REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

As threats to independent journalism continue to accelerate, the law is being weaponised around the world to compromise journalists’ safety and silence public interest reporting. The physical, emotional and financial consequences are enormous for journalists, who face the risk of going to jail, being bankrupted or repeatedly being dragged into court. Left unchecked, the future of the profession, democracies and free societies are at stake.

Raising awareness of these growing legal threats is critical if they are to be countered. That’s why the Thomson Reuters Foundation and the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University teamed up to produce a report that identifies and examines eight key legal threats to the profession.

Drawing on global research carried out by the Tow Center for Digital Journalism in 2022, alongside the contributions from 37 media freedom experts and the first-hand experience of nearly 500 alumni – representing 106 countries – from the Thomson Reuters Foundation’s journalism training programmes, this report is the first of its kind to bring together insights into these prevalent trends from reporters on the ground and leading experts. It provides the first step towards a global overview of the weaponisation of the law against journalists and a springboard into future research.

Below you will find a summary of each legal threat, along with video testimonials from journalists – including Can Dündar, Lina Attalah and Christopher Acosta – who have been on the receiving end of legal harassment. A set of 10 recommendations – shaped by the experts and journalists surveyed for this report – details strategies and actions on how to support and protect journalists from this abuse.

For in-depth analysis, case studies and further details on the methodology, download the full report.

Reuters / Omar Sobhani

The number of journalists behind bars has reached

a global high

Our research highlights the following eight key legal threats to journalists across the globe:

The annual Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index assesses the state of journalism in 108 countries and territories. The Index includes an evaluation of the legislative and regulatory environment for journalists, such as the level of censorship, the level of impunity for violence against journalists and the ability to protect sources.

Hover over the map to explore the regional scores related to legal frameworks. 100 represents the highest possible level of press freedom and 0 the worst.

Defamation and insult

Around the world, defamation and insult laws are being misused to censor journalists, preventing open public debate and shielding powerful individuals from legitimate criticism.

The use of defamation and insult to silence journalists is not new. However, in the last five years an increasing number of states have enacted or amended laws to expand and increase penalties.

International and regional human rights bodies have recognised that the mere existence of criminal defamation legislation can have a profound chilling effect on press freedom. Under these laws, journalists face the “constant threat of being arrested, held in pretrial detention, subjected to expensive trials, fines and imprisonment, as well as the social stigma associated with having a criminal record.”

Back to the threat list

Short for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, SLAPPs are by definition unfounded and lack merit. Their primary objective is to silence critical voices through harassment, intimidation and expensive legal proceedings.

SLAPPs have long been used to silence journalists, but cases have increased substantially since 2015. They are generally civil actions on behalf of private individuals or entities, sometimes acting with government support.

SLAPPs exploit numerous legal avenues such as allegations of defamation, privacy or data protection laws, to intimidate and exert undue pressure on the media, regardless of the outcome. They typically take advantage of a power disparity between the plaintiff and the defendant. For example, corporations and wealthy individuals often spend vast sums to turn the judicial system against journalists, burying them in legal filings that are costly and time consuming to address.

While the use of SLAPPs is growing in Europe, they are a global phenomenon. Even though most cases are eventually dismissed, these lawsuits have a significant impact on the silencing of free speech.

Back to the threat list

Increasingly, governments are relying on “catch-all” national security laws to criminalise journalists.

“Espionage,” “treason,” “revealing state secrets,” “collusion against the state,” and “collaboration with foreign entities,” are just some of the national security laws used to sanction freedom of expression and curtail media freedom. While laws protecting national security serve a legitimate purpose, the language is often both sweeping and vague. This opens the door for governments to silence and harass journalists reporting on sensitive topics such as organised crime, corruption, human rights issues and conflict.

When it comes to the use of espionage laws to silence the media, China and Russia are two of the world’s worst offenders. Take for instance the recent case of Evan Gershkovich, arrested and charged with spying in Russia while on a reporting trip. The Wall Street Journal correspondent is being held in solitary confinement and could face 20 years in jail. Gershkovich is the first Western journalist to be arrested on espionage charges in Russia since 1986, signifying a significant escalation of the country’s actions against media freedom.

But this is not an isolated case. Nicaragua, Belarus and Bangladesh have all used treason laws to target journalists, and the UK’s proposed new National Security Bill has raised fears over its potential to curb the freedom of the press.

Back to the threat list

To hear more about the Thomson Reuters Foundation’s media freedom work, including our latest legal and safety resources for journalists, subscribe to our newsletter.

Cybercrimes have become a much-abused sweeping offence in authoritarian regimes and backsliding democracies, where the legislation has been used as a tool to target independent and critical journalism.

Many cybercrime laws are overly broad and vaguely worded provisions that criminalise online speech. Common offences include “cyber libel,” “cyberterrorism,” and “online hate speech”, with many recently adopted laws criminalising the publication of false news that undermines state interests.

This is likely to be a growing risk area for journalists, as the media industry has shifted to a largely online presence. The increasing regulation of the online space has also offered further opportunities to muffle public interest reporting and monopolise media content.

The majority of cybercrime laws also include non-speech offences that threaten freedom of expression and the press. For instance, journalists have been subjected to unlawful wiretapping, and the publication of private data and images have been used to accuse and prosecute reporters writing about matters of public interest. Cybercrime laws also tend to grant investigators sweeping powers, with limited or no judicial oversight or procedural safeguards.

The defining prosecution for cyber libel targeted the groundbreaking Philippine news outlet Rappler and its co-founder and CEO Maria Ressa, who in 2021 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Russian journalist Dmitri Muratov. The Philippine government has opened more than two dozen individual cases against Ressa, Rappler and its employees since 2018, 18 of which relate to cyber libel or libel. Before the January 2023 acquittal of a tax evasion charge, Ressa was facing up to 100 years in jail if convicted of all charges brought against her.

Hear from Glenda M.Gloria – co-founder and Executive Editor at Rappler – about how the cyber libel convictions of her colleagues have stoked a climate of fear and threatened to undermine the critical work of the independent outlet:

Back to the threat list

Using the pretext of restricting the spread of false information, numerous countries are leveraging “fake news” laws to censor critical reporting.

Fake news laws regularly target information about public health, the economy, public order, and national security. Some fake news laws overlap with cybercrime legislation described in the previous section, in that they establish prohibitions on the dissemination of information online, including “false news,” “rumours,” and “non-objective,” “inaccurate” or “malicious” content.

Yet governments around the world are increasingly using fake news laws to prosecute journalists, with the number of reporters imprisoned on charges of “fake news” or “false news” climbing dramatically since 2014. Many fake news laws were adopted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to journalists facing charges for spreading disinformation, endangering public health, and not complying with emergency restrictions.

Back to the threat list

In the last few years, many countries have increased penalties and created new vaguely worded terrorism or extremism offences that are used to crack down on dissent. Particularly at risk are journalists covering mass pro-democracy or separatist movements involving ethnic minorities.

Counter-terrorism legislation is perhaps the most punitive and repressive of all national security laws. These laws often conflate legitimate terrorist threats with broader issues of national security and public order. Offences frequently used against journalists include “praising or glorifying terrorism,” “spreading terrorist ideas or terrorist propaganda,” or “supporting terrorist organisations”.

Recently, some states have revised and hardened counter-terrorism laws in response to pro-democracy movements and the rise of digital activism by expanding their reach to individuals expressing dissenting opinions online.

Russia, India, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Cameroon, Mozambique, Egypt, Algeria and Saudi Arabia are all countries where anti-terror laws are currently in place and used to target critical journalists.

Turkey, the largest jailer of journalists in Europe, often relies on anti-terror laws. Hear from exiled journalist Can Dündar, who was added by Turkish authorities to the country’s list of wanted terrorists:

Back to the threat list

National authorities are increasingly convicting journalists under fabricated financial crimes to discredit, intimidate and silence critical voices.

The legal harassment of independent media and reporters is not just confined to their journalistic work, with authorities also using financial crimes – such as tax evasion, fraud and money laundering - as a means to silence them. Even when unfounded, mounting a legal defence against such accusations can be extremely burdensome and costly.

A conviction for financial crimes can result in long-term imprisonment, heavy fines or the forced payment of alleged outstanding taxes. This has the potential to bankrupt media and independent journalists, and the risk of prosecution can lead to self-censorship. Charges can also be leveraged by authorities to discredit journalists and isolate them from friends and advocacy organisations.

Arresting, charging and convicting journalists of “tax evasion” has become one of Belarus’s preferred legal tools to crack down on the media in the aftermath of the 2020 pro-democracy protests. Countries including Russia, Vietnam, the Philippines, India, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Tanzania and Morocco have recently accused or convicted high-profile journalists and critics under spurious financial crimes.

Back to the threat list

These laws punish defaming, insulting or offending public officials and state institutions. They are more likely to be used by authoritarian regimes to stifle dissent and crack down on the media.

Lese majeste, desacato (contempt, in Spanish) and seditious libel punish criticism of the monarchy, the president, high-ranking officials, foreign leaders and other branches of power - such as the judiciary. They often use broad and vague terms and allow for higher penalties compared to defamation or insult that is directed at ordinary citizens.

While many states have repealed, declared unconstitutional or reformed sedition laws to comply with international human rights obligations, seditious libel is being used in Hong Kong, Malaysia, India and Thailand to silence the media and crack down on peaceful dissent. Meanwhile, Tunisian authorities have increased prosecutions against journalists for public criticism of President Kais Saied and other officials.

Back to the threat list

10 ways to combat legal threats to journalists

Back to the threat list

Legal Resources for Journalists

The Thomson Reuters Foundation applies its media and legal expertise to provide journalists and independent media around the world with critical support.

Resources for journalists and newsrooms in need of legal support

Legal Network for Journalists at Risk (LNJAR)

An initiative from the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Media Defence that provides journalists and independent media outlets around the world with critical legal support.

Regional resources

Know Your Rights Guide on Defamation Laws

Provides journalists with a practical understanding of local defamation laws, the steps they can take to prevent defamation cases, and available defences if a claim is filed against them.

Available for journalists in: Kenya | Zambia | South Africa | India | Ethiopia | Peru | Brazil | Germany

Understanding the Laws on Journalistic Sources

Information for journalists on the recognition of news sources in law, the protection of sources, as well as search and seizure relating to journalists’ gadgets and information.

Available for journalists in: Kenya | Zambia | South Africa | Germany

Understanding the Laws Relating to "Fake News" in Russia

Practical guidance for both journalists and newsrooms seeking to understand Russia’s “fake news” laws and how they’ve been applied to both local and international press.

Available in English | Українська | Русский

Know Your Rights Guide for Journalists in India

A guide providing guidance for journalists and newsrooms seeking to understand their rights and protections in India.

Available in English | हिन्दी

Know Your Rights Guide for Journalists Covering Protests in the US

Sets out the rights of journalists when confronted by law enforcement officers while covering a protest or other political event.

Available in English

Know Your Rights Guide for Journalists Covering Protests in Canada

This guide covers legal rights journalists have, and risks they may face, when covering protests in Canada.

Available in English | Français

Download the full report with analysis and insights from dozens of legal experts and journalists.

Complete a short form to access the report:

Back to the threat list

About the report

About the authors

Joel Simon

Director

Joel Simon is the founding director of Journalism Protection Initiative at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York. During 2022, Simon was a fellow at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, and also a Senior Research Fellow at the Knight First Amendment Institute also at Columbia. From 2006 to 2021 he served as the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Carlos Lauría

Lead Researcher

Carlos Lauría, from Argentina, is a journalist and international press freedom expert. From 2017 to 2021 he headed the freedom of expression portfolio of the Open Society Foundation’s program on independent journalism. Previously, he served for 15 years as program director and senior coordinator for the Americas program at the Committee to Protect Journalists. He settled in New York City in 1994 as US bureau chief for Argentina’s largest magazine publisher, Editorial Perfil.

Ona Flores

Legal Researcher

Ona Flores is an international human rights lawyer with more than 15 years of experience working in the Inter-American human rights system and engaging with the UN human rights mechanisms. From 2018 to 2021 she was Civic Freedoms Research Advisor for the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, where she worked as lead researcher for the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Previously, she served as Senior Staff Attorney at the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

About the Thomson Reuters Foundation

The Thomson Reuters Foundation is the corporate foundation of Thomson Reuters, the global news and information services company. Using the combined power of media and the law, the Foundation works to advance media freedom, foster more inclusive economies, and promote human rights.

The Foundation has 40 years’ experience supporting independent media and training journalists around the world. Since 1983, the organisation has worked with over 20,000 journalists in more than 170 countries across the globe. The first-hand experience of nearly 500 alumni – spanning 106 countries – from the Thomson Reuters Foundation’s journalism training programmes helped to shape this report.

Today, the Foundation’s media freedom work is focused on media for democracy and development, defending media freedom and strengthening the future of journalism.

About the Tow Center for Digital Journalism

Operating as an institute within Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, the Tow Center for Digital Journalism provides journalists with the skills and knowledge to lead the future of digital journalism and serves as a research and development center for the profession as a whole.