Spain considers banning teens from social media and holding tech executives criminally responsible for ‘hate speech’

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

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

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

X faces raids and threats of bans in Europe 

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

For publishing a newspaper, Jimmy Lai will die in prison

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

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

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

Australia blocks social media for teens while UK mulls blasphemy ban

South Korea rejects a short-lived martial law decree, ‘Wicked’ does not defy local censorship laws, ‘Family Guy’ can’t fly, and Australian breakdancer Raygun threatens legal action over a musical.

Read More

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

China perfectly illustrates the dangers of the UN’s cybercrime treaty

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

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

India widens speech controls through courts, police, and digital regulation

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

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

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

Nepal’s proposed film censorship threatens queer storytelling

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

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

Pakistan escalates digital repression and blasphemy enforcement

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

Police killings worsen crisis of mob violence against Pakistan’s blasphemers

Plenty of free speech news out of Europe, the sedition crackdown in Hong Kong, efforts to control discussion of foreign governments in Canada and the U.S.

Read More

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

The UK’s expanded crackdown on protests about Israel and Gaza

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

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

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

Attacks on art and culture in Russia, Cuba, and Egypt

• In Russia, comedian Artemy Ostanin was sentenced to nearly six years in prison after being convicted of inciting hatred over a joke about a legless war veteran.
• In Cuba, rapper Fernando Almenares Rivera, known as Nando OBDC, was sentenced to five years in prison for painting banners with pro-human rights slogans, which authorities classified as propaganda against the constitutional order.
• In Egypt, poet Ahmed Douma was briefly arrested and interrogated over social media posts criticizing prison abuses. Rights groups say the case fits a pattern of repeated investigations and bail demands used to silence dissent. 

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

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

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