penalty jurisdiction over certain morality offences for Muslims — noted here per the rubric's instruction to flag identity-criminalisation separately." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Law No. 8 of 1979 on Publications and Publishing (distribution/censorship regime)", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/LawView.aspx?opt=&LawID=414&language=en" }, "note": "No publication may be distributed in Qatar without the Department of Publications and Publishing's written consent, and a Censorship Committee reviews artistic/media works against 'technical, social, religious, ethical and cultural traditions'; violations of the law's content articles carry up to 6 months' imprisonment and/or a QR 3,000 fine per its general penalty provision. No specific recent criminal prosecution of a journalist under this law was verified in this pass (heavy self-censorship rather than documented prosecution is the more commonly reported dynamic), hence coded dormant." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": null, "statute": null, "note": "Could not verify the specific statute governing public gatherings/demonstrations in Qatar within this research pass (a dedicated public-meetings law is understood to exist and to require prior government permission, but its citation and current text were not confirmed against almeezan.qa or another official source). Left uncoded rather than guessed; flagged for editorial follow-up." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 326", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/LawArticles.aspx?LawArticleID=919&LawId=26&language=en" }, "note": "Ordinary defamation (Art. 326) could in principle apply to false claims harming a business's reputation; no business-criticism-specific prosecution was verified in this pass." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 134", "url": "https://www.almeezan.qa/LawArticles.aspx?LawArticleID=726&LawId=26&language=en" }, "note": "Poet Mohammed Ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami was sentenced to life imprisonment in November 2012 for a poem critical of the Emir, reduced to 15 years on appeal in 2013, and remained imprisoned until an Emir pardon in 2016 (Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/qatari-poet-jailed-for-insulting-emir/2012/11/29/eb5e095c-3a41-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html ; Gulf News: https://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/qatar/qatar-slashes-life-term-against-poet-to-15-years-1.1150824). Art. 134's maximum penalty was separately raised from 5 to 7 years by Law No. 14 of 2024." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No standing criminal offence attaches to anonymity itself, but Cybercrime Prevention Law Art. 21 requires service providers to retain subscriber information for one year and to disclose data to authorities on Public Prosecution order, creating a de facto unmasking capability for authorities investigating any of the broadly-worded content offences above." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "This file replaces an earlier, largely unverified draft (0/8 components scored). All 8 components are now scored with a working almeezan.qa (Qatar's official legal portal) or equivalent primary citation.", "protest-organizing scenario left uncoded (band: null) because the specific public-assembly statute and its current text could not be verified against an official source within this research pass — this is a known, flagged gap, not an assertion that no such law exists.", "Qatar operates a dual legal system in which Sharia courts have jurisdiction over certain personal-status and morality matters for Muslims (Penal Code Art. 1); this file scores the codified Penal Code / Cybercrime Law / Publications Law framework and does not attempt to independently verify Sharia court practice beyond the specific Human Dignity Trust citation noted under lgbt-content.", "Law No. 14 of 2024's amendments to Penal Code Arts. 68, 86, 134, 139, 201, 308, 309, 311, 312 and 333 were verified via a Qatari law firm's (Sultan Al-Abdulla & Partners) published commentary rather than a directly fetched almeezan.qa article page for the amended text; a human editor should cross-check the amended article text directly against almeezan.qa.", "Confidence should be treated as moderate-to-good rather than exhaustive: this is a from-scratch build in a single research pass, and several secondary/tertiary provisions (e.g., a complete hate-speech-specific statute distinct from Publications Law Art. 47(f) and Cybercrime Law Art. 8) may exist but were not located." ] }, "ro": { "country": "Romania", "protection": 67, "enforcement": 15, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 15, "enforcement_effective": 33, "gap": 0, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 33, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 6, "summary": "Art. 30(1)-(6) guarantees freedom to express ideas, opinions and beliefs in any form, bans censorship, and protects press/publication freedom, judicially enforceable via the Curtea Constituțională (CCR). Art. 30(7)-(8) carves out 'defamation of the country and the nation', incitement to aggressive war / ethnic-racial-class-religious hatred / discrimination / territorial separatism / public violence, and obscenity contrary to morals, and makes press civilly (not automatically criminally) liable for published content. The explicit 'defamation of the country/nation' clause is a broader, nationalist-flavoured carve-out than a pure rights-balancing proviso, placing this below the DE-style moderate-carve-out band despite an independent constitutional court.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constituția României, Art. 30", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Romania_2003" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 10, "summary": "Insult (insultă, ex-art. 205) and calumny/defamation (calomnie, ex-art. 206-207) were removed from the 1969 Penal Code in 2006; after conflicting Constitutional Court (Dec. 62/2007) and High Court rulings, the matter was settled when the new Criminal Code (Law 286/2009), in force since 1 Feb 2014, was enacted without reinstating insult/calumny as offences at any article — confirmed by the current Special Part, where arts. 205-208 now cover unrelated 'offences against personal freedom'. A Dec. 2013 attempt to reinsert insult/libel into the new Code before it took effect was not carried through into the code as enacted. No enhanced criminal-insult protection for officials was found: the 'ultraj' offence (art. 257) penalises threats/violence against public officials, not verbal insult.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Codul Penal (Legea 286/2009), Partea Specială, Titlul I, Cap. VI (art. 205-208)", "url": "https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/109855" }, { "ref": "Curtea Constituțională, Decizia nr. 62/2007", "url": "https://www.juridice.ro/27169/decizia-curtii-constitutionale-ref-reincriminarea-insultei-si-calomniei-textul-integral.html" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 8, "summary": "No stand-alone criminal defamation offence exists in the current Criminal Code (see a2 history); reputational harm is addressed exclusively through civil law — Civil Code art. 72 (right to dignity/reputation) and the general tort framework (arts. 1349, 1357), with art. 75 recognising limits where expression is exercised in the exercise of a right. Truth/legitimate-interest defences operate through ordinary civil tort doctrine. Not scored a full 10 because Romania has not yet transposed the EU anti-SLAPP Directive (2024/1069, deadline 7 May 2026): a government draft cleared the Chamber of Deputies on 20 Apr 2026 but remained pending in the Senate as of mid-2026, so no anti-SLAPP statute is yet in force.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Codul civil (Legea 287/2009), art. 72, 75, 1349, 1357", "url": "https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/175630" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 6, "summary": "No offence of blasphemy or verbal insult of religious belief exists. Art. 381 criminalises hindering/disturbing the free exercise of a lawfully organised cult's rites (3mo-2yr) and forcing participation in or performance of religious acts (1-3yr); prosecution requires the victim's prior complaint. Art. 382 separately criminalises profanation of a place of worship or object of cult belonging to a lawfully organised religion (6mo-2yr) — this is a live, property/conduct-based sacrilege offence (not a pure speech/opinion offence) with moderate custodial exposure.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Codul Penal, art. 381-382", "url": "https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/109855" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 4, "summary": "Art. 369 criminalises publicly inciting the public to violence, hatred, or discrimination against a person/group defined by race, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, political opinion, wealth, social origin, age, disability, or illness — 6mo-3yr or fine; no violence-nexus is required for the hatred/discrimination limbs (as amended by Law 170/2022). OUG 31/2002 (as amended by Law 241/2025, in force Dec. 2025) separately criminalises public denial/minimisation of the Holocaust or genocide/crimes against humanity (6mo-3yr, up to 5yr online), distribution of fascist/legionary/racist/xenophobic material (1-5yr, +50% online), and promoting the cult of convicted war/genocide criminals (3mo-3yr) — none require a violence nexus. President Nicușor Dan formally challenged Law 241/2025 as impermissibly vague (undefined 'fascist'/'legionary' concepts); the Constitutional Court unanimously rejected the challenge as unfounded (Decizia CCR nr. 356/2025). Given the breadth of the denial/promotion offences and the live, judicially-contested vagueness concern, this sits at the lower end of the broad-denial-offence band.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Codul Penal art. 369 (as amended by Legea 170/2022)", "url": "https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/109855" }, { "ref": "OUG 31/2002, art. 3-6 (as amended by Legea 241/2025)", "url": "https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/34759" }, { "ref": "Curtea Constituțională, Decizia nr. 356/2025", "url": "https://newsweek.ro/actualitate/ccr-a-respins-sesizarea-presedintelui-nicusor-dan-privind-legea-vexler" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 6, "summary": "Art. 404 criminalises knowingly communicating/disseminating false news, data, information, or falsified documents where this endangers national security (1-5yr) — a concrete-danger offence requiring both knowledge of falsity and a proven danger, not a bare false-news ban. Art. 405 criminalises war propaganda / tendentious-or-invented news aimed at provoking a war of aggression (2-7yr). Both are live provisions with real custodial exposure but narrower scope (mens rea + concrete-danger/purpose elements) than a general sedition or anti-state-opinion offence; no general criticism-of-government or 'discrediting the state' offence was found.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Codul Penal, art. 404-405", "url": "https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/109855" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 6, "summary": "Since insult/defamation are fully decriminalised, there is no private-prosecution/complaint trigger for reputational speech, and no official can personally initiate a criminal case over being insulted. Art. 381(4) (religious-freedom offence) does require the victim's prior complaint. A civil-law public-interest/legitimate-exercise-of-rights defence exists (Codul civil art. 75) but no statutory anti-SLAPP protection is yet in force (EU Directive 2024/1069 transposition missed its 7 May 2026 deadline and remained stuck in the Senate as of mid-2026). Pre-trial detention is governed by ordinary Criminal Procedure Code standards and is not documented as routinely used for speech offences.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Codul civil, art. 75", "url": "https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/175630" }, { "ref": "Codul Penal, art. 381(4)", "url": "https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/109855" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 6, "summary": "EU Digital Services Act applies directly since 17 Feb 2024; Legea 50/2024 (in force, published Monitorul Oficial nr. 232/19 March 2024) designates ANCOM as national Digital Services Coordinator, imposes a 45-day provider-notification duty, and empowers ANCOM with DSA-aligned notice-and-action/transparency enforcement and sanctioning powers. Statutory takedown/administrative-enforcement framework rather than judicial-order-only blocking; no real-name/ID mandate for users identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Legea nr. 50/2024", "url": "https://www.ancom.ro/despre-noi/media/comunicate-de-presa/legea-privind-serviciile-digitale-a-fost-publicata-in-monitorul-oficial/" }, { "ref": "Digital Services Act, Art. 8", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022R2065" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": false, "blasphemy_law": false, "blasphemy_law_note": "Confirmed false. No blasphemy/religious-insult offence. Codul Penal Art. 381 criminalises obstructing/disturbing the free exercise of a lawfully organised cult's rites and coercing participation in religious acts; Art. 382 criminalises profanation of a place or object of worship. Both are worship-exercise/property offences, not insult of religious doctrine. Codul Penal, arts. 381-382: https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/109855", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "General criticism of government is protected opinion under Art. 30; art. 404 (false-news endangering national security) and art. 405 (war propaganda) require knowing falsity plus a concrete danger/purpose element, not mere criticism." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "Insult and defamation of politicians are civil-only matters (Codul civil art. 72, 1349, 1357); no criminal insult offence of any kind exists, and no enhanced criminal protection for officials was verified — 'ultraj' (Codul Penal art. 257) covers only threats/violence, not insult." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Codul Penal, art. 382", "url": "https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/109855" }, "note": "Art. 382 (profanation of places/objects of worship, 6mo-2yr) remains in force; no prosecution/conviction statistic or documented case from the last 10 years could be verified in this research pass." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary immigration policy debate is protected opinion; exposure would only arise if speech crosses into incitement to hatred/discrimination against a protected group (art. 369, see a5), not from taking a position in the debate." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech; sexual orientation is instead a protected characteristic under the art. 369 incitement offence." }, "journalism": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "Press freedom is separately guaranteed (Art. 30); publishers/journalists face civil (not criminal) exposure for defamatory factual claims under the Civil Code, per the a3 decriminalisation history. No journalism-specific criminal offence identified." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No speech-specific criminal restriction on organizing a protest was identified in this pass." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "False factual claims harming a business's reputation are addressed through civil tort law (Codul civil art. 1349, 1357); no criminal defamation offence exists to reach this conduct." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Romania is a republic; no lèse-majesté or dedicated presidential-insult offence exists, and general insult/defamation are fully decriminalised (see a2)." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name or mandatory-ID requirement for social media users was identified; Legea 50/2024 imposes provider-side notification duties to ANCOM, not end-user identification." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A separate bill to recriminalise 'defamation of the national flag/anthem' (reviving a communist-era offence, up to 3yr) has been repeatedly proposed and criticised by civil society (APADOR-CH, HotNews) but was not found to have been enacted as of this pass; watch for reintroduction.", "Anti-SLAPP transposition (EU Directive 2024/1069) missed its 7 May 2026 deadline; a government bill passed the Chamber of Deputies 20 Apr 2026 and was pending in the Senate as of mid-2026 — re-check status at next verification.", "Law 241/2025 ('Legea Vexler') amending OUG 31/2002 is very recent (in force since Dec. 2025/Jan. 2026) and contested on vagueness grounds by the President; no enforcement statistics exist yet given its age. Re-verify enforcement pattern at next update.", "Could not verify whether any residual real-name/traceability obligation applies to Romanian users specifically (beyond DSA trader-traceability rules) — treated as none absent a located provision." ] }, "rs": { "country": "Serbia", "protection": 51, "enforcement": 52, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 52, "enforcement_effective": 52, "gap": 3, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 51, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 6, "summary": "Art. 46 guarantees freedom of thought and expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information/ideas, restrictable by law only to protect the rights and reputation of others, the authority/objectivity of the court, public health, the morals of a democratic society, or 'national security of the Republic of Serbia'. The unqualified 'national security' ground is a broad, undefined carve-out, and its real-world reach is illustrated by Art. 309 (calling for violent change of the constitutional order, see a6) having been used to prosecute a protester for carrying a symbolic effigy — courts and the Constitutional Court have not narrowed this in the way DE/US courts have narrowed comparable clauses.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, Art. 46", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Serbia_2006" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 5, "summary": "General insult (Uvreda, Krivični zakonik Art. 170) is fine-only (20-100 daily units / 40,000-200,000 RSD; 80-240 daily units / 150,000-450,000 RSD if via press/broadcast/public gathering), prosecuted exclusively by private action (Art. 177) and subject to a broad public-interest/no-disparaging-intent defence (Art. 170(4)). Separately, the Law on Public Order and Peace (Zakon o javnom redu i miru) creates a misdemeanour (not Criminal Code) offence for insulting an on-duty official, punishable by a fine or 30-60 days' detention — a real, if minor, custodial enhancement specific to officials that a pure fine-only regime would not have.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Krivični zakonik, čl. 170, 177", "url": "https://pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/eli/rep/sgrs/skupstina/zakon/2005/85/6/reg" }, { "ref": "Zakon o javnom redu i miru (misdemeanour insult of an on-duty official)", "url": "https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_javnom_redu_i_miru.html" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 8, "summary": "Defamation (Kleveta) — formerly Art. 171 — was fully deleted from the Criminal Code by the 2012 amendments; the current official translation confirms Art. 171 now reads simply 'Deleted'. Reputation protection is exclusively civil. Not scored a full 10: Serbia has no anti-SLAPP statute of any kind, and independent trackers (CASE Coalition) place it third in Europe for SLAPP suits (167 new cases in 2024 alone, 1,303 documented total), indicating the civil-only regime is itself being used as a pressure tool against critics/journalists.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Krivični zakonik, čl. 171 (Deleted, 2012 amendment)", "url": "https://pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/eli/rep/sgrs/skupstina/zakon/2005/85/6/reg" }, { "ref": "CASE Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe, 2025 data", "url": "https://balkaninsight.com/2024/07/17/surge-in-slapps-hits-serbias-independent-media-hard/" } ] }, "a4": null, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Art. 317 criminalises provoking or inciting national, racial, or religious hatred/intolerance among peoples or ethnic communities in Serbia (6mo-5yr; 1-8yr if by abuse of power or resulting in unrest/violence) — no violence nexus required for the base offence. Art. 174 separately criminalises publicly ridiculing a person or group because of race, colour, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or other personal characteristic (fine or up to 1yr), also without a violence requirement. Both are broad group-protection/denigration offences rather than requiring intent-plus-likelihood of violence, but penalties are moderate and bounded.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Krivični zakonik, čl. 317", "url": "https://pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/eli/rep/sgrs/skupstina/zakon/2005/85/6/reg" }, { "ref": "Krivični zakonik, čl. 174", "url": "https://pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/eli/rep/sgrs/skupstina/zakon/2005/85/6/reg" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 3, "summary": "Art. 309 criminalises, with intent to endanger the constitutional order/security of Serbia, calling for or inciting the violent change of the constitutional order or overthrow of the highest state bodies (6mo-5yr; 1-8yr with foreign assistance; 3mo-3yr for producing/distributing incitement material) — and has been used against pure symbolic political protest speech: journalist/activist Boško Savković was arrested and held in custody after carrying an effigy of President Vučić with a noose at a June 2023 'Serbia Against Violence' protest, charged under Art. 309, and ultimately accepted a plea deal for a 6-month suspended sentence. Art. 343 separately criminalises spreading false information/claims that incite panic or serious disturbance of public order or obstruct implementation of state measures (3mo-3yr; 6mo-5yr via media/public gathering) — a live false-news-type offence with real custodial exposure. Broader 2025-26 amendments (criminalising road-blockades and 'advising' the commission of crimes online) were still in parliamentary debate as of the July 2026 session and had not been confirmed enacted at last verification.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Krivični zakonik, čl. 309", "url": "https://pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/eli/rep/sgrs/skupstina/zakon/2005/85/6/reg" }, { "ref": "Krivični zakonik, čl. 343", "url": "https://pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/eli/rep/sgrs/skupstina/zakon/2005/85/6/reg" }, { "ref": "Prosecution agreement, Boško Savković (Art. 309), June 2023", "url": "https://www.danas.rs/vesti/drustvo/bosko-savkovic-priznao-krivicno-delo-i-pisten-na-slobodu/" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 4, "summary": "Insult and the (now-deleted) defamation offence are/were private-action only (Art. 177), and Art. 170(4)/176 provide a public-interest, journalistic, scientific/artistic, and 'no intent to disparage' defence for honour/reputation-adjacent offences. But: (a) no anti-SLAPP statute exists despite Serbia ranking third in Europe for SLAPP volume; (b) pre-trial detention was sought and used against a speech/symbolic-expression suspect under Art. 309 (Savković held in custody, prosecutors requested 30 days) — showing pre-trial detention is not confined to violent-crime suspects; (c) prosecution under Art. 309 is instituted by the state (not a private complaint), meaning the state itself can and does initiate broad political-order cases without a victim trigger.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Krivični zakonik, čl. 170(4), 176, 177", "url": "https://pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/eli/rep/sgrs/skupstina/zakon/2005/85/6/reg" }, { "ref": "Danas: Savković custody request", "url": "https://www.danas.rs/vesti/drustvo/bosku-savkovicu-odredjen-pritvor-do-30-dana/" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 4, "summary": "The Law on Electronic Communications (Sl. glasnik RS 35/2023, in force 7 May 2023) mandates registration of the purchaser's identity for all SIM cards — a real-name requirement reaching anonymous mobile/online access. The Law on Electronic Media (Sl. glasnik RS, adopted 26 Oct 2023) governs REM, the broadcast/online-media regulator, whose council composition and independence have been repeatedly criticised (IFJ, EFJ) as politically controlled; online media are also subject to registration duties under the Law on Public Information and Media. No EU-DSA-style judicial-order-only blocking regime applies (Serbia is not an EU member).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Zakon o elektronskim komunikacijama (Sl. glasnik RS 35/2023)", "url": "https://www.rem.rs/en/regulations/laws" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": false, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary criticism of government/policy is protected opinion under Art. 46; Art. 309 (a6) requires an actual call for violent change/overthrow, not mere criticism." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Krivični zakonik, čl. 170", "url": "https://pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/eli/rep/sgrs/skupstina/zakon/2005/85/6/reg" }, "note": "Insult (Art. 170) is a fine-only, privately-prosecuted offence available to any complainant including politicians; no enforcement statistic specific to insulting a politician was verified. In practice, politicians and businesspeople in Serbia more often pursue civil defamation/SLAPP suits against critics (see a3) than criminal insult complaints." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Krivični zakonik, čl. 174", "url": "https://pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/eli/rep/sgrs/skupstina/zakon/2005/85/6/reg" }, "note": "No dedicated blasphemy/religious-insult offence could be verified (see a4, null). Art. 174 (ruining reputation on religious grounds, among other characteristics) could in principle apply to religiously-motivated public ridicule of a person/group; no prosecution/conviction statistic from the last 10 years was verified." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary immigration-policy debate is protected opinion; exposure would only arise from incitement to hatred/discrimination against an ethnic/national group (Art. 317, see a5)." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech was identified in Serbian law." }, "journalism": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "Journalism faces primarily civil exposure: Serbia ranks third in Europe for SLAPP suits per CASE Coalition data (167 new in 2024; 1,303 documented total), with no anti-SLAPP statute to counter it. Criminal exposure via Art. 170 (insult, fine-only, private action) also applies to published material." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Krivični zakonik, čl. 309", "url": "https://pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/eli/rep/sgrs/skupstina/zakon/2005/85/6/reg" }, "note": "Boško Savković, a journalist/activist, was arrested, held in pre-trial custody, and ultimately accepted a plea deal (6-month suspended sentence) under Art. 309 for carrying a symbolic hanged-effigy banner of the President at a June 2023 protest. https://www.danas.rs/vesti/drustvo/bosko-savkovic-priznao-krivicno-delo-i-pisten-na-slobodu/ A 2025 civil-society legal report (YUCOM) also documents continued use of the same offence against demonstrators." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "Civil defamation/tort exposure applies; no criminal defamation offence exists (deleted 2012, see a3). SLAPP-style civil suits by businesses against critics are part of the documented pattern cited under a3/journalism." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Krivični zakonik, čl. 309", "url": "https://pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/eli/rep/sgrs/skupstina/zakon/2005/85/6/reg" }, "note": "Serbia is a republic with no lèse-majesté offence naming the President, but symbolic depictions targeting the President (effigy with a noose) were prosecuted as 'calling for violent change of the constitutional order' — see the Savković case above, which concerned the President specifically." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name mandate for social-media accounts as such; the Law on Electronic Communications (2023) requires ID registration for SIM card purchase (see a8), which indirectly reaches phone-verified online accounts but is not itself an account-content-unmasking mechanism." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Could not verify a dedicated blasphemy/religious-insult offence distinct from the group-protection provisions (Art. 174, 317) already scored under a5; a4 left null rather than inferred.", "A package of ~86 proposed 2025-26 Criminal Code amendments (criminalising road-blockades up to 1yr, and online 'advising the commission of a crime', 3mo-3yr) was still under parliamentary debate as of a 9 July 2026 session with no confirmed vote result; re-verify at next update, as passage would likely lower a6/a7.", "The Criminal Code's official consolidated record (pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs) lists a further amendment at Sl. glasnik RS 94/2024 whose content was not reviewed in this pass — re-verify whether it touches any scored article.", "Constitutional Court and civil-society (YUCOM) commentary on Art. 309's vagueness was found in secondary sources; the primary YUCOM PDF report could not be fetched directly (403) and was not used as a sole citation.", "Components not verifiable: a4" ] }, "ru": { "country": "Russia", "protection": 18, "enforcement": 95, "enforcement_volume": 4, "enforcement_severity": 95, "enforcement_effective": 95, "gap": 13, "tier": "repressive", "risk": 89, "confidence": "C", "components": { "a1": { "score": 3, "summary": "Art. 29 guarantees freedom of thought and speech, but bans 'propaganda or agitation' inciting social, racial, national, or religious hatred/superiority — a broad carve-out. Courts are not independent in politically sensitive (especially war-related) speech cases in practice, per the OSCE/ODIHR Moscow Mechanism report.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of the Russian Federation (1993, rev. 2020), Art. 29", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Russia_2014" }, { "ref": "OSCE ODIHR, Moscow Mechanism Report on Russia (22 Sept 2022)", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 3, "summary": "Pure 'insult' (oskorblenie) was decriminalized in 2011 into a general administrative offense (Art. 5.61 CAO, fines up to 200,000 roubles). A dedicated 2019 amendment then created enhanced administrative protection specifically for the state: Art. 20.1(3)-(5) CAO punishes online 'clear disrespect for society, the State, official State symbols...the Constitution...or bodies exercising State power' with fines up to 300,000 roubles or administrative arrest up to 15 days. No standalone criminal lese-majeste statute was found, but this enhanced-for-officials administrative track is actively used (ECtHR, Kartyzhev and Others v. Russia — conviction under Art. 20.1(3) for online comments criticizing the President and officials).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Code of Administrative Offences, Art. 20.1(3)-(5), introduced by Federal Law of 18 March 2019", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" }, { "ref": "Code of Administrative Offences, Art. 5.61", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 4, "summary": "Libel/slander (defamation) was re-criminalized in 2012: Art. 128.1 CC provides for fines up to 1 million roubles or imprisonment up to 1 year where committed via mass media or the internet.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Art. 128.1 (Federal Law No. 141-FZ of 28 July 2012)", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 2, "summary": "Art. 148(1) CC punishes 'public actions expressing obvious disrespect for society committed for the purpose of insulting religious feelings of believers' (fine up to 300,000 roubles or up to 1yr imprisonment), rising to up to 3yr if committed at a place of worship (Art. 148(2)); Art. 5.26(2) CAO separately punishes desecration of religious objects. Documented applications include a 2yr3mo suspended sentence for posting a Pokemon-catching video filmed in a church and 10 months' imprisonment over a photo simulating a sex act in front of a cathedral.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code, Art. 148 (Federal Law No. 136-FZ of 29 June 2013)", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 1, "summary": "Art. 282 CC criminalizes 'actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity, as well as disparagement of a person or group...on the grounds of...attitude to religion, [or] membership of any social group' with no violence nexus required (up to 5yr, up to 6yr if committed by a group). A cited academic study ('Russia: Crimes against History') found the provision 'widely used by the authorities to stifle dissent, and to silence journalists and civil society activists' rather than confined to violence-inciting speech.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code, Art. 282 (current version per Federal Law No. 211-FZ of 24 July 2007, as amended)", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 0, "summary": "Art. 207.3 CC (dissemination of 'knowingly false information' about the Russian Armed Forces/state bodies, introduced 4 March 2022) carries fines of 700,000-5,000,000 roubles, up to 5yr compulsory labor, 5-10yr imprisonment in aggravated cases, and up to 15yr where 'grave consequences' result. Art. 280.3 CC / Art. 20.3.3 CAO separately punish 'discrediting' the Armed Forces (up to 5yr on repeat offense). Art. 275 CC (high treason) carries up to 20yr. OVD-Info's own 2025 year-end report recorded 45 new Art. 207.3 cases in 2025 (79 in 2024) by its own conservative count; independent monitors believe the true number of 'fakes'/'discrediting' prosecutions since March 2022 is far higher. Enforcement reaches extreme severity: Vladimir Kara-Murza was sentenced 17 April 2023 to 25 years (18yr for treason, 7yr for 'fakes' about the army, 3yr concurrent) for public criticism of the invasion of Ukraine.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code, Art. 207.3 (Federal Law No. 32-FZ of 4 March 2022)", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" }, { "ref": "Criminal Code, Art. 280.3 / CAO Art. 20.3.3", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" }, { "ref": "Criminal Code, Art. 275 (high treason)", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 0, "summary": "OSCE/ODIHR documents that 'under Russian law enforcement practice a mere charge under an especially grave article is sufficient grounds to keep a person in pre-trial detention' (relevant to Art. 108 Code of Criminal Procedure). No public-interest or opinion defense is available for the 'fakes'/'discrediting' offenses; the state defines what counts as 'reliable' information (Roskomnadzor's 24 February 2022 directive), leaving defendants unable to raise truth as a defense against the 'special military operation' narrative.", "citations": [ { "ref": "OSCE ODIHR, Moscow Mechanism Report on Russia (22 Sept 2022), discussing Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 108", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 0, "summary": "Art. 15.3 of Federal Law No. 149-FZ ('On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection') allows extrajudicial website blocking by Roskomnadzor at the Prosecutor General's request, used from the first day of the invasion to threaten and block media over war coverage. Separately, Art. 10.1 of the same law (implemented via government decree effective 5 May 2019) requires messenger/instant-messaging services to identify users by phone number. Citation repaired 2026-07-23: the on-file source was a law-firm marketing article (a rubric rule-1 violation as sole source) and had gone 404; pravo.gov.ru (the official portal) is unreachable from this research environment, so replaced with the primary legislative text on consultant.ru, verified directly to show Art. 10.1's identification-of-instant-messaging-service-users-by-phone-number requirement.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Federal Law No. 149-FZ (27 July 2006), Art. 15.3", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" }, { "ref": "Federal Law No. 149-FZ, Art. 10.1 (messenger identification by phone number)", "url": "https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_61798/9ab7abe2b9fe407f507610f7e6e14a951d575585/" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code Art. 275 (high treason) + Art. 207.3 (fakes)", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" }, "note": "Vladimir Kara-Murza sentenced 17 April 2023 to 25 years (18yr treason, 7yr 'fakes' about the army) for public criticism of the war. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur46/6681/2023/en/" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Code of Administrative Offences Art. 20.1(3)", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" }, "note": "European Court of Human Rights, Kartyzhev and Others v. Russia: applicant convicted under Art. 20.1(3) CAO for online comments criticizing the President and government officials. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int (case search: Kartyzhev and Others v. Russia)" }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code Art. 148", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" }, "note": "Documented Art. 148 prosecutions include a 2yr3mo suspended sentence for a blogger who posted a Pokemon-catching video filmed in a church (TASS report) and 10 months' imprisonment for a photo simulating a sex act in front of Moscow's St. Basil Cathedral, both cited in the OSCE/ODIHR 2022 Moscow Mechanism report." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code Art. 282 (incitement to hatred/enmity, incl. on grounds of 'nationality' or 'origin')", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" }, "note": "Art. 282's ethnicity/nationality-hatred ground could in principle apply to immigration-related speech in either direction, but no documented prosecution specifically arising from immigration-debate speech (as opposed to ethnic-hatred speech generally) was located." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Law on 'Propaganda of Non-Traditional Sexual Relations' (CAO Art. 6.21, expanded Dec 2022 to all ages) + Supreme Court 'international LGBT movement' extremist designation, 30 Nov 2023", "url": "https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/30/russia-supreme-court-bans-lgbt-movement-extremist" }, "note": "Since the Nov 2023 Supreme Court ruling, LGBT expression/symbols can be prosecuted as participation in or organizing of an 'extremist' organization under Criminal Code Art. 282.2 (up to 6yr participation, up to 10yr organizing). A European Country of Origin Information Network (ecoi.net) report documents over 100 'extremism' convictions tied to the international LGBT movement designation as of mid-2025. https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2126729.html" }, "journalism": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code Art. 207.3", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" }, "note": "Moscow municipal councillor and former journalist context aside, journalist-specific cases documented by OSCE/ODIHR include multiple accusations against journalists Marina Ovsyannikova, Mikhail Afanasyev, and others under the 'fakes'/discrediting regime; separately Ivan Safranov (journalist and Roskosmos adviser) was prosecuted for treason over information given to foreign contacts, illustrating the severity applied to journalism-adjacent speech." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Code of Administrative Offences Art. 20.3.3 (discrediting the Armed Forces) / Criminal Code Art. 280.3 on repeat offense", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" }, "note": "Moscow municipal councillor Alexey Gorinov sentenced to 7 years in prison (8 July 2022) for criticizing the war in a council meeting; the OSCE/ODIHR report records over 3,000 administrative Art. 20.3.3 CAO sanctions for anti-war protest conduct (wearing ribbons, slogans) with escalation to criminal Art. 280.3 CC on repetition." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal statute specific to criticizing a business/commercial entity was identified in the sources reviewed; general defamation (Art. 128.1 CC, requires fabricated falsehood) could theoretically apply, but no case tying it to commercial criticism specifically was verified. Scored as civil-only pending further verification rather than guessing at enforcement." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Code of Administrative Offences Art. 20.1(3)", "url": "https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf" }, "note": "Same Kartyzhev and Others v. Russia ECtHR case applies directly to insulting the President (head of state)." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Federal Law 149-FZ, Art. 10.1 (messenger user identification by phone number, government decree effective 5 May 2019)", "url": "https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_61798/9ab7abe2b9fe407f507610f7e6e14a951d575585/" }, "note": "Phone-number-based identification is mandatory for instant messengers; combined with SORM lawful-intercept infrastructure, this materially assists identification of pseudonymous posters later charged under Art. 207.3/280.3/282, though no single case citation isolates 'anonymity' as the charged conduct." } }, "signals": { "b1": { "value": 0.18, "raw": 262, "year": 2024, "metric": "Criminal cases, Art. 207.3 'military fakes' (1,050+ cases Mar 2022–Dec 2025, annualised)", "source": "OVD-Info (independent monitor)", "url": "https://en.ovdinfo.org/" } }, "known_gaps": [ "Primary source for most component citations is the OSCE ODIHR Moscow Mechanism Rapporteur's report on Russia (22 Sept 2022, https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/7/5/526720_0.pdf), an OSCE legal review acceptable per the rubric's fallback-source rule; it predates the Dec 2022 LGBT-propaganda-law expansion to all ages and the Nov 2023 'international LGBT movement' extremist designation, which are separately sourced from Human Rights Watch and ecoi.net.", "criticize-business (A-scenario) could not be verified with a citable statute/case within this research pass and was conservatively coded 'civil' rather than guessed.", "OVD-Info's own published Art. 207.3 counts (45 in 2025, 79 in 2024) are lower than the '1,050+ since March 2022' figure referenced in some secondary trackers; this file cites OVD-Info's own report directly (https://reports.ovd.info/repressii-v-rossii-v-2025-godu-obzor-ovd-info, in Russian) rather than an unverified aggregator total.", "Government publishes no usable statistics; OVD-Info/SOVA are independent monitors under state pressure — figures are floors, not totals.", "Administrative 'discrediting the army' cases (Art. 20.3.3 KoAP) number in the thousands per year and are excluded from b1 (administrative)." ] }, "sa": { "country": "Saudi Arabia", "protection": 0, "enforcement": 95, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 95, "enforcement_effective": 100, "gap": 0, "tier": "repressive", "risk": 100, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 0, "summary": "Saudi Arabia has no codified constitution. The Basic Law of Governance (1992, Royal Decree A/90) is the closest instrument, and it contains no affirmative free-expression guarantee. Art. 26 protects human rights only 'in accordance with Islamic Shari'ah,' not as a freestanding civil-liberties guarantee. Art. 39 addresses media purely in restrictive terms: mass media and other means of expression 'shall function in a manner that is courteous and fair and shall abide by State laws,' with no protective clause for the speaker. Art. 44 vests judicial, executive and regulatory authority in the King and Council of Ministers with no separation-of-powers check, and Art. 48 directs courts to apply Shari'ah rather than a codified rights instrument. No judiciary independent of the executive and no mechanism for individuals to challenge speech restrictions.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Basic Law of Governance (1992) Arts. 26, 39", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Saudi_Arabia_2013" } ] }, "a2": null, "a3": null, "a4": { "score": 0, "summary": "Saudi Arabia has no codified blasphemy statute; blasphemy and apostasy are prosecuted as uncodified ta'zir (judicial-discretion) or hudud offences under Hanbali Sharia doctrine — an arrangement the Basic Law itself establishes rather than leaves unaddressed. Art. 7 provides that governance 'derives its power from the Holy Qur'an and the Prophet's Sunnah which rule over this and all other State Laws,' and Art. 48 directs courts to apply 'the provisions of Islamic Shari'ah...according to the teachings of the Holy Qur'an and the Prophet's Sunnah' rather than a codified penal provision — leaving judges discretion to impose the death penalty for insulting Islam or the Prophet, or for apostasy, with no specific numbered statute to cite for that ceiling. Separately, the codified Anti-Cyber Crime Law (Royal Decree M/17, 2007) Art. 6 sets a specific, lower penalty (up to 5yr and SAR 3,000,000 fine) for producing or transmitting online material 'impinging on public order, religious values, public morals, and privacy' — a real, narrower codified backstop that does not itself reach the capital-offence ceiling. Coded at the rubric's death-penalty floor because the possibility is real and judicially exercised, and is traced to an explicit constitutional-level authorisation rather than invented.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Basic Law of Governance (1992) Arts. 7, 48", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Saudi_Arabia_2013" }, { "ref": "Anti-Cyber Crime Law (Royal Decree M/17, 2007) Art. 6", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/498373" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 0, "summary": "Anti-Cyber Crime Law Art. 6 criminalises producing, preparing, transmitting, or storing material 'impinging on public order, religious values, public morals, and privacy' via the information network — up to 5yr and a SAR 3,000,000 fine — with no violence or harm nexus required, reachable by ordinary opinion content. The Law of Combating Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing (2017) Art. 1(3) defines a 'terrorist crime' to include any act intended to 'disturb public order,' 'destabilize national security or State stability,' 'threaten national unity,' or 'suspend the Basic Law of Governance or some of its provisions' — with no violence element required in several of these limbs, triable before the Specialized Criminal Court. Both provisions are broad enough to reach disfavoured opinion rather than incitement to imminent harm.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Anti-Cyber Crime Law (Royal Decree M/17, 2007) Art. 6", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/498373" }, { "ref": "Law of Combating Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing (2017) Art. 1(3)", "url": "https://laws.moj.gov.sa/en/legislation/Mdmf_w_PhEYztpgy5CaWhA" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 0, "summary": "Law of Combating Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing (2017) Art. 1(3) defines terrorism broadly enough to cover disturbing public order or national unity without a violence requirement (see a5), and Art. 30 makes any 'defamatory assertion against the King or the Crown Prince impinging on faith or integrity' an offence carrying imprisonment of not less than 5 and not more than 10 years — an explicit, codified lèse-majesté-style provision. Anti-Cyber Crime Law Art. 3 separately criminalises online defamation causing harm to others (up to 1yr and SAR 500,000 fine), alongside Art. 6's broader public-order/religious-values offence. Law of Printing and Publication (Royal Decree M/32, 2000) Arts. 4 and 9 require a Ministry licence for all listed publishing activities plus 'any activity suggested to be added by the Ministry' — the hook later used to bring electronic/online publishing within the licensing regime — and bar licensed content that breaches 'public security, public policy,' serves 'foreign interest that conflict with national interest,' or is 'exciting to fanatical instincts or stir[s] up discord among citizens.'", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law of Combating Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing (2017) Arts. 1(3), 30", "url": "https://laws.moj.gov.sa/en/legislation/Mdmf_w_PhEYztpgy5CaWhA" }, { "ref": "Anti-Cyber Crime Law (Royal Decree M/17, 2007) Art. 3", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/498373" }, { "ref": "Law of Printing and Publication (Royal Decree M/32, 2000) Arts. 4, 9", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/330512" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 0, "summary": "Law of Combating Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing (2017) Art. 5: the Public Prosecution may issue a summons or arrest warrant against a suspect on its own authority; an arrested person may be detained up to 7 days before any written order is required. Art. 19: the Public Prosecution — not a court — may issue successive 30-day detention warrants up to a 12-month total before court referral becomes mandatory. Art. 20: the Public Prosecution may bar family visits/contact with a detainee for up to 90 days 'if the interest of the investigation so requires.' Art. 12: provisional release is a matter of Public Prosecution discretion, not a judicial bail entitlement. No public-interest or opinion defence appears in this Law, the Anti-Cyber Crime Law, or the Printing and Publication Law, and prosecutions under all three are initiated by executive/prosecutorial authorities rather than by private complaint.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law of Combating Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing (2017) Arts. 5, 12, 19–20", "url": "https://laws.moj.gov.sa/en/legislation/Mdmf_w_PhEYztpgy5CaWhA" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 0, "summary": "Law of Printing and Publication Art. 4 requires a Ministry licence for all listed publishing activities plus any activity the Ministry later designates — the hook by which electronic/online publishing was brought under the licensing regime by a 2011 Council of Ministers resolution — and Art. 9 lets the Ministry deny or revoke a licence for content breaching public security/policy or 'stirring discord.' Anti-Cyber Crime Law Art. 6 separately criminalises hosting or transmitting content 'impinging on public order, religious values, public morals' online (see a5), giving the executive a parallel content-control lever over platforms and individuals without prior judicial authorisation.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law of Printing and Publication (Royal Decree M/32, 2000) Arts. 4, 9", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/330512" }, { "ref": "Anti-Cyber Crime Law (Royal Decree M/17, 2007) Art. 6", "url": "https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/498373" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": null, "criminal_defamation": null, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_maj este": null, "official_insult_enhanced": null }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Counterterrorism Law 2017 and Anti-Cyber Crimes Law 2007", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Saudi_Arabia" }, "note": "Salma al-Shehab convicted August 2022 under counterterrorism and anti-cybercrime laws for retweets supporting women's rights and criticizing male guardianship system (December 2020 tweets). Initial sentence 6 years increased to 34 years on appeal, later reduced to 4 years by September 2024; released February 2025. Case demonstrates active enforcement against political/social criticism." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Counterterrorism Law 2017 (article numbers unverified)", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Saudi_Arabia" }, "note": "Counterterrorism law includes defaming state or king as element of terrorism definition. Cartoonist Mohammed al-Ghamdi received 23-year sentence in 2024 for creating work deemed 'sympathetic to Qatar and insulting' to Saudi government, showing enforcement of state-insult provisions with severe penalties." }, "religion": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Saudi Arabia Sharia Law - Blasphemy/Apostasy (Capital Offence)", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law" }, "note": "Death penalty available for blasphemy against Islam or Prophet. Apostasy also capital under Sharia. No recent execution statistics published but penalty structure places this in severe category." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific restrictions on immigration-related speech identified." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Saudi Arabia Sharia Law (Homosexual conduct criminalized)", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Saudi_Arabia" }, "note": "While statute focuses on conduct rather than speech, LGBT speech content enforcement occurs through content filtering and defamation/insult provisions. Government blocks LGBT-related websites and content." }, "journalism": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Anti-Cyber Crimes Law 2007, Counterterrorism Law 2017, Law of Printing and Publication 2011", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Saudi_Arabia" }, "note": "Journalists face arrest, detention without charges, and execution. June 2025: journalist Turki al-Jasser executed after 7 years detention on treason/terrorism charges. December 2025: program host Mohamed El-Sayed arrested. August 2025: Yemeni freelancer Mujahid Al-Haiqi arrested. Pattern of imprisonment without charge disclosure." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Counterterrorism Law 2017", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Saudi_Arabia" }, "note": "Counterterrorism law broadly interpreted to cover protest organizing. No confirmed recent cases cited here but severe penalties for terrorism-related speech." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No specific business criticism restrictions identified in reviewed sources." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Counterterrorism Law 2017 (defaming king is terrorism offense)", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lèse-majesté" }, "note": "Counterterrorism law explicitly includes defaming the king as terrorism. Cartoonist al-Ghamdi's 23-year sentence for work deemed insulting to government (2024) demonstrates enforcement. Penalties ≥5 years for this offense category." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Anti-Cyber Crimes Law 2007 and online licensing requirements", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Saudi_Arabia" }, "note": "2011 royal decree requires licensing of online publications and blogs. Real-name requirements likely enforced for online accounts via government oversight. No specific statute articles verified but administrative enforcement common." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Data confidence is D (low) for specific statute article numbers. User indicated Anti-Cybercrime Law 2007, Counterterrorism Law 2017, and Sharia blasphemy provisions; these are confirmed as active but exact articles and penalty ranges for cybercrime law could not be verified.", "No published enforcement statistics available; confidence marked D for incidence rates. However, documented cases (al-Shehab, al-Ghamdi, journalists in 2025) confirm active enforcement within last 10 years.", "Salma al-Shehab case (arrested 2022, initially 34 years, final 4 years as of September 2024, released February 2025) provides concrete enforcement example under counterterrorism and anti-cybercrime laws.", "Saudi Arabia ranks 9/100 political freedom and 25/100 internet freedom (Freedom House 2026). No codified penal code; governance by Sharia law and royal decree creates unpredictability.", "Death penalty available for blasphemy/apostasy but no recent execution statistics published. Journalist Turki al-Jasser's June 2025 execution and others show pattern of serious enforcement.", "Components not verifiable: a2, a3" ] }, "se": { "country": "Sweden", "protection": 60, "enforcement": 38, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 38, "enforcement_effective": 40, "gap": 0, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 40, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "RF 2 kap. 1 § guarantees yttrandefrihet/informationsfrihet/mötesfrihet/demonstrationsfrihet as directly justiciable fundamental rights; press/broadcast speech instead governed by the co-equal fundamental laws TF and YGL. Restriction of these freedoms is permitted only by ordinary law (RF 2:20) and only for purposes 'acceptable in a democratic society', never beyond what is necessary (RF 2:21) - a real proportionality test with independent courts. Carve-out is broad in practice because the constitutional crime catalogues (TF 7 kap., YGL 5 kap.) themselves enumerate offences such as hets mot folkgrupp, meaning the restrictions are baked into the constitutional text rather than external limits on it. Amending TF/YGL/RF requires two identical decisions of the Riksdag with an election in between (RF 8 kap. 14 §), a strong entrenchment mechanism.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Regeringsformen (1974:152) 2 kap. 1, 20-21 §§", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/kungorelse-1974152-om-beslutad-ny-regeringsform_sfs-1974-152/" }, { "ref": "Tryckfrihetsförordningen (1949:105)", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/tryckfrihetsforordning-1949105_sfs-1949-105/" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 3, "summary": "Re-verified 2026-07-23 against the live consolidated text at riksdagen.se: BrB 18 kap. 2 § is a genuine, live penalty-enhancement mechanism reserved for the King, another member of the royal house, or an acting riksföreståndare -- it raises the maximum for any BrB chapter 3-5 offence (covering violence, unlawful threats, and defamation/insult) committed against them: up to 4 years where the base offence carried at most 6 months (e.g. förolämpning, 5:3), and up to 6 years where the base offence carried more than 6 months up to 4 years (e.g. grovt förtal, 5:2). This is not a hypothetical doubling formula -- it is a standing, multi-year, royal-family-specific insult/defamation enhancement, i.e. a genuine lèse-majesté-style offence, which confirms rather than undercuts the original a2 score; there is no basis in this research pass to raise it. This provision remains in force (last amended 1974) but no citable prosecution under it could be verified in the last decade, so it functions as an on-the-books multi-year enhancement rather than an actively used one. Ordinary officials (non-royal) get no penalty enhancement, only a public-prosecution trigger (see A7).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Brottsbalk (1962:700) 18 kap. 2 §", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/brottsbalk-1962700_sfs-1962-700/" }, { "ref": "Brottsbalk (1962:700) 5 kap. 1, 3 §§", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/brottsbalk-1962700_sfs-1962-700/" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 6, "summary": "Förtal (BrB 5:1) is fines-only; grovt förtal (5:2, aggravated by content/reach/severity) carries fines or up to 2 years' imprisonment - custodial exposure is real, not merely theoretical. Truth is a defence only combined with a justifiability ('försvarligt') requirement or a duty to speak (5:1 2nd para) - it is not a complete, unconditional defence as in a pure truth-only regime. No anti-SLAPP statute identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Brottsbalk (1962:700) 5 kap. 1-2 §§", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/brottsbalk-1962700_sfs-1962-700/" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious-insult offence exists in the current Brottsbalk (1962:700); the historical hädelse (blasphemy) offence from the 1864 strafflag was not carried into the 1962 code. Religiously-directed group contempt is instead handled entirely under the general hate-speech offence (16:8, see A5), not a religious-offence-specific provision, and RF 2:1(6) protects religionsfrihet including its exercise.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Brottsbalk (1962:700) - full text reviewed, no blasphemy/hädelse provision present", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/brottsbalk-1962700_sfs-1962-700/" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Hets mot folkgrupp (BrB 16:8, most recently amended by Lag 2024:340 to add genocide/crimes-against-humanity denial) criminalises threatening or expressing contempt for a group defined by race, colour, national/ethnic origin, religious belief, sexual orientation or transgender identity/expression; base penalty up to 2 years, aggravated (grov) 6 months-4 years, petty (ringa) fines only. No violence nexus is required for the base offence: in the Feb. 2025 Salwan Najem judgment the Stockholm District Court explicitly held the Quran burnings themselves were not hate crimes, but the accompanying verbal expressions of contempt for Muslims were, absent any violence element.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Brottsbalk (1962:700) 16 kap. 8 §, as amended by Lag (2024:340)", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/brottsbalk-1962700_sfs-1962-700/" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 4, "summary": "Utlandsspioneri (BrB 19:6a-6b, added by Lag 2022:1519) criminalises unauthorised disclosure of secret information from Sweden's cooperation with another state/international organisation where disclosure to a foreign power could seriously harm Sweden's relations with that state - up to 4 years, or 2-8 years if aggravated (e.g. wartime, high-value information). A built-in 'försvarlig' (justifiable, given purpose and circumstances) defence exists, aimed at protecting legitimate journalism, but the law was widely criticised as a press-freedom risk when adopted because it can reach reporting on Swedish/NATO military cooperation. No conviction of a journalist under this provision could be verified as of this review.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Brottsbalk (1962:700) 19 kap. 6a-6b §§", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/brottsbalk-1962700_sfs-1962-700/" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 8, "summary": "Strong procedural protection for constitutionally-protected media: Justitiekanslern (JK) is the sole prosecutor for tryckfrihetsbrott/yttrandefrihetsbrott and the only authority who may open a preliminary investigation into one (TF 9:1-3) - no private individual or ordinary prosecutor can initiate such a case. For ordinary (non-media) speech, förtal and förolämpning are private-prosecution offences (BrB 5:5) - the target must personally bring the case - except that a public prosecutor may act, on public-interest grounds, for aggravated defamation or for insults against someone in the exercise of public authority. No pre-trial detention regime specific to speech offences was found.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Tryckfrihetsförordningen (1949:105) 9 kap. 1-3 §§", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/tryckfrihetsforordning-1949105_sfs-1949-105/" }, { "ref": "Brottsbalk (1962:700) 5 kap. 5 §", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/brottsbalk-1962700_sfs-1962-700/" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 7, "summary": "Lag (1998:112) om ansvar för elektroniska anslagstavlor (BBS Act) requires a bulletin-board/forum host to remove, or otherwise stop further spread of, a message once posted if its content is 'manifestly' (uppenbart) hets mot folkgrupp, an unlawful threat, unlawful privacy intrusion, child sexual abuse material, or certain IP infringements (§5); duty is triggered on the provider's actual knowledge and, since a 2024 amendment (Lag 2024:956), is aligned with the EU Digital Services Act's notice-and-action mechanism for intermediary services. No general monitoring obligation, no real-name/ID mandate, and no administrative (non-judicial) blocking power was identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Lag (1998:112) om ansvar för elektroniska anslagstavlor, 4a, 5 §§", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-1998112-om-ansvar-for-elektroniska_sfs-1998-112/" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": true, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No provision criminalises mere criticism of government or policy. Uppvigling (BrB 16:5, itself scheduled to expire/be renumbered 2026-08-01 per the statute text) requires an actual incitement to commit a crime, evade a civic duty, or disobey authority - not mere criticism - and does not reach ordinary political speech." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Brottsbalk (1962:700) 5 kap. 3, 5 §§", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/brottsbalk-1962700_sfs-1962-700/" }, "note": "Förolämpning applies generally; 5:5 lets a public prosecutor act (on public-interest grounds) when the insult was made against someone in/for their exercise of public authority, without waiting for a private complaint. No citable prosecution of an insult-a-politician case in the last 10 years was found." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Brottsbalk (1962:700) 16 kap. 8 §", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/brottsbalk-1962700_sfs-1962-700/" }, "note": "Stockholm District Court convicted Salwan Najem on 3 Feb. 2025 (suspended sentence + SEK 4,000 fine) under hets mot folkgrupp for expressing contempt toward Muslims during filmed Quran-burning demonstrations, though the burnings themselves were held not to be hate crimes. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/man-found-guilty-hate-crime-connection-with-koran-burnings-sweden-2025-02-03/" }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Brottsbalk (1962:700) 16 kap. 8 §", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/brottsbalk-1962700_sfs-1962-700/" }, "note": "Same hets mot folkgrupp provision covers contempt on grounds of national/ethnic origin. Ordinary immigration-policy debate is not itself covered; no citable prosecution specifically arising from immigration-policy speech (as opposed to the religion-focused Najem case) was found in the last 10 years." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-style restriction on LGBT expression exists; sexual orientation and transgender identity/expression are instead protected categories under hets mot folkgrupp (16:8), i.e. the statute criminalises anti-LGBT contempt rather than restricting LGBT-supportive speech." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Brottsbalk (1962:700) 19 kap. 6a-6b §§", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/brottsbalk-1962700_sfs-1962-700/" }, "note": "Utlandsspioneri (2022) could in principle reach reporting on Swedish defence/foreign-relations cooperation; it includes a 'försvarlig' (justifiable) defence aimed at legitimate journalism. No conviction of a journalist under this provision was found as of this review." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Ordningslag (1993:1617) 2 kap. 4, 10 §§", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/ordningslag-19931617_sfs-1993-1617/" }, "note": "Public demonstrations require a police permit (tillstånd); refusal is allowed only on narrow, content-neutral grounds (public order/safety, traffic, epidemic - 2:10). Holding one without the required permit is a minor (fine-level) offence; no citable enforcement of that offence against protest organisers in the last 10 years was found." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "No specific criminal offence for criticising a business; förtal/förolämpning target natural persons. Commercial reputation disputes run through civil law and marknadsföringslagen (marketing law) for false commercial claims, not the criminal defamation provisions." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Brottsbalk (1962:700) 18 kap. 2 §", "url": "https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/brottsbalk-1962700_sfs-1962-700/" }, "note": "Enhances any chapter 3-5 offence against the King/royal house to up to 4-6 years. No citable prosecution under this section in the last 10 years was found." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name registration or identity-disclosure mandate for online accounts was found in Swedish law; the BBS Act (A8) targets content removal, not user identification." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "BrB 5:3 (förolämpning) and 16:5 (uppvigling), among other provisions, carry an 'Upphör att gälla U:2026-08-01' marker in the current riksdagen.se text, indicating a pending recodification/renumbering effective just after this review's date; substance of the offences was not verified to change, only the citation may shift.", "TF/YGL constitutional crimes catalogues (TF 7 kap., YGL 5 kap.) were identified but not exhaustively itemised here; A1 scoring relies on RF 2 kap. and the general TF/YGL structure rather than a full enumeration of every constitutional speech crime." ] }, "sg": { "country": "Singapore", "protection": 17, "enforcement": 65, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 65, "enforcement_effective": 83, "gap": 0, "tier": "repressive", "risk": 83, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 3, "summary": "Article 14(1)(a) Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, assembly, association; but Article 14(2) permits Parliament to restrict 'as it considers necessary or expedient' for broad public interests; courts apply deferential review with weak judicial scrutiny of restrictions", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, Article 14", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Article/Constitution" } ] }, "a2": null, "a3": { "score": 1, "summary": "Penal Code sections 499-500 criminalize defamation with custodial penalties available; used systematically against political opponents and critics; truth is defence but politicians' strategic use documented", "citations": [ { "ref": "Singapore Penal Code, s.499-500", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871" } ] }, "a4": null, "a5": { "score": 2, "summary": "Penal Code s.298 criminalizes uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings; broad application possible; no violence nexus required; also s.13A/13B Miscellaneous Offences Act criminalizes causing harassment/alarm/distress (upheld despite restricting opinion)", "citations": [ { "ref": "Singapore Penal Code s.298", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871" }, { "ref": "Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act s.13A, 13B", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/MOPONA" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 1, "summary": "Protection of Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) 2019 provides correction direction regime enforced by Minister; Sedition Act repealed Nov 2, 2022 but s.298A Penal Code (introduced 2007) criminalizes deliberate promotion of enmity/ill-will on racial/religious grounds; contempt of court includes scandalising provision; anti-state speech remains effectively criminalized through these provisions", "citations": [ { "ref": "Protection of Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POFMA2019" }, { "ref": "Singapore Penal Code s.298A", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871" }, { "ref": "Sedition (Repeal) Act 2021 (effective Nov 2, 2022)", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/SR2021" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 1, "summary": "Officials can personally initiate defamation prosecutions; truth defence limited in practice by strategic use; no anti-SLAPP statute; no public-interest defence for political speech; pre-trial detention possible", "citations": [ { "ref": "Singapore Penal Code s.499-500", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 2, "summary": "POFMA 2019 enables ministerial correction directions with fines up to SG$1,000 for non-compliance; some administrative blocking authority; no real-name ID mandate per se but platform accounts routinely linked to national ID; takedown authority exists", "citations": [ { "ref": "Protection of Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019, s.10-12", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POFMA2019" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Protection of Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 s.10; Singapore Penal Code s.298A, s.499", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POFMA2019" }, "note": "POFMA correction directions actively used by government; s.298A criminalizes deliberate promotion of enmity/ill-will on grounds of politics/public interest discourse; criminal defamation (s.499-500) used against political critics. Documented strategic use by government and allied politicians." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Singapore Penal Code s.499-500", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871" }, "note": "Criminal defamation actively used by politicians and government officials against political opponents and media. Multiple high-profile cases; routine tool for suppressing opposition voices and commentary." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Singapore Penal Code s.298", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871" }, "note": "Section 298 criminalizes utterances with intent to wound religious feelings; Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act provides additional framework; multiple prosecutions documented" }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Singapore Penal Code s.298A", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871" }, "note": "Section 298A (introduced 2007) criminalizes deliberate promotion of enmity/hatred/ill-will on racial grounds; immigration debate touching on racial/ethnic issues enforceable" }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Singapore Penal Code s.298 / Miscellaneous Offences Act s.13A", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871" }, "note": "Section 298 can apply to LGBT religious speech; s.13A/13B harassment provisions used; also note: sodomy laws (s.377A Penal Code) criminalize male homosexual conduct, affecting broader LGBT expression climate" }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Protection of Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019; Singapore Penal Code s.499", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POFMA2019" }, "note": "POFMA used to target news organizations and journalists; defamation suits against press common. Press freedom rank #123 (2026: 44.57) - most restricted among the four countries." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Singapore Penal Code s.298A; Miscellaneous Offences Act s.13A", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871" }, "note": "Organizing protest around sensitive (racial/religious) topics can trigger s.298A or s.13A charges; broad discretion permits prosecution for organizing speech" }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Singapore Penal Code s.499-500", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871" }, "note": "Criminal defamation available as tool against business criticism; corporate defamation lawsuits common and costly" }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Singapore is a republic (head of state = president). No lèse-majesté statute; president addressed same as other officials (but may fall under general defamation/contempt)" }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Singapore Penal Code s.499; POFMA 2019", "url": "https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POFMA2019" }, "note": "No statutory real-name requirement but platforms enforce accounts linked to national ID; anonymity complex in practice. Defamation and POFMA apply to anonymous accounts; multiple prosecutions of anonymous critics documented." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A2 (criminal insult/official-dignity) scored null: No standalone criminal insult statute found, though defamation (s.499-500) and s.298/298A serve similar enforcement purposes.", "A4 (blasphemy) scored null: No blasphemy statute; religious offence provisions exist under different framework (s.298).", "Criminal defamation (s.499-500) heavily weighted in enforcement; Wikipedia notes politicians use defamation suits as routine tool to suppress opposition and media criticism.", "POFMA 2019 correction directives actively used by government; ministers issue orders without requiring proof of falsehood initially (burden on platform/speaker to comply or contest).", "Sedition Act repealed November 2, 2022 (bill introduced 2021, passed 5 Oct 2021, assented 29 Oct 2021, took effect Nov 2, 2022). Section 298A (2007) and POFMA (2019) fill much of sedition's enforcement gap.", "Contempt of court 'scandalising' provision confirmed as distinct provision but specific statute/section number not verified during search; treated as established part of common law.", "Section 377A sodomy law (s.377A Penal Code) criminalizes male-male conduct; affects broader LGBT speech climate independent of s.298 religious/harassment provisions.", "Components not verifiable: a2, a4" ] }, "si": { "country": "Slovenia", "protection": 61, "enforcement": 25, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 25, "enforcement_effective": 39, "gap": 0, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 39, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Constitution Art. 39 guarantees freedom of expression of thought, speech, public appearance, press and other public communication, with no internal limitation clause on the article itself. The general limitation clause (Art. 15) confines restriction of any constitutional right to 'the rights of others and in such cases as are provided by this Constitution' — narrower than a broad 'public order/morals' proviso. Art. 63 separately declares, at constitutional level, that incitement to national, racial, religious or other discrimination, and incitement to violence and war, are unconstitutional — a carve-out embedded in the constitutional text itself rather than left to ordinary statute. Judicially enforceable via constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court (Art. 160).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, Arts. 15, 39, 63, 160", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Slovenia_2013" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 5, "summary": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1) Art. 158 (Razžalitev/insult): fine or up to 3mo imprisonment, up to 6mo if via print/broadcast/website/public gathering; Art. 158(3) exempts insulting expression in scientific, literary, artistic, journalistic, or political/social work, or serious criticism, if the manner shows no intent to demean. A distinct offence, Art. 163, criminalises publicly committing acts against the Republic of Slovenia, or against the President of the Republic in connection with performance of his duties, and defaming the flag/coat of arms/anthem — fine or up to 1yr, and (per Art. 167/168) does not carry the Art. 158(3) defence or private-prosecution-only status of ordinary insult. This is an enhanced, president/state-specific insult offence, though capped at 1yr rather than multi-year.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), Art. 158", "url": "https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1/158-clen-razzalitev" }, { "ref": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), Art. 163", "url": "https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1/163-clen-sramotitev-republike-slovenije" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 6, "summary": "Art. 159 (Obrekovanje/defamation): asserting or spreading something untrue that could harm another's honour or good name, while knowing it is untrue — fine or up to 6mo, up to 1yr if via mass media/public gathering, up to 2yr if it causes 'severe consequences' for the victim. Knowledge of falsity is a definitional element, so truth is inherently a complete defence. Art. 160 (Žaljiva obdolžitev/insulting accusation) is a parallel offence (fine/3mo, up to 6mo public, up to 1yr severe consequences) with an explicit truth/reasonable-belief defence (para 4), subject to stricter proof rules where the accusation concerns an ex-officio crime (para 5). Custodial penalties (up to 2yr) remain available despite the truth defence, keeping this out of the fines-only band.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), Art. 159", "url": "https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1/159-clen-obrekovanje" }, { "ref": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), Art. 160", "url": "https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1/160-clen-zaljiva-obdolzitev" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 8, "summary": "No offence criminalises insulting religious beliefs, doctrine, or objects of worship as such (no equivalent of a Germany §166 or Poland Art. 196 type provision was found in KZ-1). Art. 311 criminalises obstructing/preventing/disturbing a religious rite, or behaving in an offensive/insulting manner at a place designated for religious worship — fine or up to 1yr. This is a narrow, location-bound public-order offence (conduct at a religious site) rather than a content-based blasphemy law reaching published criticism, satire, or media commentary about religion. Scored near the top of the 'live provision' band to reflect that narrowness.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), Art. 311", "url": "https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1/311-clen-oviranje-verskih-obredov" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Art. 297 (Javno spodbujanje sovraštva, nasilja ali nestrpnosti): publicly inciting or fanning hatred, violence or intolerance based on nationality, race, colour, religion, ethnicity, sex, property status, education, social status, political or other belief, disability, sexual orientation, or 'any other personal circumstance' — up to 2yr where the conduct is capable of threatening/disturbing public order and peace, or is carried out through threats, insults or abuse. Equal penalty for spreading ideas of racial superiority, assisting racist activity, or denying/diminishing/approving/justifying/mocking genocide, the Holocaust, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Enhanced penalties apply for media publication (editors liable), for acts involving violence or desecration of symbols (up to 3yr), and where committed by abuse of an official position (up to 5yr). No violence-likelihood nexus is required for the base offence — a 'disturb public order' or bare insult/abuse standard suffices, comparable in structure to Germany's §130.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), Art. 297", "url": "https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1/297-clen-javno-spodbujanje-sovrastva-nasilja-ali-nestrpnosti" }, { "ref": "OSCE hatecrime.osce.org, Slovenia hate crime legislation page (confirms Art. 297 and 2024 Constitutional Court Nazi-symbols ruling, Decision No. U-I-352/20)", "url": "https://hatecrime.osce.org/slovenia" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 7, "summary": "No general sedition, false-news, or foreign-agent-labelling offence identified. Art. 163 (see A2) gives the state/president a narrow, capped-at-1yr insult offence, prosecuted on the injured party's motion rather than automatically. Art. 359 (Ščuvanje k nasilni spremembi ustavne ureditve / incitement to violent change of the constitutional order), in the chapter on offences against sovereignty and the democratic constitutional order (Arts. 348-360), requires an incitement-to-violence element on its face rather than reaching mere political dissent or criticism. No broader anti-state opinion offence was found.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), Art. 163", "url": "https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1/163-clen-sramotitev-republike-slovenije" }, { "ref": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), Chapter 33 (Arts. 348-360) table of contents, incl. Art. 359", "url": "https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 6, "summary": "Mixed regime. Art. 158(3) provides a broad public-interest/opinion defence (scientific, literary, artistic, journalistic, political/social work, serious criticism, rights-defence) for the base insult offence, provided the manner shows no intent to demean — but per Art. 167, this defence attaches only to Arts. 158-162, not to the state/president offence (Art. 163). Art. 168 makes honour/reputation offences (158-162, 166) privately prosecuted (zasebna tožba, injured party initiates) as the default rule, but where the offence targets a state, municipal or regional body, or an official/military person in service, prosecution instead proceeds 'na predlog' (on the injured party's motion, with the state prosecutor then acting) rather than by pure private complaint — an intermediate mechanism, not officials personally directing prosecution at will, but not the ordinary citizen-vs-citizen private-complaint model either.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), Art. 158(3)", "url": "https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1/158-clen-razzalitev" }, { "ref": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), Art. 167-168", "url": "https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1/168-clen-posebne-dolocbe-o-pregonu" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 5, "summary": "As an EU member state, Slovenia is directly bound by the Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065): notice-and-action mechanisms, trusted-flagger priority, statutory handling obligations, and judicial/administrative content-restriction orders with fines for non-compliance. AKOS (Agencija za komunikacijska omrežja in storitve Republike Slovenije) is designated as Slovenia's Digital Services Coordinator, implementing the DSA via national legislation ('Zakon o digitalnih storitvah'). No Slovenia-specific real-name registration or independent administrative online-speech-blocking regime beyond the DSA framework was identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj" }, { "ref": "AKOS, Digital Services Coordinator designation page", "url": "https://www.akos-rs.si/digitalne-storitve" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "blasphemy_law_note": "Confirmed false. No blasphemy/religious-insult offence. Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1) Art. 311 criminalises obstructing/preventing/disturbing a religious rite, or offensive/insulting behaviour at a place designated for religious worship -- a location-bound conduct offence, not a content-based blasphemy law reaching published criticism of religion. KZ-1, Art. 311: https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1/311-clen-oviranje-verskih-obredov", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary criticism of government policy is covered by the Art. 158(3) political/social-criticism defence to the base insult offence. Art. 163 (insult of the Republic/president) is narrower — aimed at the state/head of state, not general government criticism — and no citable case applying it to ordinary policy criticism was found." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), Arts. 158-160", "url": "https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1/158-clen-razzalitev" }, "note": "General insult/defamation offences apply to politicians as to any person; no enhanced 'insult of a politician' provision (distinct from insult of the state/president under Art. 163) was found. No prosecution/conviction statistic or documented case from the last 10 years could be verified in this research pass, so coded dormant rather than enforced." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), Art. 311", "url": "https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1/311-clen-oviranje-verskih-obredov" }, "note": "Art. 311 (offensive conduct at a place of religious worship / obstruction of rites) is live but narrow. No prosecution/conviction statistic or documented case from the last 10 years could be verified in this pass." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No statute specifically criminalises immigration-policy debate. Art. 297 hate-speech provisions apply only where speech targets a protected group (nationality, ethnicity, race etc.) with incitement/insult/abuse, not to policy positions themselves." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'LGBT propaganda' or content-restriction statute exists. Sexual orientation is listed as a protected characteristic under Art. 297 (protecting LGBT people from incitement), not a basis for restricting LGBT-related speech." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), Arts. 159-160 (aggravated tier for mass-media publication)", "url": "https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1/159-clen-obrekovanje" }, "note": "Journalistic work is an explicit defence to the base insult offence (Art. 158(3)), but defamation via mass media (Arts. 159-160) carries an aggravated penalty tier (up to 1yr vs. 6mo/3mo base) that applies directly to published journalism. No citable enforcement statistic specifically against journalists was found in this pass." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal offence for organising or promoting a protest was identified; KZ-1 Art. 145 criminalises preventing/obstructing others' public assembly (the inverse conduct), not organising one. Public-assembly permitting is a separate administrative regime not reviewed in this pass." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), Arts. 159-160", "url": "https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1/159-clen-obrekovanje" }, "note": "The general defamation/insulting-accusation regime is not explicitly confirmed in this pass to extend to legal entities/businesses (as opposed to natural persons); if it does, no enforcement example against a business critic was located, so coded dormant rather than none, pending fuller verification." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), Art. 163", "url": "https://zakonodaja.com/zakon/kz-1/163-clen-sramotitev-republike-slovenije" }, "note": "Slovenia is a republic; head of state is the President. Art. 163 specifically criminalises publicly committing acts against the President in connection with performance of his duties (fine or up to 1yr) and defaming the Republic/its symbols. No prosecution/conviction statistic or documented case from the last 10 years could be verified in this pass, so coded dormant rather than enforced." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name registration or mandatory-ID-for-speech statute was identified for Slovenia. Civil-procedure mechanisms for unmasking anonymous defendants in defamation/insult private-prosecution proceedings likely exist but were not independently verified against a primary source in this pass." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Official portal pisrs.si (Pravno-informacijski sistem Republike Slovenije) is a JavaScript-rendered single-page application that the fetch tool could not extract article text from (only page chrome/header was returned). Article-level KZ-1 citations in this file instead rely on zakonodaja.com, a Slovenian legal-text aggregator whose article pages reproduce the consolidated statutory text with chapter/article numbering; content was cross-checked for internal consistency (chapter ranges, article numbering, cross-references between Arts. 158, 163, 167, 168) across multiple independent fetches in this session.", "Art. 168's prosecution rules for offences against state/municipal bodies and officials were read from a partial excerpt; the treatment of Art. 163 specifically (as opposed to Arts. 158-162 generally) under Art. 168 was not fully confirmed and is described cautiously in A7.", "No Slovenia-specific enforcement statistics (prosecution/conviction counts) for any of Arts. 158-163, 297, or 311 could be located via the sources reachable in this session (WebSearch unavailable; several likely sources such as Ministry of Justice statistical yearbooks were not attempted). All scenario bands involving a live criminal provision are therefore coded 'criminal_dormant' rather than 'criminal_enforced' as a conservative default, per the rubric's citation requirement for the enforced band.", "The exact title/citation of Slovenia's DSA implementing act ('Zakon o digitalnih storitvah') was identified via AKOS's own website but its official gazette number/date could not be independently verified in this pass." ] }, "sk": { "country": "Slovakia", "protection": 60, "enforcement": 38, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 38, "enforcement_effective": 40, "gap": 0, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 40, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Art. 26 guarantees freedom of expression and the right to information, bans press licensing and censorship, and permits restriction by law only where 'unavoidable in a democratic society' to protect the rights/freedoms of others, state security, public order, or public health/morality. The proportionality-style 'unavoidable in a democratic society' test narrows the carve-out, and the Ústavný súd SR (Constitutional Court) is actively engaged on free-expression-adjacent questions, including a pending 2026 case on a new memory-law provision (see a6).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Ústava Slovenskej republiky, čl. 26", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Slovakia_2014" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 9, "summary": "Slovak law has no stand-alone criminal insult offence; verbal insult (urážka) is only a misdemeanour (priestupok) under the Misdemeanour Act (Zákon o priestupkoch 372/1990), punishable by a fine of up to EUR 33 — not a criminal record. The only speech-related criminal offence in this space is defamation (Ohováranie, §373, requiring a false factual claim — see a3). No enhanced criminal-insult offence specific to officials was found; provisions on 'attack on a public official' (§§323-325-range) require violence/threat of violence, not mere insult.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Zákon SNR o priestupkoch č. 372/1990 Zb., §49(1)(a)", "url": "https://www.slov-lex.sk/ezbierky/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/1990/372/" }, { "ref": "Trestný zákon č. 300/2005 Z. z., §373 (contrast)", "url": "https://www.slov-lex.sk/ezbierky/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2005/300/" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 4, "summary": "Ohováranie (§373) criminalises communicating false information capable of significantly damaging another's reputation, harming them in employment/business, or disrupting family relations: up to 2yr base, up to 5yr for substantial damage, and 3-8yr where it causes large-scale damage, job loss, or divorce — among the harshest defamation penalties in the EU (falsity is a definitional element, functioning as an inherent truth defence, but custodial exposure remains severe). The European Commission's 2025 Rule of Law Report found 'no further progress' on reforming defamation law or improving journalist safety in Slovakia. A ruling-party (Smer-SD) pattern of criminal complaints under §373 against named journalists (Michal Havran, Tomáš Hudák, Marián Leško) has been documented. Score is lifted off the floor by a new anti-SLAPP civil-procedure regime (early dismissal of manifestly abusive suits, cost-shifting, security deposits) that entered into force 15 July 2026, transposing EU Directive 2024/1069.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Trestný zákon č. 300/2005 Z. z., §373", "url": "https://www.slov-lex.sk/ezbierky/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2005/300/" }, { "ref": "European Commission, 2025 Rule of Law Report — Slovakia chapter, SWD(2025) 925 final", "url": "https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/44d5d5ba-27d1-4797-b412-83ad2cc4cb57_en?filename=29_1_63964_coun_chap_slovakia_en.pdf" }, { "ref": "Civilný sporový poriadok, anti-SLAPP amendment (in force 15 July 2026)", "url": "https://www.culture.gov.sk/sk/anti-slapp" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 8, "summary": "No blasphemy or religious-insult offence exists; §423 (denigration of nation/race/conviction, incl. religious belief) and §424 (incitement) protect adherents/groups from group-hatred and denigration, not religious doctrine itself from criticism. A 2018 criminal investigation of journalist Michal Havran under §423 over criticism of a priest was ultimately dismissed by the Prosecutor General, evidencing some chilling exposure for religion-adjacent criticism but no conviction.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Trestný zákon č. 300/2005 Z. z., §423", "url": "https://www.slov-lex.sk/ezbierky/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2005/300/" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "§423 criminalises public denigration of a nation, race, ethnic group, or persons for actual/alleged race, nationality, ethnicity, origin, skin colour, political or religious conviction (1-3yr); §424 criminalises incitement to violence/hatred against, or restriction of rights of, such groups (up to 3yr). Neither requires a violence nexus for the base offence, but penalties are moderate and bounded, matching a broad group-denigration regime rather than a narrow incitement-to-violence standard.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Trestný zákon č. 300/2005 Z. z., §423-424", "url": "https://www.slov-lex.sk/ezbierky/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2005/300/" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 3, "summary": "§361 criminalises spreading a false alarming report causing serious public concern (up to 2yr; 6mo-3yr during a declared crisis situation) — a live false-news-type offence. More significantly, §417f — inserted by Law 416/2025 with effect from 27 Dec 2025 — criminalises publicly 'denying or questioning the peaceful post-WWII settlement of conditions' established by Czechoslovak/Slovak National Council legal acts (up to 6mo), targeting Beneš-decree-era historical/political debate. 51 MPs challenged the provision at the Constitutional Court; in its Jan 2026 resolution (PL. ÚS 2/2026-28) the Court itself found the wording shows an 'extrémny deficit normatívnej určitosti' (extreme deficit of normative certainty) as to what constitutes the prohibited 'settlement' — yet declined to suspend this specific provision's effect pending full merits review, so it remains in force. This is a textbook vague memory-law offence usable against historical/political opinion.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Trestný zákon č. 300/2005 Z. z., §361", "url": "https://www.slov-lex.sk/ezbierky/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2005/300/" }, { "ref": "Zákon č. 416/2025 Z. z., čl. I bod 5 (§417f)", "url": "https://www.pravnelisty.sk/zakony/a1668-uplne-znenie-zakona-ktorym-sa-meni-trestny-zakon-a-trestny-poriadok" }, { "ref": "Ústavný súd SR, Uznesenie PL. ÚS 2/2026-28", "url": "https://www.ustavnysud.sk/docDownload/7e5ade4c-7982-4336-89d5-a8efed6474cf" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 5, "summary": "A new anti-SLAPP civil-procedure regime (early dismissal of manifestly abusive claims, cost-shifting, security-deposit orders) entered into force 15 July 2026, transposing EU Directive 2024/1069 — a genuine, very recent procedural improvement. Set against that: §373 carries severe custodial exposure (up to 8yr) with no confirmed reform per the EU's 2025 Rule of Law Report; §417f (a6) is a broad, state-initiated (not private-complaint) offence that the Constitutional Court itself called insufficiently determinate, yet it remains prosecutable while under review. Could not verify whether §373 prosecution requires a private motion/complaint or proceeds ex officio — left as a gap rather than assumed.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Civilný sporový poriadok, anti-SLAPP amendment (in force 15 July 2026)", "url": "https://www.culture.gov.sk/sk/anti-slapp" }, { "ref": "Ústavný súd SR, Uznesenie PL. ÚS 2/2026-28", "url": "https://www.ustavnysud.sk/docDownload/7e5ade4c-7982-4336-89d5-a8efed6474cf" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 6, "summary": "EU Digital Services Act applies directly; an amendment effective 24 July 2024 designated the Rada pre mediálne služby (Board for Media Services, RpMS) as Slovakia's Digital Services Coordinator, responsible for intermediary-provider oversight, trusted-flagger status, and user-complaint handling under the DSA. Statutory notice-and-action/administrative framework rather than judicial-order-only blocking; no real-name/ID mandate for end users identified. Media governance reforms (abolition of the former public broadcaster and creation of a new entity) have separately raised public-service-media independence concerns per the EU's 2025 Rule of Law Report, though that is an institutional-independence issue rather than a direct speech restriction.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Rada pre mediálne služby — DSA coordinator designation", "url": "https://rpms.sk/rada-pre-medialne-sluzby-dsa" }, { "ref": "Digital Services Act, Art. 8", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022R2065" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "blasphemy_law_note": "Confirmed false. No blasphemy/religious-insult offence. Trestny zakon c. 300/2005 Z.z. s.423 (denigration of nation/race/conviction, incl. religious belief) and s.424 (incitement) protect adherents/groups from group-hatred and denigration, not religious doctrine itself from criticism (a 2018 investigation of journalist Michal Havran under s.423 over criticism of a priest was dismissed by the Prosecutor General). Trestny zakon c. 300/2005 Z.z., s.423: https://www.slov-lex.sk/ezbierky/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2005/300/", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary criticism of government/policy is protected opinion under Art. 26; no general anti-state-opinion offence reaches mere criticism." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal insult offence exists (see a2); pure insult of a politician is at most a EUR 33 misdemeanour or a civil matter. Only false factual claims could trigger criminal defamation (§373, see a3/journalism)." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Trestný zákon, §423", "url": "https://www.slov-lex.sk/ezbierky/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2005/300/" }, "note": "Journalist Michal Havran was investigated under §423 in 2018 over criticism of a priest; the Prosecutor General dismissed the case. No conviction within the last 10 years was found, so coded dormant rather than enforced." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary immigration-policy debate is protected opinion; exposure would only arise from incitement to hatred/discrimination against an ethnic/national group (§424, see a5)." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech was identified in Slovak law." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Trestný zákon, §373", "url": "https://www.slov-lex.sk/ezbierky/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2005/300/" }, "note": "Criminal defamation complaints under §373 were filed by the ruling Smer-SD party against journalists/commentators Michal Havran, Tomáš Hudák, and Marián Leško. https://memo98.sk/sk/clanok/odstranme-ohovaranie-z-trestneho-zakona The EU's 2025 Rule of Law Report separately records no progress on journalist-safety/defamation-law reform." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No speech-specific criminal restriction on organizing a protest was identified in this pass." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Trestný zákon, §373", "url": "https://www.slov-lex.sk/ezbierky/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2005/300/" }, "note": "§373 explicitly covers false claims harming a person 'in employment or business'; no business-criticism-specific prosecution example within the last 10 years was verified, and the July 2026 anti-SLAPP civil reform now provides a countervailing procedural defence." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Slovakia is a republic; no lèse-majesté or dedicated presidential-insult offence exists. A 2023-24 legislative proposal to criminalise defaming state symbols (up to 3yr) was rejected by Parliament and did not become law." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name or mandatory-ID requirement for social media users was identified." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "§417f (memory-law offence on the post-WWII 'settlement of conditions') is very new (in force 27 Dec 2025) and its constitutionality is still pending full merits review before the Ústavný súd SR (PL. ÚS 2/2026, accepted for proceedings; provision itself not suspended). Re-check outcome at next verification — a merits ruling striking it down would raise a6 materially.", "Anti-SLAPP civil-procedure protections entered into force only 15 July 2026, eight days before this pass; no case law applying them yet exists. Re-verify real-world effect at next update.", "Could not verify whether §373 (ohováranie) prosecution proceeds ex officio or requires a private complaint/motion — left unresolved rather than assumed for a7.", "A December 2023-2024 reform reducing corruption-offence penalties and abolishing the Special Prosecutor's Office (upheld in part by the Constitutional Court, 3 July 2024) was politically controversial but is a criminal-justice/anti-corruption matter, not scored here as it does not bear directly on any a1-a8 component." ] }, "th": { "country": "Thailand", "protection": 20, "enforcement": 85, "enforcement_volume": 1, "enforcement_severity": 85, "enforcement_effective": 85, "gap": 5, "tier": "repressive", "risk": 83, "confidence": "C", "components": { "a1": { "score": 5, "summary": "Constitution (2017) s.34 guarantees expression but permits restriction by law for state security, rights of others, public order, or good morals; s.44 similarly qualifies assembly. Broad carve-out language, courts do not apply strict scrutiny.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (2017) s.34, s.44", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Thailand_2017" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 0, "summary": "Criminal Code s.112 (lese-majeste): defaming, insulting, or threatening the King, Queen, Heir-apparent, or Regent, 3-15 years per count. Actively enforced at scale; TLHR documents 291 individuals charged in 321 cases since Nov 2020, 83% conviction rate reported in UPR submissions. Record sentence: Mongkol Thirakot, Chiang Rai Provincial Court, Jan 2024, 50 years (multiple counts, reduced on guilty plea).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Thai Criminal Code s.112", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/thailand" }, { "ref": "TLHR case statistics (updated May 2026)", "url": "https://tlhr2014.com/en/archives/84078" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 3, "summary": "Criminal Code s.326-333: criminal defamation, fines and/or imprisonment. Truth is not a complete defence (only a limited public-interest exception under s.330). Routinely used by both officials and private businesses against critics/labor activists (SLAPP pattern), in addition to Computer Crime Act s.14 charges for online statements.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Thai Criminal Code s.326", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/thailand" } ] }, "a4": null, "a5": { "score": 2, "summary": "No dedicated general hate-speech statute; broad exposure comes from Computer Crime Act s.14(2), criminalizing entry of 'false data...likely to cause damage to national security or stir public agitation' (up to 5 yrs, fine up to THB 100,000). Vague standard usable against ordinary political opinion, not limited to violence-inciting speech.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Computer-Related Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007, amended 2017) s.14(2)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/thailand" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 1, "summary": "Criminal Code s.116 (sedition-type offence against the state) referenced in enforcement toolkit alongside Computer Crime Act s.14(2) and the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations B.E. 2548 (2005), which enables broad 'urgent measures' restricting speech/assembly during declared emergencies (used repeatedly against 2020-21 protest movement).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situations B.E. 2548 (2005); Criminal Code s.116", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/thailand" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 1, "summary": "Lese-majeste complaints can be filed by any member of the public (not only the Royal Household Bureau/state), driving a large share of s.112 cases; TLHR reports at least 169 of its documented cases originated from private citizen complaints. Bail/pre-trial release is frequently denied in s.112 and related computer-crime cases. No public-interest or opinion defence in s.112; limited defences in ordinary defamation.", "citations": [ { "ref": "TLHR case statistics (updated May 2026)", "url": "https://tlhr2014.com/en/archives/84078" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 2, "summary": "Computer Crime Act empowers the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to seek court orders blocking content; ICNL reporting also describes a fast administrative takedown requirement (~24 hours) for content deemed unlawful. Mandatory SIM-card registration tied to national ID underlies real-identity exposure for online speech.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Computer-Related Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007, amended 2017)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/thailand" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": true, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code s.112; Computer-Related Crime Act s.14(2)", "url": "https://tlhr2014.com/en/archives/84078" }, "note": "TLHR documents 291 individuals charged in 321 s.112 cases since Nov 2020, plus 222 individuals in 243 Computer Crime Act cases, largely political-speech related; record sentence 50 years (Mongkol Thirakot, Jan 2024). https://tlhr2014.com/en/archives/84078" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code s.326-333 (defamation); Computer-Related Crime Act s.14", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/thailand" }, "note": "No standalone 'insulting officials' offence beyond lese-majeste (limited to monarchy), but ordinary criminal defamation and CCA s.14 are used against critics of officials; TLHR's broader computer-crime caseload (222 individuals/243 cases) includes such charges. https://tlhr2014.com/en/archives/84078" }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Thailand is understood to have a religious-insult provision (Criminal Code s.206) but its exact text/penalty could not be confirmed against a citable source this session; coded conservatively rather than guessed." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No provision specifically targeting immigration-related speech identified." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT speech; Thailand enacted marriage equality in 2024." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code s.112, s.326; Computer-Related Crime Act s.14", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/thailand" }, "note": "Journalists and outlets (e.g. Voice TV, Prachatai reporters) have faced s.112 and CCA charges tied to coverage of protests and the monarchy; falls within TLHR's broader documented caseload. https://tlhr2014.com/en/archives/84078" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Public Assembly Act B.E. 2558 (2015) s.10, s.16(8); Emergency Decree B.E. 2548 (2005)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/thailand" }, "note": "TLHR documents at least 1,997 individuals charged in 1,346 cases arising from assemblies/political expression since July 2020, many combined with s.112/CCA charges against organizers. https://tlhr2014.com/en/archives/84078" }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code s.326-333 (criminal defamation)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/thailand" }, "note": "Criminal defamation is available to private companies against critics (widely reported SLAPP pattern involving corporate plaintiffs against labor/human-rights defenders), but a specific enforcement statistic/case could not be independently verified via a citable source this session." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code s.112", "url": "https://tlhr2014.com/en/archives/84078" }, "note": "291 individuals charged in 321 cases since Nov 2020 (TLHR, updated May 2026); 83% reported conviction rate; record 50-year sentence (Mongkol Thirakot, Chiang Rai Provincial Court, Jan 2024); recent multi-year sentences continuing into 2026 (e.g. Arnon Nampa/Pimsiri Petchnamrob, ~2y8m, Feb 2026). https://tlhr2014.com/en/archives/84078" }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Computer-Related Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007, amended 2017)", "url": "https://www.icnl.org/resources/civic-freedom-monitor/thailand" }, "note": "Mandatory SIM-card registration to national ID and CCA investigative powers create de facto unmasking exposure for online speech; exact investigative-order section not independently verified this session." } }, "signals": { "b2": { "value": 0.09, "raw": 63, "year": 2024, "metric": "Individuals newly charged under s.112 (lèse-majesté), TLHR running tally (284 individuals / 317 cases Nov 2020–Aug 2025, annualised)", "source": "Thai Lawyers for Human Rights", "url": "https://tlhr2014.com/en/" } }, "known_gaps": [ "A4 (blasphemy/religious offence) coded null: Criminal Code s.206 is understood to criminalize religious insult but could not be confirmed against a citable source this session.", "Primary source access was constrained this session (Thai government krisdika.go.th portal unreachable, several NGO/news domains blocked automated fetch); statute citations rely on ICNL's Civic Freedom Monitor (Thailand) and TLHR's published case database as the best available fetchable secondary sources corroborating well-documented statute numbers and penalties.", "criticize-business scenario likely understates enforcement (Thammakaset Co. Ltd SLAPP litigation against labor defenders is widely reported by ILO/business-human-rights sources) but a specific citable case URL could not be retrieved this session.", "Low per-capita volume but extreme severity: sentences up to 50 years documented (Mongkol Thirakot, Jan 2024). Severity is captured in axis A / scenario bands, not volume.", "Components not verifiable: a4" ] }, "tr": { "country": "Turkey", "protection": 27, "enforcement": 85, "enforcement_volume": 41, "enforcement_severity": 85, "enforcement_effective": 85, "gap": 12, "tier": "restricted", "risk": 80, "confidence": "B", "components": { "a1": { "score": 4, "summary": "Constitution Art. 26 guarantees expression but Art. 26(2) permits restriction on broad grounds (national security, public order, 'basic characteristics of the Republic'); judicial protection weak in practice.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of Turkey (1982, rev. 2017), Art. 26", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Turkey_2017" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 1, "summary": "Art. 299 TCK — insulting the President: 1–4 yrs, +1/6 if committed publicly; prosecution requires Justice Ministry permission, granted at scale. Art. 125(3)(a) aggravates insult of public officials.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Türk Ceza Kanunu (Law 5237), Art. 299; Art. 125", "url": "https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5237.pdf" }, { "ref": "128,872 investigations / 27,717 cases opened under Art. 299, 2014–2019 (Ministry of Justice data)", "url": "https://stockholmcf.org/128872-people-have-faced-criminal-investigation-for-insulting-president-erdogan-in-five-years/" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 3, "summary": "Art. 125 TCK hakaret — criminal insult/defamation, 3 months–2 yrs or judicial fine; aggravated against public officials on account of their duty; truth defence available for factual claims (Art. 127) but not for value judgments.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Türk Ceza Kanunu (Law 5237), Arts. 125–131", "url": "https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5237.pdf" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 5, "summary": "Art. 216(3) TCK — publicly degrading the religious values of a section of the public, up to 1 yr where the act is capable of disturbing public peace. No capital or long custodial exposure.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Türk Ceza Kanunu (Law 5237), Art. 216(3)", "url": "https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5237.pdf" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 4, "summary": "Art. 216(1) TCK — inciting hatred/hostility between groups, 1–3 yrs; statutory 'clear and imminent danger to public safety' requirement, applied inconsistently.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Türk Ceza Kanunu (Law 5237), Art. 216(1)", "url": "https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5237.pdf" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 1, "summary": "Art. 301 TCK — publicly denigrating the Turkish Nation/State institutions, up to 2 yrs (Ministry permission required). Art. 217/A (added by 2022 'disinformation law') — publicly disseminating false information, 1–3 yrs. Both actively used against political speech.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Türk Ceza Kanunu (Law 5237), Art. 301; Art. 217/A (Law 7418/2022)", "url": "https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5237.pdf" }, { "ref": "HRW on Arts. 299/301 prosecutions (continuing per May 2025 reporting)", "url": "https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/17/turkey-end-prosecutions-insulting-president" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 2, "summary": "Ministry-permission gate for Arts. 299/301 functions as a political filter, not a protection; pre-trial detention for speech offences common (documented in Art. 299 caseload); no anti-SLAPP statute; officials freely initiate criminal complaints.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Türk Ceza Kanunu (Law 5237), Art. 299(3), Art. 301(4)", "url": "https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5237.pdf" }, { "ref": "2023: 6,879 appeared in court under Arts. 299/301; 18,856 new investigations (MoJ judicial statistics)", "url": "https://stockholmcf.org/128872-people-have-faced-criminal-investigation-for-insulting-president-erdogan-in-five-years/" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 2, "summary": "Internet Law 5651 — administrative blocking powers (BTK), content-removal orders; 2020 social-media amendments force local representatives and data localisation on large platforms with throttling sanctions; 2022 law adds criminal exposure for 'disinformation'.", "citations": [ { "ref": "İnternet Ortamında Yapılan Yayınların Düzenlenmesi Hakkında Kanun (Law 5651)", "url": "https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5651.pdf" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "TCK Art. 301; Art. 217/A", "url": "https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5237.pdf" }, "note": "2023 alone: 18,856 new investigations under Arts. 299/301 (Ministry of Justice judicial statistics via SCF/HRW). https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/17/turkey-end-prosecutions-insulting-president" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "TCK Art. 299 (President); Art. 125(3)(a) (officials)", "url": "https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5237.pdf" }, "note": "128,872 investigations, 27,717 cases, thousands of convictions 2014–2019 under Art. 299; 1–4 yr penalty range. https://stockholmcf.org/128872-people-have-faced-criminal-investigation-for-insulting-president-erdogan-in-five-years/" }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "TCK Art. 216(3)", "url": "https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5237.pdf" }, "note": "Provision live (≤1 yr); prosecutions occur but no systematic recent conviction series verified in this pass." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No provision specific to immigration-policy speech verified." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal ban on LGBT expression located in the TCK; pressure operates administratively (assembly bans, RTÜK broadcast sanctions) — outside criminal-speech scope, noted for completeness." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "TCK Arts. 299/301, Art. 217/A; Anti-Terror Law 3713 (charges commonly used against journalists)", "url": "https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5237.pdf" }, "note": "Journalist prosecutions under TCK/3713 extensively documented; the Art. 299/301 caseload includes press defendants (HRW, SCF). https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/17/turkey-end-prosecutions-insulting-president" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "TCK Art. 216; Law 2911 (Meetings and Demonstrations)", "url": "https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5237.pdf" }, "note": "Osman Kavala: aggravated life sentence 2022 over Gezi protest organisation; ECtHR Kavala v. Turkey (App. 28749/18) found an Art. 18 violation. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-199515" }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "TCK Art. 125 (insult, private complaint)", "url": "https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5237.pdf" }, "note": "Criminal insult usable by private complainants incl. businesses; no systematic enforcement series verified for this scenario." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "TCK Art. 299", "url": "https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5237.pdf" }, "note": "Head-of-state insult is the highest-volume documented speech-enforcement statistic globally: 128,872 investigations 2014–2019. https://stockholmcf.org/128872-people-have-faced-criminal-investigation-for-insulting-president-erdogan-in-five-years/" }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Law 5651 (unmasking/blocking); 2020 social-media amendments", "url": "https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5651.pdf" }, "note": "Platform-representative and data-localisation mandates enable identification demands; anonymous accounts prosecuted when identified (Art. 299 caseload includes social-media posts)." } }, "signals": { "b1": { "value": 4.3, "raw": 3665, "year": 2020, "metric": "Convictions, Art. 299 TCK (insulting the President)", "source": "Ministry of Justice statistics via Stockholm Center for Freedom / HRW", "url": "https://stockholmcf.org/128872-people-have-faced-criminal-investigation-for-insulting-president-erdogan-in-five-years/" }, "b2": { "value": 22.1, "raw": 18856, "year": 2023, "metric": "New investigations opened, Art. 299 + Art. 301 TCK", "source": "Ministry of Justice judicial statistics (via HRW reporting)", "url": "https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/17/turkey-end-prosecutions-insulting-president" } }, "known_gaps": [ "Coded from official consolidated texts on mevzuat.gov.tr (Turkish); no official English translation of the TCK exists — component summaries paraphrase the Turkish text.", "Enforcement volumes are Ministry of Justice judicial statistics as compiled by Stockholm Center for Freedom and Human Rights Watch; Turkey publishes them in annual Adli İstatistikler (not machine-readable).", "Editorial note: file authored in main-session pass 2026-07-22 after two agent passes failed URL verification; citations verified against session research.", "2014–2019 cumulative: 128,872 investigations, 27,717 cases opened under Art. 299 — the highest-volume documented speech-enforcement statistic globally." ] }, "tw": { "country": "Taiwan", "protection": 58, "enforcement": 52, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 52, "enforcement_effective": 52, "gap": 10, "tier": "constrained", "risk": 48, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 7, "summary": "Constitution Art. 11 guarantees freedom of speech, teaching, writing and publication; Art. 23 permits restriction by law only to prevent infringement of others' freedoms, avert imminent danger, maintain social order, or advance public welfare — a moderate, somewhat broad ('social order'/'public welfare') carve-out narrowed in practice by an active Constitutional Court (Judicial Yuan/TCC). J.Y. Interpretation No. 644 (2008) struck down a ban on advocating communism or territorial secession as unconstitutional prior restraint on political association/expression.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of the Republic of China, Art. 11, 23", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=A0000001" }, { "ref": "J.Y. Interpretation No. 644 (2008)", "url": "https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=310690" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 5, "summary": "Art. 309 criminalises public insult (short-term imprisonment or a fine up to NT$9,000, increased to up to 1yr/NT$15,000 if by violence); the Constitutional Court upheld its constitutionality in TCC Judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-4 (2024) but required courts to weigh, case by case, whether the speech 'exceeded what a general person could reasonably tolerate' against its expressive value. Separately, Art. 140 creates an enhanced offence specific to public officials: insulting a public official during (or regarding) the discharge of legal duties carries up to 1yr imprisonment or a fine of up to NT$100,000 — ten times the base insult fine.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of the ROC, Art. 309", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0000001" }, { "ref": "Criminal Code of the ROC, Art. 140", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0000001" }, { "ref": "TCC Judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-4 (2024)", "url": "https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=5535&id=356061" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 4, "summary": "Art. 310 criminalises defamation (pointing out/disseminating a fact injuring another's reputation): up to 1yr/short-term imprisonment/fine for oral defamation, up to 2yr/NT$30,000 if via circulated writing. Art. 310(3) makes truth a defence, EXCEPT for matters of private morality unrelated to the public interest — truth is not a complete defence. TCC Judgment 112-Hsien-Pan-8 (2023) upheld the offence's constitutionality but read in an actual-malice-style rule for public-interest speech: a false public-interest statement is not punishable if the speaker had objectively reasonable grounds (a genuine fact-checking effort) to believe it true, with the prosecution bearing the burden of proving actual malice.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of the ROC, Art. 310", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0000001" }, { "ref": "TCC Judgment 112-Hsien-Pan-8 (2023)", "url": "https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=5506&id=349342" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 6, "summary": "Art. 246 criminalises publicly insulting a shrine, temple, church, grave, or public memorial place (up to 6mo/short-term imprisonment/fine up to NT$9,000). This is a live, moderate-penalty venue/object-desecration offence rather than a pure verbal-blasphemy-of-belief provision, and no dedicated offence for insulting religious doctrine itself was found.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of the ROC, Art. 246", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0000001" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 8, "summary": "No comprehensive hate-speech or group-denigration/incitement-to-discrimination offence exists in Taiwan's Criminal Code; UN treaty-body reviews under Taiwan's voluntarily-adopted ICCPR/ICERD reporting process have specifically recommended Taiwan legislate to prohibit advocacy of hatred and incitement to discrimination, indicating no such law is currently on the books. The general incitement provision (Art. 153: publicly inciting another to commit an offence or to disobey a law/lawful order, up to 2yr/NT$30,000) is offence-neutral, not group-characteristic-based.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of the ROC, Art. 153", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0000001" }, { "ref": "National Human Rights Commission (Taiwan), call for hate-speech legislation", "url": "https://nhrc.cy.gov.tw/en-US/News_Content.aspx?n=9897&s=7320" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 4, "summary": "Art. 100 criminalises insurrection by violence/threats to destroy the State's organisation, seize territory, or unlawfully change the Constitution/overthrow the Government (7yr-life) — a violence-nexus sedition offence narrowed since the 1992 reform and J.Y. Interpretation 644 (2008, striking advocacy-based bans). The Anti-Infiltration Act (2020) criminalises political donations, lobbying, or campaign activity conducted on the instruction/financing of an undefined 'infiltration source' (min. fine NT$166,666, up to 3yr) — criticised for an undefined 'infiltration' standard giving authorities broad interpretive latitude. The Disaster Prevention and Protection Act separately criminalises disseminating false disaster information causing serious harm with up to 10yr imprisonment, and the Communicable Disease Control Act fines false pandemic-related media reports up to NT$1,000,000. The administrative Social Order Maintenance Act Art. 63 (fine-only 'spreading rumours' offence) saw a documented 28-fold increase in prosecutions 2016-2020, though courts ruled against the government in most of those cases.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of the ROC, Art. 100", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0000001" }, { "ref": "Anti-Infiltration Act", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=A0030317" }, { "ref": "Social Order Maintenance Act, Art. 63 enforcement pattern", "url": "https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/10/taiwan-election-tsai-disinformation-china-war-fake-news-hitting-wrong-targets/" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 5, "summary": "Art. 311 provides real defences: self-defence/justification/protection of legal interest, official reports, 'fair comment on a fact subject to public criticism', and fair reporting of assembly/court proceedings. But insult and defamation (Arts. 309-312) are 'complaint offences' under Art. 314 — prosecutable only upon the victim's complaint — and Taiwan's Code of Criminal Procedure additionally allows the victim to bypass the public prosecutor entirely via self-prosecution (自訴), filing directly with the court. This lets any complainant, including a public official under Art. 140, personally initiate a criminal case over being insulted or criticised. A reform coalition of 180 prosecutors has publicly urged the Legislative Yuan to decriminalise libel/insult or at least restrict this private-prosecution route, arguing it diverts prosecutorial resources into personal disputes.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Code of the ROC, Art. 311, 314", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0000001" }, { "ref": "Taipei Times: 180 prosecutors urge libel decriminalisation (2022)", "url": "https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2022/01/26/2003772076" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 8, "summary": "Taiwan has no EU-DSA-equivalent or NetzDG-style statutory takedown regime and no real-name/ID mandate for social-media users. The NCC's draft Digital Intermediary Services Act (released 29 June 2022) — which would have imposed platform-accountability and content-moderation duties — was withdrawn by the Executive Yuan within about two months after a public backlash (30,000+ negative votes on the government's Online Participation Platform vs. under 150 in favour) and, per the NCC, remains permanently shelved with no plan to revisit it. Narrower sector-specific takedown/penalty powers exist (e.g., under the Communicable Disease Control Act for health misinformation, see a6), but no general intermediary-liability statute is in force.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Taipei Times: NCC halts drafting of controversial online legislation (2022)", "url": "https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2022/09/08/2003784968" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "blasphemy_law_note": "Confirmed false. No blasphemy/religious-insult offence. Criminal Code of the ROC Art. 246 (Ch. 18, 'Offenses Against Religion, Graves, and Corpses') criminalises publicly insulting a shrine/temple/church/grave/memorial place, or interfering with a funeral/religious service -- a place/conduct-based offence, not a provision reaching insult of religious doctrine or a deity as such. Criminal Code of the ROC, Art. 246: https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0000001", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary criticism of government/policy, including advocacy of unification or independence, is protected political speech; J.Y. Interpretation No. 644 (2008) struck down advocacy-based restrictions on political viewpoints." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code of the ROC, Art. 310", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0000001" }, "note": "In July 2023, a presidential-campaign chief for an opposition party filed a criminal libel complaint against a TV station president and two reporters over election-related reporting — illustrating that political figures actively use Art. 310 against critics/journalists. TCC Judgment 112-Hsien-Pan-8 (2023) arose from eight separate defamation convictions under review, confirming the offence is actively prosecuted, not dormant." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code of the ROC, Art. 246", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0000001" }, "note": "Art. 246 remains in force; no prosecution/conviction statistic or documented case from the last 10 years was verified in this pass." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No immigration-speech-specific offence identified; ordinary policy debate is protected." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Taiwan legalised same-sex marriage in 2019; no 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech or content was identified." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code of the ROC, Art. 310", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0000001" }, "note": "The July 2023 criminal libel complaint against a TV station president and reporters (see insult-politician) directly targeted journalists over election coverage. A reform push by 180 prosecutors (2022) to decriminalise libel specifically cited its burden on journalism and public-interest reporting. https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2022/01/26/2003772076" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No speech-specific criminal restriction on organizing a protest was identified; assembly permitting under the Assembly and Parade Act is a conduct/logistics regime outside this speech-focused scenario." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code of the ROC, Art. 310", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0000001" }, "note": "Negative consumer/business reviews have historically been prosecuted as criminal defamation in Taiwan (e.g., a widely-reported 2011 restaurant-review conviction), but no case within the last 10 years was verified, so coded dormant rather than enforced." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal Code of the ROC, Art. 140", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=C0000001" }, "note": "Taiwan is a republic with no lèse-majesté offence; the President is covered only by the general enhanced public-official insult provision (Art. 140) applicable to any official. No president-specific prosecution was verified within the last 10 years." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name or mandatory-ID requirement for social media users was identified; the withdrawn 2022 Digital Intermediary Services Act draft did not survive to enact any such requirement." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Could not verify current in-force status/text of a distinct 'contempt of a public officer' provision separate from Art. 140 that some secondary sources describe as repealed in 2022 — Art. 140 (insult of a public official during duty) was confirmed as currently in force via the official Ministry of Justice database; any narrower related repeal was not independently verified and is not relied upon.", "No hard enforcement statistics (annual prosecution/conviction counts) for Arts. 140, 309, or 310 could be located; scenario coding relies on the identified 2023 case and the TCC's own reference to eight concurrent 2023 defamation convictions rather than aggregate statistics.", "Anti-Infiltration Act enforcement data (number of charges/convictions since 2020) was not verified in this pass — noted as a gap given its relevance to a6." ] }, "us": { "country": "United States", "protection": 92, "enforcement": 7, "enforcement_volume": 0, "enforcement_severity": 7, "enforcement_effective": 7, "gap": -1, "tier": "open", "risk": 7, "confidence": "A", "components": { "a1": { "score": 10, "summary": "First Amendment entrenched guarantee, judicially enforceable by an independent federal judiciary; narrow, court-defined carve-outs (incitement, true threats, obscenity, defamation) rather than broad statutory exceptions.", "citations": [ { "ref": "U.S. Const. amend. I", "url": "https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript" }, { "ref": "Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)", "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 10, "summary": "No federal criminal insult, lese-majeste, or official-dignity offence; criticism or insult of officials, including the President, is protected political speech and cannot be the basis of a criminal charge merely for being insulting.", "citations": [ { "ref": "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)", "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/376/254" }, { "ref": "Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)", "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/394/705" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 5, "summary": "Defamation is a civil matter in the large majority of states, but roughly 13-15 states/territories retain criminal libel statutes carrying custodial penalties (jail terms up to ~1 year in some states), not fines-only; falsity is a statutory element (functioning like a truth defence) but incarceration remains available and has been used.", "citations": [ { "ref": "N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 644:11 (criminal defamation)", "url": "https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-1st-circuit/1989646.html" }, { "ref": "Frese v. Formella, 53 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2022), cert. denied", "url": "https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-1st-circuit/1989646.html" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 10, "summary": "No enforceable blasphemy or religious-insult offence; Supreme Court has foreclosed government suppression of speech on grounds of sacrilege/blasphemy. No prosecution under any residual state-law language in over 70 years.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)", "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/343/495" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 10, "summary": "Advocacy of even illegal action is protected unless directed to inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce it (Brandenburg standard) — the most speech-protective incitement test among the countries in this dataset. True-threat prosecutions additionally require a subjective (recklessness) mens rea, not mere objective offensiveness.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)", "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444" }, { "ref": "Counterman v. Colorado, No. 22-138, 600 U.S. 66 (2023)", "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22-138" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 10, "summary": "No enforced sedition, false-news, or anti-state speech offence; the Smith Act's advocacy provisions have not survived Brandenburg-era scrutiny and prior-restraint attempts on national-security grounds have failed at the Supreme Court.", "citations": [ { "ref": "New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)", "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/713" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 8, "summary": "Actual-malice standard for public-official/figure defamation, robust opinion and public-interest defences, no pre-trial detention regime for speech offences, and anti-SLAPP statutes in roughly 32 states protect against abusive litigation. Scored below 10 because there is no federal anti-SLAPP statute, so protection is uneven across the ~18 states without one, and a minority of states still permit private criminal-libel complaints (Frese v. Formella).", "citations": [ { "ref": "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)", "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/376/254" }, { "ref": "Frese v. Formella, 53 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2022)", "url": "https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-1st-circuit/1989646.html" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 10, "summary": "No statutory takedown mandates, no real-name/ID requirements, and no administrative blocking powers over online speech; Section 230 immunizes platforms for third-party content and does not compel removal.", "citations": [ { "ref": "47 U.S.C. § 230", "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": false, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Core protected political speech; Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) and NYT Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) foreclose criminal or civil liability for criticizing the government as such." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "No criminal exposure: insult of politicians is protected speech (First Amendment; NYT v. Sullivan actual-malice standard governs civil defamation by public officials, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/). Vestigial state criminal-libel statutes exist (~13-15 states) with rare prosecutions for false factual claims, not insult (Frese v. Formella, NH) — noted under a3/known gaps, not an insult offence." }, "religion": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No enforceable blasphemy offence; Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952). Known gap: could not verify whether any state retains uncodified/unrepealed blasphemy statute text still on the books in unenforced form; treated as none given 70+ years without prosecution." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Protected political speech; no anti-state or false-news offence reaches immigration debate." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No federal or state 'propaganda' law criminalizing LGBT-related speech for individuals generally. Known gap: several states restrict LGBT-related curriculum/instructional speech in K-12 public schools (e.g., Florida's Parental Rights in Education Act); this is a narrower institutional-speech restriction, not general criminalization of expression, and was not separately scored." }, "journalism": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No federal shield law exists (known gap), but no criminal offence attaches to journalism as such; prior restraint on publication has failed at the Supreme Court, N.Y. Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Organizing peaceful protest is protected assembly/speech. Content-neutral time/place/manner and unlawful-assembly/riot statutes exist for conduct (not covered by this speech-focused scenario)." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": null, "note": "Common-law/state defamation and business-disparagement torts provide civil exposure only; truth is a complete defence and anti-SLAPP statutes (~32 states) provide early dismissal and fee-shifting against meritless suits. No federal anti-SLAPP statute (known gap)." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No monarch; head of state is the President. Insulting/criticizing the President is protected political speech even when hyperbolic; only genuine threats are criminalized separately under 18 U.S.C. § 871, per Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No federal real-name mandate; anonymous political speech/pamphleteering is constitutionally protected. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)." } }, "signals": { "b1": { "value": 0, "raw": 0, "year": 2024, "metric": "Criminal convictions for protected speech — barred by First Amendment doctrine (Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969; Counterman v. Colorado 2023)", "source": "US Supreme Court doctrine", "url": "https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/600/66/" } }, "known_gaps": [ "Count of states retaining criminal libel statutes is disputed across sources (commonly cited as 13-15 states/territories); exact current list not independently re-verified state-by-state for this dataset.", "No federal anti-SLAPP statute exists; protection depends on state of filing.", "No federal shield law for journalists; protections vary by state and are not scored here as this dataset scores national/federal de jure law with state-level exceptions noted.", "Editorial correction 2026-07-22: insult-politician band changed criminal_enforced→civil. Original coding over-read surviving state criminal-libel statutes; those target false factual assertions, not insult of politicians, and are near-never enforced against political speech (Brandenburg/Sullivan/Counterman doctrine).", "Criminal libel survives on paper in ~13–15 states with rare prosecutions (Frese v. Formella, NH). True-threats/incitement prosecutions exist but require unprotected speech categories." ] }, "uy": { "country": "Uruguay", "protection": 61, "enforcement": 25, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 25, "enforcement_effective": 39, "gap": 0, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 39, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 8, "summary": "Constitución art. 29: expression of thought by word, private writing, press, or any other means of dissemination is 'entirely free', with no prior censorship ('sin necesidad de previa censura'). The author/printer/broadcaster remains liable 'in accordance with law' for abuses committed — a post-publication liability clause defined by ordinary statute, rather than a textual 'public order'/'national values' carve-out. Enforceable through an independent Poder Judicial (inter-partes constitutional review via acción de inconstitucionalidad before the Suprema Corte de Justicia).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitución de la República Oriental del Uruguay, art. 29", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/constitucion/1967-1967/29" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 5, "summary": "General 'desacato' (Código Penal art. 173) was rewritten by Ley 18.515 (2009) to cover only real/physical offenses against an official or open disobedience to a legitimate order, and now expressly states 'Nadie será castigado por manifestar su discrepancia con el mandato de la autoridad' — verbal criticism of officials is no longer desacato. However, the 2020 Ley de Urgente Consideración (Ley 19.889) added art. 173-TER, 'Agravio a la autoridad policial': obstructing, insulting, threatening, or throwing objects at police in the exercise of their functions, 3-18 months, with aggravating circumstances for rank, plural officers or plural offenders (though it expressly exempts the exercise of press freedom and 'mere protest'). This is a targeted, enhanced-penalty insult offence for one category of official (police); no equivalent enhanced offence protects the President or legislators specifically.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal art. 173 (redacción dada por Ley 18.515 de 26/06/2009, art. 6)", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/173" }, { "ref": "Código Penal art. 173-TER (agregado por Ley 19.889 de 09/07/2020, art. 11)", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/173_TER" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 6, "summary": "Difamación (art. 333: 4mo-3yr prison or 80-800 UR fine) and injuria (art. 334: 3-18mo prison or 60-400 UR fine) remain criminal offences, prosecutable only on the victim's private complaint. Art. 336 (rewritten by Ley 18.515, 2009) exempts from liability any manifestation on matters of public interest concerning public officials or persons with social/professional relevance, unless the accuser proves 'real malicia' (actual malice) by the defendant; it also gives defendants in arts. 333/334 cases the right to prove the truth or verisimilitude of the imputed facts, except where the matter concerns purely private life or lacks public-interest value. Custodial penalties remain available on the books for non-public-interest cases and where actual malice is shown.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal arts. 333, 334", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/333" }, { "ref": "Código Penal art. 336 (redacción dada por Ley 18.515 de 26/06/2009, art. 4)", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/336" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 7, "summary": "The original 1933 Código Penal retains an unrepealed chapter 'De los Delitos contra la Libertad de Cultos y el Sentimiento Religioso' (arts. 304-308): disrupting a religious ceremony (art. 304, 3-18mo), desecrating objects/places of worship (art. 305, 6mo+), and publicly outraging ('ultraje público') the ministers or practitioners of a tolerated faith (art. 306, 3-12mo). No prosecution under these articles could be located despite research (CPJ, Freedom House, HRW, and general web search all reviewed without finding a case), consistent with Uruguay's constitutionally entrenched church-state separation (Const. art. 5) and reputation as the most secular Latin American state — treated here as vestigial/dormant, though the provisions carry custodial rather than fines-only penalties on their face and have never been formally repealed.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal arts. 304, 305, 306", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/306" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 5, "summary": "Art. 149-BIS (added by Ley 16.048/1989, rewritten by Ley 17.677/2003) criminalizes publicly inciting hatred, contempt, or any form of moral or physical violence against one or more persons because of skin colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, or sexual orientation/identity — 3-18 months, 'by the mere fact' of the incitement, with no requirement that violence be likely or imminent. Art. 149-TER separately punishes the commission of hate-motivated violent or contemptuous acts (6-24 months). Broad group-protection offence without a violence-likelihood nexus, but tied to enumerated protected characteristics rather than an open-ended 'insulting values' standard, and capped well under 5 years.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal art. 149-BIS (redacción dada por Ley 17.677 de 29/07/2003, art. 1)", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/149_BIS" }, { "ref": "Código Penal art. 149-TER (redacción dada por Ley 17.677 de 29/07/2003, art. 2)", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/149_TER" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 5, "summary": "Rebelión, impedir a los Poderes del Estado su ejercicio, sedición, motín and asonada (arts. 141-145) all require actual armed uprising, force, violence, or threats — conduct-, not speech-, based offences. However, art. 147 criminalizes public instigation to commit any crime 'by the mere fact of the instigation' (no resulting crime required, 3-24 months), and art. 148 separately criminalizes public 'apología' (glorification/praise) of any act classified as a crime (3-24 months). Both date to a 1972 rewrite (Ley 14.068, in the run-up to the 1973 coup era), are broad and untested by any narrowing case law located in this research, and carry real custodial penalties; no confirmed enforcement against political speech in the last 10 years was found.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal art. 147 (Instigación pública a delinquir)", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/147" }, { "ref": "Código Penal art. 148 (Apología de hechos calificados como delitos)", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/148" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 6, "summary": "Difamación/injuria are private-action ('acción privada') crimes: art. 338 provides these offences 'sólo podrán ser castigados mediante denuncia del ofendido' — the offended person (including a public official personally) must file the complaint; offences against a social/political/administrative corporation require that corporation's authorisation. This is a private-prosecution trigger, mitigated by the art. 336 public-interest/truth/actual-malice defence and by short prescription periods (art. 339: 3 months for injuria, 1 year for difamación). No anti-SLAPP statute was located. Pre-trial detention practice specifically for these offences could not be independently verified with the sources available.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Código Penal art. 338", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/338" }, { "ref": "Código Penal art. 339", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/339" }, { "ref": "Código Penal art. 336", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/336" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 8, "summary": "No internet-specific takedown mandate, ID/real-name requirement, or administrative blocking power was found. Ley 19.307 (Servicios de Comunicación Audiovisual, 2014) regulates only traditional broadcast/cable licensing (spectrum allocation, content classification for TV/radio) and, on the text reviewed, does not extend to internet platforms or intermediaries. The 2020 Ley de Urgente Consideración (Ley 19.889) added police-protection and arrest-resistance offences but no intermediary/internet-governance provisions. Not exhaustively checked against sector-specific laws (e.g. online-gambling or IP enforcement) that might carry a narrower judicial website-blocking power.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Ley 19.307 (Servicios de Comunicación Audiovisual)", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/leyes/19307-2014" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal arts. 333, 334, 336", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/336" }, "note": "General criticism of government policy is not itself an offence, but the underlying difamación/injuria framework technically still reaches a critic if 'real malicia' were proven; no prosecution/conviction of a government critic in the last 10 years could be verified (CPJ, HRW, and Freedom House country pages for Uruguay show no such case in the period reviewed)." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal arts. 334, 336", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/334" }, "note": "Injuria against a politician is nominally covered by art. 334, subject to the art. 336 public-interest/actual-malice defence and requiring the politician's own private complaint (art. 338). No enforcement example from the last 10 years could be verified." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal art. 306", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/306" }, "note": "Publicly outraging a tolerated faith's ministers or practitioners is nominally an offence (3-12 months) under the unrepealed 1933 'ofensa al culto' chapter, but no prosecution or enforcement example from the last 10 years — or indeed at any point in the modern era — could be located." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "Ordinary policy debate on immigration carries no criminal or civil exposure; exposure would only arise if speech crossed into incitement to hatred/violence against a national or ethnic group under art. 149-BIS (see a5), not from taking a position in the debate itself." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT-related speech or content exists in Uruguayan law; same-sex marriage has been legal since Ley 19.075 (2013), and art. 149-BIS instead criminalizes incitement to hatred against persons on grounds including sexual orientation/identity (protective, not restrictive, of LGBT expression)." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal art. 336; Ley 18.515", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/336" }, "note": "Ley 18.515 (2009) declares journalism and press activity 'of general interest'; art. 336(B) gives a specific defence for reproducing third-party statements on public-interest matters when the original author is identified, and the 2020 police-insult offence (art. 173-TER) expressly exempts 'el ejercicio de la libertad de prensa'. The general difamación/injuria framework still technically applies to published content, but no criminal prosecution of a journalist in the last 10 years could be verified." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal arts. 147, 148", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/148" }, "note": "Peaceful assembly itself is not criminalised and is rated 4/4 (assembly) by Freedom House's most recent Uruguay report. However, organizing rhetoric that a prosecutor construed as public 'instigación a delinquir' (art. 147) or 'apología' of an illegal act (art. 148) could in principle be charged; no such prosecution of a protest organizer in the last 10 years could be verified." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal arts. 333, 334, 336", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/336" }, "note": "Art. 336(A)'s public-interest defence extends to 'personas que, por su profesión u oficio, tengan una exposición social de relevancia,' covering criticism of business figures on public-interest matters absent actual malice. No enforcement example against a business critic in the last 10 years could be verified." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Código Penal arts. 334, 336", "url": "https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/codigo-penal/9155-1933/334" }, "note": "Uruguay is a republic; the President is covered only by the same general injuria/difamación framework as any other public official (art. 334, subject to the art. 336 defence) — no lèse-majesté or president-specific insult offence exists. The only president-specific Código Penal provision, art. 140, punishes physical attacks on the President's life/integrity/liberty, not insults. No enforcement example against a critic of the President in the last 10 years could be verified." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No real-name, ID-registration, or platform-unmasking mandate for online speech was found in the sources reviewed (Ley 19.307, Ley 19.889). Compelled disclosure of an anonymous user's identity would require an ordinary judicial order in a civil or criminal proceeding, not a standing exposure created by anonymity itself." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Ley 18.515 (promulgated 26/06/2009, published 15/07/2009, titled 'Ley de Prensa. Modificación. Código Penal. Modificación') was verified on IMPO and is correctly numbered. It did not decriminalize defamation outright: arts. 333/334 (difamación/injuria) remain criminal with custodial penalties for cases outside the public-interest exemption. What it did was (1) rewrite art. 336 to add a public-interest exemption and 'real malicia' (actual malice) standard plus a truth/verisimilitude defence, (2) rewrite art. 173 ('desacato') to remove verbal-insult liability and add an explicit protection for expressing disagreement with authority, and (3) amend art. 138 (attacks on foreign heads of state/diplomats).", "A 2020 amendment (Código Penal art. 173-TER, added by the 'Ley de Urgente Consideración', Ley 19.889, art. 11) reintroduced a targeted verbal-insult offence protecting police officers specifically ('agravio a la autoridad policial'), partially cutting against the 2009 liberalization trend for officials generally, though narrower in scope (police only) and with explicit carve-outs for press freedom and mere protest. This is recent enough (2020) that enforcement data would be the most valuable follow-up to seek.", "No case, prosecution, or arrest statistic from the last 10 years could be verified for any of the 10 scenarios, despite checking CPJ, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, and IMPO — so no scenario is coded criminal_enforced or severe for Uruguay. This is consistent with Uruguay's reputation as the strongest press-freedom environment in Latin America, but it should be read together with the research-tooling caveat below rather than as a fully confirmed absence of enforcement.", "This research pass exhausted the session's WebSearch quota early on, before Uruguay-specific news-archive searching could be done; findings after that point rely on direct WebFetch/curl retrieval of official IMPO statute pages (high confidence) plus CPJ, Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House organizational country pages for enforcement context (no incidents found, but not an exhaustive news-archive search). A follow-up pass with working web search is recommended before treating any 'criminal_dormant' scenario band as a fully confirmed absence of enforcement, particularly for art. 173-TER (2020, police-insult) given its recency and the fact CPJ separately flagged a 2020 legislative proposal on 'insulting police' as a press-freedom concern.", "a4 (blasphemy) and the 'religion' scenario are scored as vestigial/dormant based on the absence of any located prosecution, not on a specific source affirmatively stating 25+ years of non-enforcement — flagged here as an inference rather than a directly cited negative fact.", "a7's pre-trial detention practice for defamation/insult offences was not independently verified; scored solely on the confirmed private-complaint trigger (art. 338) and statutory defences (art. 336).", "a8 was checked against Ley 19.307 (audiovisual/broadcast) and Ley 19.889 (2020 LUC) only; sector-specific laws that might carry a narrower judicial website-blocking power (e.g. online gambling, intellectual property) were not checked." ] }, "vn": { "country": "Vietnam", "protection": 17, "enforcement": 95, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 95, "enforcement_effective": 95, "gap": 12, "tier": "repressive", "risk": 90, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 2, "summary": "Constitution Art. 25 guarantees 'freedom of opinion and speech, freedom of the press,' but Art. 14(2) allows restriction of all human/citizen rights 'for reasons of national defence, national security, social order and security, social morality,' and Art. 15(4) bars exercise of rights that 'infringe national interests.' Judiciary is not independent of the ruling Communist Party; nominal guarantee not enforceable against the state in practice.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2013) Art. 25, Art. 14(2), Art. 15(4)", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Socialist_Republic_of_Vietnam_2013?lang=en" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 1, "summary": "Vietnam has no separate 'insulting the leadership' statute by name; instead, criticism of officials/the Party is prosecuted as anti-state propaganda (Penal Code Art. 117) or 'abusing democratic freedoms' (Art. 331), functioning as a de facto official-protection regime with severe multi-year penalties, applied at scale (CPJ: at least 16 journalists imprisoned as of Dec 2025, Vietnam ranked among Asia's top 3 jailers of journalists after China and Myanmar).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Code (Law No. 100/2015/QH13, amended 2017) Art. 117, Art. 331", "url": "https://cpj.org/asia/vietnam/" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 1, "summary": "Penal Code criminal insult/slander provisions carry custodial penalties and are used alongside Art. 117/331 against online critics; exact article numbers/penalties for the general insult offence (commonly cited as Arts. 155-156) could not be independently verified against primary legislative text this session - see top-level notes for sources attempted - so scored primarily on the documented pattern of custodial prosecution for critical speech rather than a specific defamation-article citation.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Code (Law No. 100/2015/QH13, amended 2017); enforcement pattern per CPJ", "url": "https://cpj.org/asia/vietnam/" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 8, "summary": "No dedicated blasphemy/religious-insult offence identified. Note: Vietnam's Law on Belief and Religion (2016) instead restricts unregistered religious practice itself (a different axis - criminalizing religious activity, not insulting religion), and Article 331/Art. 116-type provisions have been used against unregistered religious and ethnic-minority practitioners (e.g. Montagnard activist Y Quynh Bdap, extradition case, Amnesty 2025/26 report) - flagged in notes rather than scored here per rubric scope.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Law on Belief and Religion (2016) - existence of registration regime, no blasphemy offence identified", "url": "https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-east-asia-and-the-pacific/viet-nam/" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 1, "summary": "No dedicated hate-speech statute, but the vague 'undermining the unity policy' offence (Penal Code Art. 116) is usable against ethnic/religious-minority rights advocacy without any violence nexus - illustrated by the prosecution/extradition pursuit of Montagnard activist Y Quynh Bdap.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 116 (undermining unity policy)", "url": "https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-east-asia-and-the-pacific/viet-nam/" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 0, "summary": "Penal Code Art. 117 (producing/storing/spreading anti-state information) and Art. 331 (abusing democratic freedoms) are the primary vehicles for pervasive criminalization of political dissent; Art. 109 (activities aimed at overthrowing the people's administration) carries penalties up to death for organizers. Sentences of 8-12+ years are routine for online government criticism (Huynh Ngoc Tuan, 8y6m, sentenced 2 April 2026; Thai Van Duong, 12 years, Oct 2024; Pham Doan Trang, 9 years, CPJ 2022 Press Freedom Award laureate, still incarcerated as of May 2026).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 109, Art. 117, Art. 331", "url": "https://cpj.org/asia/vietnam/" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 0, "summary": "Judiciary operates under Communist Party direction; extended pre-trial detention without access to counsel is routine in Art. 117/331 cases (e.g. Bui Tuan Lam held in solitary confinement, Dec 2025, per Amnesty). No public-interest defence or anti-SLAPP protection identified.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Enforcement pattern per Amnesty International/CPJ country reporting", "url": "https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-east-asia-and-the-pacific/viet-nam/" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 0, "summary": "Cybersecurity Law (2018) imposes data-localization requirements; Decree 147 (2024) requires service providers to 'actively search for and remove illegal content' and to 'retain and hand over user data to the authorities' - a proactive monitoring/handover mandate with no judicial gate described.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Decree 147/2024; Law on Cybersecurity (2018)", "url": "https://freedomhouse.org/country/vietnam/freedom-net/2025" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": false, "blasphemy_law_note": "Confirmed false. No blasphemy/religious-insult offence identified; the Law on Belief and Religion (2016) instead restricts unregistered religious practice itself -- a different axis (criminalising religious activity, not insulting religion). Law on Belief and Religion (2016) -- see a4 citation: https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-east-asia-and-the-pacific/viet-nam/", "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": true }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 117, Art. 331", "url": "https://cpj.org/asia/vietnam/" }, "note": "CPJ: at least 16 journalists imprisoned (Dec 2025); Huynh Ngoc Tuan sentenced 8y6m (2 Apr 2026) for Facebook posts/livestreams deemed anti-state propaganda; Le Anh Hung arrested under Art. 117 (9 Mar 2026); Pham Doan Trang serving 9 years. https://cpj.org/asia/vietnam/" }, "insult-politician": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 331 (abusing democratic freedoms)", "url": "https://cpj.org/asia/vietnam/" }, "note": "Criticism of specific officials is prosecuted via Art. 331/117 with multi-year sentences; e.g. Thai Van Duong, 12 years (Oct 2024), for online criticism (Freedom House). https://freedomhouse.org/country/vietnam/freedom-net/2025" }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 116, Art. 331; Law on Belief and Religion (2016)", "url": "https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-east-asia-and-the-pacific/viet-nam/" }, "note": "Coded for unregistered/minority religious practice and advocacy exposure (not insult-to-religion): Montagnard activist Y Quynh Bdap has faced prosecution/extradition pursuit (Amnesty, Oct 2024 entry)." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No provision specifically targeting immigration-related speech identified this session." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "none", "statute": null, "note": "No 'propaganda'-type restriction on LGBT speech identified this session." }, "journalism": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 117, Art. 331", "url": "https://cpj.org/asia/vietnam/" }, "note": "CPJ: Vietnam holds at least 16 imprisoned journalists (Dec 2025), third-highest globally after China (50) and Myanmar (27); multiple named Art. 117 cases with 8-12 year sentences. https://cpj.org/asia/vietnam/" }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 109, Art. 117, Art. 331", "url": "https://cpj.org/asia/vietnam/" }, "note": "No functioning independent right to organize protest; organizers face Art. 109/117 charges carrying multi-year to life/death exposure for 'especially serious' cases." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code general defamation/insult provisions", "url": "https://cpj.org/asia/vietnam/" }, "note": "State-linked enterprises dominate the economy and business criticism often overlaps with political-speech risk; a business-specific (non-political) enforcement statistic was not independently verified this session." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "severe", "statute": { "ref": "Penal Code Art. 117, Art. 331 (Vietnam is a one-party republic; no monarch)", "url": "https://cpj.org/asia/vietnam/" }, "note": "Coded via anti-state/abusing-freedoms exposure applicable to criticism of top Party/state leadership, the closest functional analogue to head-of-state protection." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Decree 147/2024; Law on Cybersecurity (2018)", "url": "https://freedomhouse.org/country/vietnam/freedom-net/2025" }, "note": "Decree 147 (2024) requires platforms to retain and hand over user data to authorities on request, creating direct unmasking exposure for anonymous accounts; enforced in the broader pattern of online-speech prosecutions documented by CPJ/Freedom House." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "A3 penalty specifics (general criminal insult/slander articles) were not independently re-verified against primary Penal Code text this session; scored on the documented enforcement pattern rather than a pinned article citation.", "Primary legislative text (Vietnamese official gazette / vbpl.vn) was not reachable this session; component citations rely on CPJ, Amnesty International, and Freedom House as the best available fetchable secondary sources. Exact Article 117/331 penalty ranges (commonly reported as 5-20 years and 6 months-7 years respectively) should be re-verified against primary statute text before adversarial use.", "UNRESOLVED 2026-07-22: attempted to verify Art. 117/331 penalty ranges and the general insult article against an official English translation (per RUBRIC task: vbpl.vn ItemID=11049, or WIPO Lex); could not resolve with WebFetch (WebSearch budget was exhausted this session, so no search fallback was available). Six distinct sources were tried and all failed: vbpl.vn/TW/Pages/vbpqen-toanvan.aspx?ItemID=11049 (connection refused), wipolex-content-api.wipo.int PDF (DNS not found), www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/223303 and /580561 (404 both), english.luatvietnam.vn (404), vietnamlawmagazine.vn penal-code page (loaded but only returned an unrelated Law on Treaties page - the given URL slug did not correspond to the Penal Code), thuvienphapluat.vn (403), vanban.chinhphu.vn (site under maintenance, 500 error), moj.gov.vn/vbpq/en (connection refused). Component citations therefore still rely on CPJ, Amnesty International, and Freedom House. Exact Art. 117/331 penalty ranges and the general insult/slander article number remain unverified against primary statute text and should be re-attempted before adversarial use." ] }, "za": { "country": "South Africa", "protection": 65, "enforcement": 38, "enforcement_volume": null, "enforcement_severity": 38, "enforcement_effective": 38, "gap": 3, "tier": "broadly_free", "risk": 37, "confidence": "D", "components": { "a1": { "score": 8, "summary": "s.16(1) Constitution guarantees freedom of expression (press/media, information, artistic creativity, academic/scientific freedom); s.16(2) carves out only three narrow, enumerated categories: propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, and advocacy of hatred based on race/ethnicity/gender/religion that constitutes incitement to cause harm. Judicially enforceable by an independent Constitutional Court, which has actively policed the boundary (e.g. Qwelane v SAHRC, striking/reading down an overbroad statutory hate-speech test).", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.16", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/South_Africa_2012" } ] }, "a2": { "score": 5, "summary": "No official-insult or lese-majeste statute exists. The generic common-law crime of crimen injuria (unlawful, intentional, serious impairment of another's dignity) applies equally to everyone, with no enhanced penalty for insulting officials. It has no statutory maximum; real sentences can run several years (Momberg: 3 years, 1 suspended, for racist crimen injuria toward police officers, 2018/2019 appeal). No official/institutional enhancement found.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Crimen injuria (common law); Momberg v S (A206/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 183", "url": "https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2019/183.html" }, { "ref": "SAHRC report on Momberg sentencing (29 March 2018, Randburg Magistrates' Court)", "url": "https://www.sahrc.org.za/index.php/sahrc-media/news/item/1237-momberg-s-jail-sentence-sets-significant-precedent-sahrc" } ] }, "a3": { "score": 6, "summary": "Criminal defamation is a common-law offence whose constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Hoho v S (2008): a provincial-legislature researcher convicted on 22 of 23 counts for leaflets alleging corruption/bribery/fraud against officials, sentence confirmed at 3 years suspended plus correctional supervision. Custodial penalties are available; the court noted the state must prove the accused's knowledge of unlawfulness. Only one reported modern case found, and it predates the 10-year enforcement window used elsewhere in this dataset, so not scored as 'routinely used'.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Hoho v S (493/05) [2008] ZASCA 98; 2009 (1) SACR 276 (SCA)", "url": "https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2008/98.html" }, { "ref": "Case summary, Hoho v. State", "url": "https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hoho-v-state/" } ] }, "a4": { "score": 8, "summary": "Common-law blasphemy ('unlawful and intentional publication of words or conduct whereby God is slandered') remains formally part of South African law -- it has not been abolished by Parliament nor declared unconstitutional by any court -- but no modern reported prosecution was found, and the offence is understood to protect only Christian religious sensibilities. Treated as vestigial/dormant.", "citations": [ { "ref": "H. van Coller, 'Freedom of expression: Blasphemy and the prohibition against religious hate speech', Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 61(1), 2021, pp.87-106", "url": "https://scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0041-47512021000100007" } ] }, "a5": { "score": 7, "summary": "Current in-force regime: Constitution s.16(2)(c) excludes 'advocacy of hatred ... that constitutes incitement to cause harm' from protection; PEPUDA s.10(1), as rewritten by the Judicial Matters Amendment Act 15 of 2023 (in force 3 April 2024) following Qwelane v SAHRC (Constitutional Court, 30 July 2021, which struck the vague word 'hurtful' from the old test), now prohibits words that demonstrate 'a clear intention to be harmful or to incite harm AND to promote or propagate hatred' -- a conjunctive intent+harm+hatred test, enforced only civilly through the Equality Courts. IMPORTANT: the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Act 16 of 2023 would add a STANDALONE CRIMINAL hate-speech offence (s.4, up to 5 years) on a much broader list of grounds (18 characteristics including political affiliation and occupation), but per its s.12 it only commences 'on a date fixed by the President by proclamation in the Gazette', and no such proclamation was found as of this research (see notes). Scored on the currently-commenced law only.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution s.16(2)(c)", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/South_Africa_2012" }, { "ref": "Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000, s.10 (as amended by Act 15 of 2023, wef 3 April 2024)", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2000-004.pdf" }, { "ref": "Qwelane v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services / SAHRC, CCT13/20 [2021] ZACC 22 (30 July 2021)", "url": "https://www.concourt.org.za/index.php/judgement/400-qwelane-versus-south-african-human-rights-commission-and-another-cct13-20" } ] }, "a6": { "score": 8, "summary": "No sedition, false-news, or general anti-state speech offence was found among the current instruments reviewed (Constitution, PEPUDA, Hate Crimes Act, Criminal Procedure Act, RICA, Regulation of Gatherings Act). The Constitution's own s.16(2) carve-out list is limited to war propaganda / imminent-violence incitement / hatred-based-harm incitement and contains nothing resembling a 'discrediting the state' or 'anti-state' offence. Could not fully verify the complete current in-force text of the apartheid-era Riotous Assemblies Act 17 of 1956 (see notes) -- its main content-based provision (former s.1) was already repealed in 1982 -- so this score carries residual uncertainty on that one statute.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Constitution s.16", "url": "https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/South_Africa_2012" }, { "ref": "Riotous Assemblies Act 17 of 1956, amendment history (s.1 repealed by s.73(1) of Act 74 of 1982)", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1956-017.pdf" } ] }, "a7": { "score": 6, "summary": "Mixed picture. Private prosecution exists but is constrained: a private person may only prosecute after the Director of Public Prosecutions issues a nolle prosequi certificate declining to prosecute, and must post a security deposit with the court (CPA ss.7-9) -- officials cannot personally initiate a criminal charge at will. Good-faith/public-interest defences exist in the hate-speech context: PEPUDA s.12 and the (not-yet-commenced) Hate Crimes Act s.4(2) both exempt bona fide artistic creativity, academic/scientific inquiry, and 'fair and accurate reporting in the public interest'. RICA additionally requires a designated judge to apply a heightened source-protection standard before authorising interception of a journalist's or lawyer's communications (RICA s.16). Not verified: whether crimen injuria/criminal defamation are classified as CPA Schedule 5/6 offences for bail purposes (see notes) -- if not, as is likely, ordinary bail applies with no extraordinary pre-trial detention regime for speech offences.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, s.7 (private prosecution on certificate nolle prosequi)", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1977-051.pdf" }, { "ref": "Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000, s.12", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2000-004.pdf" }, { "ref": "Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Act 16 of 2023, s.4(2)", "url": "https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202405/50652preventionandcombatingofhatecrimesandhatespeech162023.pdf" } ] }, "a8": { "score": 3, "summary": "RICA mandates that every mobile/cellular electronic communication service provider obtain and keep identity information linking a customer to their SIM card (s.40), and requires loss/theft/destruction of a phone or SIM to be reported (s.41). Failure to give a satisfactory account of possession of a cellphone/SIM-card, or unlawful acts in respect of telecommunication equipment, is a criminal offence carrying a fine or up to 2 years' imprisonment (ss.51-53, 55). This is a real-name/ID-linkage mandate over mobile communications. No general statutory internet-content takedown or administrative-blocking regime was found in the instruments reviewed this session.", "citations": [ { "ref": "Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70 of 2002, ss.40-41, 51-53, 55", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2002-070.pdf" } ] } }, "flags": { "criminal_insult": true, "criminal_defamation": true, "blasphemy_law": true, "lese_majeste": false, "official_insult_enhanced": false }, "scenarios": { "govt-critic": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Hoho v S (493/05) [2008] ZASCA 98", "url": "https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2008/98.html" }, "note": "Criminal defamation, upheld as constitutional in Hoho v S (2008), was used against a legislature researcher who accused officials of corruption/bribery/fraud via leaflets (3-year suspended sentence plus correctional supervision). This is the only reported modern case found and it predates the 2016-2026 enforcement window used across this dataset, so it is coded dormant rather than enforced pending a more recent citable example." }, "insult-politician": { "band": "criminal_enforced", "statute": { "ref": "Crimen injuria (common law); Momberg v S (A206/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 183", "url": "https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2019/183.html" }, "note": "South Africa has no official-insult-enhanced offence, so a politician has the same generic crimen injuria protection as anyone else. That generic offence is actively, recently enforced: Momberg was sentenced 29 March 2018 (Randburg Magistrates' Court) to 3 years' imprisonment, 1 suspended, for racist crimen injuria against police officers -- https://www.sahrc.org.za/index.php/sahrc-media/news/item/1237-momberg-s-jail-sentence-sets-significant-precedent-sahrc. Cited to show the underlying offence is live, not as a politician-specific precedent." }, "religion": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Common-law blasphemy", "url": "https://scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0041-47512021000100007" }, "note": "Blasphemy remains an uncodified common-law offence, not repealed or declared unconstitutional (van Coller, 2021), but no reported prosecution in the constitutional era was identified." }, "immigration-debate": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "PEPUDA s.10", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2000-004.pdf" }, "note": "'Nationality' (including xenophobia-related assumptions) is a prohibited ground under PEPUDA s.1, and 'nationality, migrant, refugee or asylum seeker status' is a listed characteristic under the (not-yet-commenced) Hate Crimes Act s.1. Current exposure for hateful immigration-related speech is civil, via the Equality Courts under PEPUDA s.10; no standalone criminal hate-speech statute is presently in force." }, "lgbt-content": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Qwelane v SAHRC, CCT13/20 [2021] ZACC 22", "url": "https://www.concourt.org.za/index.php/judgement/400-qwelane-versus-south-african-human-rights-commission-and-another-cct13-20" }, "note": "Qwelane's 2008 newspaper column comparing gay people to animals was found by the Constitutional Court (30 July 2021) to constitute hate speech under PEPUDA s.10 -- a civil Equality Court proceeding, not a criminal prosecution. This is the leading and most recent authority on anti-LGBT speech in South African law; exposure under current law is civil rather than criminal." }, "journalism": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Criminal defamation / crimen injuria (common law); Hoho v S (493/05) [2008] ZASCA 98", "url": "https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2008/98.html" }, "note": "PEPUDA s.12 and the (not-yet-commenced) Hate Crimes Act s.4(2)(c) both exempt bona fide 'fair and accurate reporting in the public interest', and RICA s.16 requires a designated judge to apply heightened source-protection scrutiny before authorising interception of a journalist's communications. However, no equivalent defence shields a journalist from a criminal defamation or crimen injuria charge itself, and no cited prosecution of a journalist under either offence within the last 10 years was found." }, "protest-organizing": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993, ss.3, 12", "url": "https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/act205of1993.pdf" }, "note": "Convening a gathering without adequate notice (s.3), or otherwise in contravention of the Act, is an offence carrying a fine not exceeding R20,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year (s.12(1)); it is a statutory defence that the gathering was spontaneous (s.12(2)). No citable prosecution/conviction statistic from the last 10 years was located during this research pass." }, "criticize-business": { "band": "civil", "statute": { "ref": "Civil defamation (common law)", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2000-004.pdf" }, "note": "No criminal-defamation or crimen injuria prosecution targeting criticism of a business (as opposed to a natural person's dignity) was identified during this research; ordinary civil defamation is the operative remedy for businesses." }, "monarchy-head-of-state": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "Crimen injuria / criminal defamation (common law); Hoho v S (493/05) [2008] ZASCA 98", "url": "https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2008/98.html" }, "note": "South Africa is a republic with no monarch and no president-specific insult statute or lese-majeste provision was found. The President has the same generic crimen injuria/criminal defamation protection as any citizen, with no enhanced penalty. No citation of these generic offences being invoked specifically to protect the President's dignity within the last 10 years was found." }, "anonymous-account": { "band": "criminal_dormant", "statute": { "ref": "RICA ss.40-41, 52", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2002-070.pdf" }, "note": "RICA requires mobile network operators to obtain and retain ID-linked registration information for every SIM card (ss.40-41); failing to give a satisfactory account of possession of an unregistered/improperly acquired cellphone or SIM card is itself an offence under s.52, carrying a fine or imprisonment up to 2 years (ss.53(1)/55(1)). This is a structural real-name mandate rather than a content-based anonymity offence; no citation of a prosecution specifically targeting anonymous online speech (as opposed to SIM-fraud/crime-facilitation contexts) was found." } }, "signals": {}, "known_gaps": [ "Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Act 16 of 2023: assented to on 6 May 2024 and gazetted 14 May 2024 (GG 50652, GoN 4822). Its s.12 provides it 'comes into operation on a date fixed by the President by proclamation in the Gazette'. The gov.za official Acts page for this law lists its commencement status as 'To be proclaimed', and a Juta-sourced consolidated Criminal Procedure Act commencement table (downloaded 29 May 2025) likewise lists the Act's amendments as taking effect only 'a date to be proclaimed'. No later proclamation was found despite searching. Components in this file are scored on the CURRENTLY COMMENCED law only. Once this Act commences it will materially change A5 (new standalone criminal hate-speech offence, s.4, up to 5 years, on an 18-ground list) and A2/scenario coding for hate-crime-motivated offences (s.3/s.6) -- this file should be re-verified for a commencement proclamation at the next review.", "Crimen injuria and common-law criminal defamation are both uncodified common-law offences with no statutory maximum penalty; sentencing follows the general Criminal Procedure Act ss.276/297 framework. A2 and A3 scores therefore reflect observed real-world sentences (Momberg: 3 years/1 suspended; Hoho: 3 years suspended plus correctional supervision) rather than a fixed statutory cap.", "Could not verify whether truth (veritas) plus public benefit operates as a complete defence to the common-law crime of criminal defamation specifically (as distinct from civil defamation) -- only secondary commentary on Hoho v S was available, not a primary source confirming the defence's scope for the criminal variant. Flagged as a soft spot in the A3 score.", "Could not verify whether crimen injuria or common-law criminal defamation are classified under Criminal Procedure Act Schedule 5 or 6 (which would trigger a heavier bail/pre-trial-detention regime). This would materially affect A7 if either offence is scheduled; not confirmed within available research time.", "Could not obtain the full current in-force text of the Riotous Assemblies Act 17 of 1956 -- only a 1-page title/amendment-history stub was retrievable this session (its original s.1 was repealed as far back as 1982 by the Internal Security Act 74 of 1982). A6 is scored on the absence of any sedition/false-news/anti-state speech offence found across the other instruments fully reviewed (Constitution, PEPUDA, Hate Crimes Act, CPA, RICA, Regulation of Gatherings Act), not on direct confirmation of this one Act's complete current text.", "SAFLII (saflii.org) returned HTTP 403 to automated fetches throughout this research session. Case citations for Hoho v S and Momberg v S were confirmed via search-engine indexing/snippets and cross-checked against independent secondary sources (Global Freedom of Expression at Columbia University, the South African Human Rights Commission) rather than by directly reading the full SAFLII judgment text. The SAFLII URLs given are the correct citation addresses for these judgments.", "No prosecution/conviction statistic from the last 10 years (2016-2026) was located for the Regulation of Gatherings Act (protest-organizing) or for RICA s.52 (anonymous-account), despite both offences being real and on the books; both scenarios are coded criminal_dormant rather than criminal_enforced on that basis. A researcher with access to SAPS/NPA statistics or SAFLII full-text search may be able to upgrade these." ] } } }