BARRED FROM  THE  D EBATE :  RESTRICTIONS  ON   NGO  PUBLIC   POLICY 
ACTIVITIES  
Letter  from  the  Editor  
Civil society  ‐‐ civil  groups  hold  their  governments  to  high  standards.  And  I 
know  ‐‐  because this  audience  includes  Americans  who’ve  been  critical  of  
me…  They  told  me  I  was  wrong.  And in  some  cases  they  changed  my  mind;  
in  some  cases  they  didn’t.  And  that’s  okay,  because  we’re  not  going  to  agree  
on  everything   ‐‐ but I  know  this: Their  voices and  their  views  and  their 
criticism  ultimately  will  make  my  decisions  better…  And  we’ll  find  out:  Are  
there  ways  of  doing  what  we  need  to  do  that  conform  to  our  deepest  held  
values  and  our  ideals,  and  that  are sustainable  over the  long  term?  That 
makes  our  country  stronger in  the  long  term,  and  I  wouldn’t  want  it  any  
other  way.  
‐ President  Obama  at  U.S.  ‐ Russian  Civil  Society  Summit
1 
Civil  society  representatives,  individually  and  through  their  organizations,  enjoy  the right  to  freedom  of  
expression.
2  Freedom  of  expression  encompasses  not  only  freedom  of  speech  and  media,  but  also 
freedom  of  thought,  culture,  and  intellectual  inquiry.  At the  individual  level,  freedom  of  expression  
guarantees  everyone’s  right  to speak  and  write  openly  without  state interference,  including the  right  to  
take  a stance  on  government  actions.   But at  a  broader  societal  level,  freedom  of  expression  is  also  
considered  “a necessary  pre ‐condition  to  good  government,  and thus  also  for  economic  and  social 
progress.”
3  Freedom  of  expression  enables  open  debate  among  political  factions,  allowing  constituents  
to  form  opinions  about  their  strengths  and  weaknesses  and  to  vote  accordingly.   It allows  individuals,  
acting  alone  or  in  concert,  to  raise  concerns  with  the  government,  facilitating peaceful  and  effective  
                                                           
  1  Remarks  by  President  Barack  Obama  at  Parallel  Civil  Society  Summit,  Moscow,  Russia, July  7,  2009  
https://www.whitehouse.gov /the_press_office/REMARKS‐BY ‐THE ‐PRESIDENT‐ AT‐PARALLEL ‐CIVIL ‐SOCIETY ‐
SUMMIT/    2 See  for  example:  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights  (1948)  (Article  19);  International  Covenant on  Civil  and  
Political  Rights (1966)  (Article  19);  European  Convention  on  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  and  Fundamental  
Freedoms  (1950)  (Article  10).  See  also  Freedom  and  Democracy  Party  (OZDEP)  v.  Turkey , (European  Court of  
Human  Rights  Application  No.  23885/94),  8  December  1999 (“the  protection  of  opinions  and  the  freedom  to  
express  them  is  one  of  the  objectives  of  the  freedoms  of  assembly  and  association”).    
3 Article  XIX,  Central  Asian  Pocketbook  on  Freedom  of  Expression  (London  2006),  p.  21.  

resolution of  problems. 4   Without  an  appropriate  means to voice  dissent,  disenfranchised  citizens  “will  
eventually  make  their  grievances  known, and  it  may  be in radical  and destructive  ways”  that  could 
“result  in  the  disillusionment  with  democracy  itself.”
5  Free  expression  contributes  to  well ‐considered  
policies  and  laws,  as  public  debate  informs  the  choice  of  solutions  to  policy  issues,  and ensures  “buy ‐in” 
from  those  who  will  be  governed  by  the  resulting  policy or  law.
6  Freedom  of  expression  is  also  
necessary  to  the  preservation  of  other  human  rights  by  allowing  for  scrutiny  of  human  rights  abuses  as 
well  as advocacy  for  the  protection  of  such  rights.
7   
 
NGOs  can  play  an important  role  in advancing  free  expression  by  giving  individuals  vehicles  to  
collectively  voice  their  opinions  and  participate  in  public  policy debates.   As Sha  Zukang,  United  Nations  
Under ‐Secretary ‐General for  Economic  and  Social  Affairs  to  the  Civil  Society  Forum,  stated,  “[c]ivil 
society  organizations  who  reach  out  to  marginalized  persons and  groups  help  to  give  them  voice,  so  that  
their  concerns  can  be  heard.”
8 For  many  NGOs,  particularly  those  engaged  in  human  rights  and  
democracy  promotion,  the  ability  to  speak  freely,  raise awareness  and engage  in advocacy  is  
fundamental  to  fulfilling  their  missions.   NGOs shape  public  policy by  challenging  government  law  or 
policy,  and  advocating  for  human  rights  and  fundamental  freedoms.
9 
In  this  third  issue of  Global  Trends  in  NGO  Law  we address  how  enacted  or  proposed  legislation  affecting  
public  policy activities  of  NGOs  threatens  the freedom  of  expression  by  stifling  civil  society’s  voice.  We  
begin  by examining  laws  that  restrict  public policy activities  of  NGOs.   We then  consider  other  restrictive  
provisions  of  NGO  laws  that  have  a  chilling  effect  on  free  expression.   We next  look at  laws  of  general  
applicability  that  may  chill freedom  of  expression  and  how  they affect  civil society’s  ability to  participate  
in  public  debate.  Finally, we  consider  the  international  legal  framework  governing  the  Freedom  of  
Expression.    
G
LOBAL   TRENDS  IN  NGO  LAW  IS  A PUBLICATION  OF  THE   INTERNATIONAL  CENTER  FOR   NOT ‐FOR ‐PROFIT   LAW , AN  
INTERNATIONAL  NOT
‐FOR ‐PROFIT  ORGANIZATION  THAT  PROMOTES  AN  ENABLING  ENVIRONMENT  FOR CIVIL  SOCIETY  AND  
PUBLIC  PARTICIPATION  WORLDWIDE
. SINCE  ITS  INCEPTION  IN  1992,  ICNL  HAS  PROMOTED  PROGRESSIVE  LAWS GOVERNING  
CIVIL  SOCIETY  AND  PROVIDED  TECHNICAL  ASSISTANCE  TO 
NGO  LAW  REFORM  INITIATIVES  IN  MORE  THAN  ONE  HUNDRED  
COUNTRIES
. WE   INVITE  YOU  TO  LEARN  MORE  ABOUT   ICNL  AND  OUR  PROGRAMS  BY  VISITING  US ONLINE  AT  
HTTP
:// WWW .ICNL .ORG .   
                                                           
  4  See  generally,  id . pp.  21 ‐22.  5 Joseph  Proietti,  The  Promise  and  Peril  of  Democracy  (Summary),  The  International  Journal  of  Not‐ for‐Profit  Law  
Volume  7,  Issue  2,  (February  2005)  citing former  U.S.  President  Jimmy  Carter’s  speech  to  a  panel  of  ambassadors 
to  the  Organization  of  American  States  as  the  inaugural  speaker for  the  Lecture  Series  of  the  Americas,  available  at 
https://www.icnl.org/KNOWLEDGE /ijnl/vol7iss2/special_2.htm
.  6 See  Article  19,  Central  Asian  Pocketbook,  p.  22  (October  2006) available  at 
https://www.article19.or g/pdfs/tools/central‐asian ‐pocketbook.pdf
.  7 Id . 8 Statement  by Mr.  Sha  Zukang,  Under ‐Secretary ‐General  for  Economic  and  Social  Affairs  to the  Civil  Society  
Forum,  Social  Integration:  Building  a  Society  for  All ,  (New  York,  February  3, 2009)  available  at  
https://www.un.org/esa//desa/ousg/statemen ts/2009/20090203_civil_society_forum.html
   9 See  Anne  Marie  Slaughter,  The  Idea  That  is America:  Keeping Faith  with  Our  Values  in  a  Dangerous  World, p.59  
(2007).  

Introduction 
On May  1,  2009,  one  month  before  presidential  elections  were  to  be  held  in Iran,  Jelveh  Javaheri  was  
arrested  when  security  officials  came  to search  her  home  in  Tehran  without  a warrant.   She has  since  
been  charged  with “acting  against  state  security”  with  the  aim  of  “disrupting  public  order and security”  
by  virtue  of  her  membership  in  the  One  Million  Signatures  Campaign,  a  civil  society  campaign  by  women  
in  Iran  to  collect  one  million  signatures  in  support  of  changing  discriminatory  laws  against  women  in  
their  country.
10  
In  March  2009,  a  Honduran  NGO  released  a  report  accusing  members  of the  Honduran  Congress  of  
corruption.   Within  days,  the Congress  replaced  an  NGO‐supported  draft law  with  a  highly  restrictive  
draft  that  prohibited  NGOs  from,  among  other  things,  engaging  in activities  that  could  “influence  the  
public  in relation  to  a  particular  political party,  candidate  or  ideological  tendency.”
11   
These  are  but  two recent  examples  of  government  actions  seeking  to  restrict  civil  society  groups from  
participating  in  debate  on  public  policy  matters.   In  the  past  several  years  a number  of  governments  
have  directly  sought  to limit  NGOs  from  engaging  in activities  in  which  they  might  affect public  policy.  
These  restrictions  have  taken  the form  of  (1)  “international  cooperation  laws”  that  limit  international  
support,  including  exchanges  of  knowledge  or  skill;  (2)  broad  and  ambiguous  restrictions  on  NGO  input  
in  the  policy  making  process;  and  (3)  broad  and  ambiguous  restrictions  on  “political”  activities,  giving 
government  officials  significant  discretion  to  penalize  those  whose  speech  is  deemed  troublesome.  
Restrictions  on  the  ability  of NGOs  to  participate  in  public  policy activities  have  also  arisen  in  laws  
governing  the  registration  and  activities  of  NGOs,  as  well  as in laws  of  general  applicability.   
I. Restrictions  on  Public  Policy  Activities  of  NGOs  
A number  of  countries  have  proposed  or  adopted  laws that  directly  restrict  NGOs from  expressing  
opinions  or  exchanging  information  about  important  public  issues.   Consider  the  following  examples:  
Restrictions  on  the  Exchange  of  Knowledge  
• In July  2009,  members  of  the  Foreign  Relations  Committee  in  the  Peruvian  Congress  proposed  
amendments  to  Peru’s  legal  framework  on  International  Technical Cooperation  (ITC).   The  
proposed  amendments  would  explicitly  allow  the  government  to  interfere  in  contacts  between  
Peruvians  and  foreign  persons  that involve,  among  other  examples,  “grassroots  movements  and  
any  support  of  a  partisan  ideological  nature ,” or protection  of  human  rights,  even if  those  
contacts  involved  the  simple  transfer  of  knowledge  or  experience.    The amendments  impede  
the  ability  of  people  both  to  express  their  thoughts  and  to  “receive  any  information  and  to  hear  
                                                           
  10  Amnesty  International,  Iran’s  presidential  election amid  unrest  and  ongoing  human  rights  violations , (June  5,  
2009),  available  at  https://www.amnesty.org/en/news‐ and‐updates/news/iran ‐presidential‐ election‐amid ‐unrest‐
and ‐ongoing ‐human ‐rights ‐violations ‐20090605 .   11 Dictamen  de  la  Ley  de  las  Organizaciones  no  Gubernamentales,  Article  3(a),  (March  3,  2009).  

the expression  of  the  thoughts  of  others.” 12  The  amendments  are  currently  before  the  Peruvian  
Congress  and  are  expected  to  be  considered  later this  year.  
 
• The  Venezuelan  National  Assembly  stated  in  March  2009  that  it  will  renew  consideration  of a  
draft  Law  on International  Cooperation.   This law,  if  enacted,  will  give  the  President  and  Cabinet  
of  Venezuela  unprecedented  authority  to  organize,  control,  direct,  and coordinate  all  “activities  
of  international  cooperation,”  including,  among  other  things,  transfers  of  “resources  and  skills.”   
Under  the  draft  law,  NGOs  engaging  with  their  foreign  counterparts  would  be  required  to  
provide  detailed  reports  and  submit  to  Government  inspections  and  audits,  which  might  invite  
harassment  and  abuse  of  NGOs.   All foreign  funds  would  have to  be  routed  through  a  “Fund  for  
International  Cooperation  and  Assistance,”  allowing  the  Government  discretion  to  determine  
which  local  organizations  could  receive  foreign  resources.   Like the Peruvian  amendments,  to  
the  extent  that  “resources  and  skills”  includes  the  transfer  of  knowledge  and  experience  as  well  
as  funds  and  material  goods,  the draft  law  impinges  on  the  right  to  freedom  of  expression.    
 
Attempted  Restrictions  on  Public  Policy  Activities  of  NGOs 
 
• In February  2009,  the  Parliament  of  the  Kyrgyz  Republic  proposed  “Amendments  to  the  Law  of 
the  Kyrgyz  Republic  on Noncommercial  Organizations.”   This proposed  law  would  have 
prohibited  NGOs  from  participating  in, among  other  things,  “activity  in  the  processes  of  
nationwide  reform.”  The  law’s  definition  of  “activity  in  the  process  of nationwide  reform”  
included  a  prohibition  on  the  “introduction  of  proposals  to  the  state  bodies  on  improvement  of  
the  system  of  administration  of  state  and  public  affairs.”   If enacted,  NGOs  would  have been  
prohibited  from  directly  offering  suggestions  to  the  government  for  improvement  to  the  welfare  
system,  the public  health system,  or the  education  system.  The  law  was  withdrawn  shortly  after  
its  introduction.  
 
• A “Draft  Manual  on  International  Cooperation”  proposed  in  May  2009  by  the  Nicaraguan  
government  would  have prohibited  foreign  NGOs  from  participating  in  or financing  “political”  
activities  that  “run  counter  to  or  might  influence  national  legislation.”    A foreign  NGO  that  holds  
a  workshop  attended  by legislators  in  which  participants  discuss  how  better  laws  could  facilitate  
medical  care  in  rural  communities  could  be  said  to have  “influence”  on  legislation.   Similarly, if  a  
foreign  NGO  funds  a  local  group  to  produce  an  analysis  of  the  laws  and  regulations  governing  
access  to clean  water,  and  the  report  identifies  deficiencies  in  the  laws,  it could  be  said  to “run  
counter”  to  national  legislation.   Following  an  intensive  advocacy  campaign  by NGOs,  the 
                                                           
  12  Inter ‐American  Court  of  Human  Rights,  Advisory  Opinion  OC ‐5/85,  (Series  A),  No.  5  (1985)  (compulsory  
membership  of  journalists  in  a  professional  association  represented  a  restriction  of  freedom  of  expression  under  
Articles  13  and  29  of  the  American  Convention  on  Human  Rights).  
 

Nicaraguan government  deferred  consideration  of  the  draft  manual  until  at  least  the  end  of  
2009.    
 
• The  Honduran  Congress  proposed  a  law  in March  2009  that  would  have  prohibited  all  NGOs  
from  engaging  in  “activities  …  that  might  influence  citizens in  relation  to  a  particular  political  
party,  candidacy,  or  ideological  tendency  (emphasis  added).”
13  This  draft  law,  like  the 
Nicaraguan  draft  manual,  includes  within  its  scope  a broad  range  of public  policy activities,  and  
could  be  used  at  the  government’s  discretion  to  silence  expression  of  particular  viewpoints.   The  
term  “ideological  tendency”  is  a  vague  and undefined  concept  susceptible  to  arbitrary  and  
discriminatory  interpretation.  So,  for  example,  the  law  could  be  used  to  silence  an  NGO  
promoting  any measures  the  government  does  not  agree  with  on  the  grounds  that  it would  
“influence  citizens  in  relation  to  a  particular  . .  .  ideological  tendency.”    Following  intensive  NGO  
advocacy,  debate  on  the  draft  law  was suspended.    
 
Broad  Restrictions  on  “Political  Activities”  
 
• Egyptian  law prohibits  all  “political  activities”  of  NGOs.   However,  the  Egyptian  government  
does  not  differentiate  between  a  political  campaign  for  office  and  public  policy  activities.
14 One 
example  is the  case  of  the  Egyptian  Association  Against Torture.   The Administrative  Judiciary  
Court  refused  to  register  the association  on  December  15, 2005  because  the court  decided  that  
the  group’s  mission  to  pressure  the  government  to  eliminate  torture in  police  stations  and  
prisons  was  “political  activity”;  consequently,  the  association  was prohibited  from  launching  its  
activities.
15    
 
• India  prohibits  all  NGOs  receiving  foreign  funding  from  participating  in  activities  associated  with  
any  political  party.
16   “Over  the  years,  the  Foreign  Contribution  (Regulation)  Act  (FCRA)  has  been  
used  to block  funding  for  and  harass  organizations  that  have  exercised  their  lawful  right  of  
questioning  or  criticizing  government  policies  and  practices.”
17   
 
                                                           
  13  Dictamen  de  la  Ley  de  las  Organizaciones  no  Gubernamentales,  Article  3(a),  (March  3,  2009).  14 Regulations  indicate  that  prohibited  political  activities  include  “advocating  the  program  of  one  of  the  political 
parties,  contributing  to  electoral  campaigns,  and  putting  forth  candidates  for  office.”  Regulations  to  Law  No.  
84/2002  on  Non ‐Governmental  Organizations  (Article  25).  
15 Mohamed  Agati,  Undermining  Standards  of  Good  Governance:  Egypt  ’s  NGO  Law  and  Its  Impact  on  the  
Transparency  and  Accountability  of  CSOs , The  International  Journal  of  Not ‐for ‐Profit  Law  Volume  9,  Issue  2, (April  
2007),  available  at  https://www.icnl.org/KNOWLEDGE/ijnl/vol9iss2/special_4.htm
.    16 FOREIGN  CONTRIBUTION  (REGULATION)  ACT,  5(1)  Explanation  (1976)  available  at  
https://www.fcraforngos.org/act.pdf
.    17 Human  Rights  Watch,  Letter  to  Prime  Minister  Manmohan  Singh  of  India  about  the Foreign  Contribution  
(Regulation)  Act  (April  9,  2008),  available  at  https://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/04/09/human ‐rights ‐watch ‐
letter‐prime‐ minister ‐manmohan ‐singh‐ india . 

II. Other  Provisions  of  NGO  Laws   Restricting  Freedom  of  Expression  
Other provisions  of  NGO  laws  may  also chill  free  expression.   Laws may,  for  example,  provide  
governments  with  discretion  to  deny  registration  to  NGOs,  or  restrict  funding  for NGOs  engaged  in  
human  rights  or  advocacy  activities  ‐ essentially  starving  those NGOs  that  speak  out  of  critical  resources  
‐  and  ultimately  inhibiting  NGO  representatives  from espousing  controversial  views  for  fear  of  
retribution.  These  provisions  are  often  vaguely  worded and  provide  governments  with  broad  discretion  
to  intervene  in  an  NGO’s  activities.   
• The  Ethiopian  government  enacted  a  law  in  2009  that  restricts  NGOs  that  receive  more  than  
10%  of  their  financing  from  foreign  sources  from  engaging  in  activities  related  to  “the  
advancement  of  human  and  democratic  rights…  the  promotion  of the  equality  of  nations,  
nationalities  and  peoples  and  that  of  gender  and  religion…  the  promotion  of the  rights  of  the  
disabled  and  children’s  rights…  the  promotion  of conflict  resolution  or  reconciliation…  [and] the  
promotion  of the  efficiency  of  the  justice  and  law  enforcement  services.”
18    Prohibiting  NGOs  
that  receive  more  than  a  token  amount  of  funding  from  abroad  from  participating  in  essentially  
all  human  rights  and  advocacy  activities  creates  a  significant  burden  on  human  rights  and  other  
designated  types  of  organizations  as  it is  nearly  impossible  for  these  organizations  to  raise  the  
necessary  funds  domestically.  This  provision  will  silence  civil  society  in  Ethiopia  by  starving 
NGOs  of  resources,  essentially  extinguishing  their  right  to  expression.  
 
• Justifying  the need  for  2006  amendment  to  the  NGO  laws,  Russia’s  then  President  Vladimir  
Putin  accused  NGOs  of  being  “instruments  of  foreign  states  to  carry  out  [their]  policies”  toward  
Russia  and  for  providing  opportunities  for  foreign  “secret  financing”  of  election  campaigns.
19  
The  law  allowed  the  government  to  refuse  to  register  NGOs  where  the  organization  is  deemed  
to  threaten  Russia’s  “national  unity,  uniqueness  and  cultural  heritage.”   Organizations  could  be  
dissolved  for  the  same  reason.  In  practice,  this  provision  allowed the  government  to  silence  
dissenting  viewpoints  by  refusing  to register  or forcibly  closing  NGOs.   In  a  positive  
development,  in  June  of  2009,  the  law  was amended  and the  provision  allowing the  government  
to  refuse  to  register  NGOs where  the  organization  is  deemed  to  threaten  Russia’s  “national  
unity,  uniqueness  and  cultural  heritage”  was  removed.
20  The  amendments  were  drafted  by  a  
                                                           
  18  Proclamation  for  the  Registration  and Regulation  of  Charities  and Societies  Article  14(2)(j ‐n)  (February  2009).  19 Vladimir  Putin  addressing  the  Munich  Conference  on  Security  in  February  2007.  Full  transcript  of  Putin’s  speech 
(Russian  only)  available  at  
https://www.kremlin.ru/appears/2007 /02/10/1737_type63374type63376type63377type63381type82634_118097.
shtml .  20 The  State  Duma  adopted  amendments  to  Russian  Federal  Law  No.  7 ‐FZ  of  January  12,  1996,  “On  Non ‐
Commercial  Organizations”  (NGO  Law),  which  came  into  force  on  August  1,  2009.  

presidential working  group  that  included  representatives  from  the  justice  ministry,  the  Duma, 
the  Federal  Council  and  civil  society.
21   
III.  Laws  of  General  Applicability  that  Restrict  NGO  Speech  
Some laws  of  general  applicability  that  limit  the  right  to free  expression,  such  as  those  governing  
defamation  and  access  to  the  internet,  often  have  significant  implications  for  the  NGO  sector.  
22    
Defamation  and  Libel  Laws 
The  UN  Special  Rapporteur  on  Freedom  of  Opinion  and  Expression,  Ambeyi  Ligabo,  expressed  concern 
about  “the  trend  of  increasing  the scope  of defamation  laws  to  include  the  protection  of  subjective  
values,  such as  a sense  of  national  identity, religions,  State  symbols,  institutions  or  even  representatives  
such  as  the  Head  of  State.”
23 The  Special  Rapporteur  reiterated  that  “the  provisions  on  protection  of  
reputation  contained  in  international  human  rights  law  are designed  to  protect  individuals,  not  abstract  
values  or  institutions.”
24 
Freedom  of  expression  is  subject  only  to  narrowly  drawn restrictions  which  are  necessary  to  protect  
legitimate  interests,  including  the  rights  or  reputations  of  persons.
25 If  these  restrictions  are  not  
narrowly  construed,  they  can  be  misused  by  a  government  to  impede  public  debate.  For example,  
defamation  laws,  particularly  those  that  seek  to  protect  “national  image,”  have  been  used  by some  
governments  to  target  NGOs  and  their  representatives  as  a  means  to  restrict  public  debate  on  
government  actions  or  policies.   The  chilling  effect  of these  laws  on  expression  of  opposition  to 
government  policies  can  be  especially  severe  where  the  law  allows  criminal  sanctions  for  defamation.   
Several  international  courts  have  determined  that  governments  and politicians  are required  to  tolerate  
potentially  defamatory  scrutiny  where  matters  of  public  concern  are at  stake.
26 
                                                           
  21  Eberhard  Schneider,   Russian  domestic  policy, EU ‐Russia  Centre  (July  20,  2009),  available  at  https://www.eu ‐
russiacentre.org/our ‐publications/column/russian ‐domestic ‐policy.html    22 “Voluntary,  non ‐governmental  human  rights  and  civic  groups  must  play  an  important  role  because  these  
communities,  by  definition,  are  the  ones  to  stand  up  against  manipulation  and  censorship.”  Guardian  Interview  
with  Vaclav  Havel,  Freedom  of  Expression  is  Imperative  to  Democracy,  Observer.co.uk , (April,  28  2002),  available  at  
https://www.guardian.co.uk/media /2002/apr/28/pressandpublishing.observercampaignpressfreedom
.   23 Ambeyi  Ligabo,  Report  of  the  Special  Rapporteur  on  the  Promotion  and  Protection  of  the  Right  to Freedom  of  
Opinion  and  Expression , (February,  28  2008),  available  at  
https://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/112/10/PDF/G0811210.pdf?OpenElement
   24  Id.  25 See  Article  19,  Defining  Defamation : Principles  on  Freedom  of  Expression  and  Protection  of  Reputation,  available  
at  https://www.article19.org/pdfs/st andards/definingdefamation.pdf
.      26 See  Bonnie  Docherty,  Defamation  Law: Positive  Jurisprudence , Harvard  Human  Rights  Journal  Issue  13 (October  
2008)  citing The  Lingens  Case, 103  Eur.  Ct.  H.R.  (ser.  A)  at  26,  Castells  v.  Spain  236  Eur. Ct.  H.R.  (ser.  A)  (1992),  
Thorgeirson  v.  Iceland  39  Eur.  Ct.  H.R.  (ser.  A)  (1992),  Die  Spoorbond  v.  South  African  Railways  SALR 999,  1012–13  
(S.  Afr.)  (Schreiner,  J.A.,  concurring)  (1946),  available  at  
https://www.law.harvard.edu/studen ts/orgs/hrj/iss13/docherty.shtml
.   

• Saad  Eddin  Ibrahim,  one  of  Egypt’s  leading human  rights  and  democracy  activists,  was arrested,  
prosecuted,  and  imprisoned  in  2000  for,  among  other  things,  allegedly  “defaming  Egypt’s  image  
abroad”  –  a  violation  of the  Egyptian  Criminal  Code.
27 His  defense  team  claimed  that the  real  
motive  behind  the  government’s  prosecution  was his  outspoken  criticism  of President  Hosni  
Mubarak  and  his  administration.
28  Mr.  Ibrahim  was tried  three  times  but  ultimately  acquitted  
by  the  High  Court  of  Justice  in 2003
29 after  substantial  international  pressure  was  exerted  on  the  
Mubarak  regime.  Several  years  later, a  series  of  hisba
30 lawsuits  were  brought  against  Mr.  
Ibrahim  by individual  Egyptian  citizens,  and  on  August  2,  2008  an  Egyptian  court  sentenced  
Ibrahim  to two  years  imprisonment  for again  “defaming  Egypt,” this  time  under  the  hisba  
doctrine.   At  least  a  dozen  additional  hisba  cases  remain  pending  against  Mr.  Ibrahim.  
  
• Despite  a 2004  law that eliminated  prison  sentences  for  offenses  by  the  press,  persons  who  
voice  dissent  still face  harsh  criminal  punishment  in  the  Ivory  Coast .    The  2004  law  continued  to  
permit  criminal  fines  for  “offense  against the  president  of the  republic  (Article 74)  by  a 
defamatory  allegation  about  his/her  public  as well  as private  life  that might  affect his/her  
dignity.”
31  In  early  2008,  Antoine  Assalé  Tiémoko,   the head  of  an  Ivorian  NGO  that  fights  social  
injustice,  was  sentenced  to  a  year  in  prison  for  “libeling  government  officials”  in  an op ‐ed  he  
authored  about judicial  corruption  in  a local  paper.
32 
 
• Fahd  Al ‐Qarni,  a  Yemeni  human  rights  and  pro ‐democracy  activist,  who  uses  comedy  and  song  
as  a way  to  voice  dissent,  has  faced  repeated  charges  of  “insulting  the  president.”
33   The  original  
charges,  for  which  he  was  pardoned  by  the  president,  stem  from  recordings  made  by Mr.  Al ‐
Qarni  in which  he  is  critical  of  government  policies.
34 
 
• Russian  President  Dmitry  Medvedev  recently  created a  commission  to  fight  what he  calls,  “the  
falsification  of  Russian  history.”   According  to  the  decree  that  created  the  commission,  the  
government  believes  falsifications  are  being  made “to  diminish  the  international  prestige  of 
                                                           
  27  Exiled  Egyptian  activist sentenced , Al  Jazeera.net,  (August  11,  2008),  available  at  
https://english.aljazeera.net/news/middl eeast/2008/08/20088211650154352.html
.   28 Id . 29 Committee  on Human  Rights,  Saad  Eddin  Ibrahim  Is  Acquitted,  ( March  18,  2003),  available  at  
https://sites.nationalacademies.o rg/PGA/humanrights/PGA_051772
.   30 Hisba  lawsuits  are  an  early  form  of  Islamic  law  that  enabled  “individuals  to  discuss  matters  of religion  in  the  
public  arena”  but  which  have  recently  been  used  to  “silence  dissent and stifle  civic  engagement.”  See  
https://bikyamasr.wordpr ess.com/2009/07/16/bm ‐analysis ‐the ‐rise ‐of ‐the ‐hisba/
 for  more  information.  31 USAID,  Media  Sustainability  Index  2006 ‐2007 , p.  99.  32 Reporters  Without  Borders,  NGO  activist  gets  a  year  in prison  for  libel  and  contempt  of  court , (January  10,  
2008),  available  at  https://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47a83e1924.html  
33 Prisoner  Organization:  a  voice  for  the  voiceless , Yemen  Times  Online,  available  at  
https://yementimes.com/articl e.shtml?i=1261&p=report&a=2
; see  also  Singer  and  comedian  Fahd  al  Qarni  to  face  
renewed  charges  of  “insulting  the  president,”  available  at 
https://www.ifex.org/yemen /2009/02/17/singer_and_co median_fahd_al_qarni/
 .    34 Id . 

Russia.” 35  Specifically,  Sergei  Shoigu,  the  emergency  situations  minister,  has  called  for the  
criminalization  of  “[the  belittlement  of]  the  role  of the  USSR  in the  Second  World  War.”
36 Janusz  
Bugajski,  Director  of  the  New  European  Democracies  Program  Center  for  Strategic  and  
International  Studies  (CSIS),  has  suggested,  “this  would  open the door  to  possible  legal  
campaigns  against  political  leaders  in  neighboring  countries,  including  Ukraine,  Georgia,  and  the  
three  Baltic  states,  who  challenge  Russia’s  distorted  version  of  history.
37 
 
• 2006  amendments  to  the  Belarusian  criminal  code  provided  that  “fraudulent  representation  of  
the  political,  economic,  social,  military  or  international  situation  of  […]  Belarus”  is  regarded  as 
“discrediting  Belarus”  and  subject  to  punishment  of  up  to  six  months  of  detention  or  two  years  
of  imprisonment.
38 As  a  result,  in  May  2006,  the  court  of  the  Minsk  city  Pershamaiski  district  
sentenced  young  oppositionist  Arthur  Finkevich  to two  years  of enforced  labor  for  authoring  
graffiti  that  read  “We  Want  a  New  One!”  on  walls  in  the  Belarusian  capital.
39 
Restrictions  on  Internet  Access   
It  has  been  observed  that  the internet  and  civil  society  have  an  interdependent  relationship   ‐‐ the 
growth  and  success  of  one  results  in  growth  and  success  for the  other.
40  The  Internet  has  tremendous  
potential  for  fostering  democratic  participation,  giving  voice  to  the  voiceless
41 and  allowing  citizens  and  
organizations  from  all  over  the  world  to  exchange  ideas on  important  issues.   The  power  of the  internet  
to  facilitate  expression  by  civil  society  is  on  the  rise,  however,  “internet  censorship  and surveillance  are 
growing  global  phenomena.”
42      
• Since  at  least  1996  China  has  actively  restricted  access  to the  Internet.   As  reported  by  the  
Associated  Press, China  has  issued  Internet  controls  ordering  service providers  to  screen  private  
e ‐mail  for  political  content  and  holding  them  responsible  for subversive  postings  on  their  web  
sites.  .  .
43 Under  these  rules,  general  portal  sites must  install  security  programs  to  screen  and  
                                                           
  35  Galina  Stoylarova,   With Apologies  to  Orwell,  Transitions  Online  (May  28,  2009)  available  at  
www.tol.cz/look/TOL/printf.tpl?IdLanguag e=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=323&NrS
.  36 Id . 37 Janusz  Bugajski,  Op ‐ed:   KREMLIN’S  CRIME:  Is  Russia  determined  to  repeat  its  history?   The Wall Street  Journal  
Europe,  (  June  11,  2009)  available  at  https://action ‐ukraine ‐report.blogspot.com/2009/06/aur937 ‐june ‐21‐ russias‐
battle‐ with.html#a1 .   38 International  Helsinki Federation  for  Human  Rights  and  the  Belarusian  Helsinki  Committee,  FREEDOM  OF  
EXPRESSION  IN  BELARUS  from  the  Second  Supplementary  Human  Dimension  Meeting  on Freedom  of  the  Media:  
Protection  of  Journalists  and  Access  to  Information , Vienna,  13 ‐14  July  2006.  
39 Id . 40 Guobin  Yang,  The  Co ‐Evolution  of the  Internet  and  Civil Society  in  China , Asian  Survey  43  (3)  pp. 405‐ 422 (2003).  41 Global  Internet  Liberty Campaign,  Regardless  of  Frontiers:  Protecting  the  Human  Right  to  Freedom  of  Expression  
on  the  Global  Internet , p.  6,  (September  1998)  available  at  https://www.cdt.org/gilc/Reg ardless_of_Frontiers.pdf
.  42 See  Open  Net Initiative  at  https://opennet.net/ .    43 Associated  Press,  China  Tightens  Web  Controls  (January  1,  2002)  available  at  
https://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/01/49855
.   

copy all  e‐mail  messages  sent  or  received  by  users. 44 Those  containing  ‘sensitive materials’  must 
be  turned  over to  authorities.  Providers  are  also  responsible  for erasing  all  prohibited  content  
posted  on their  web  sites,  including  online  chat  rooms  and  bulletin  boards.  The  new  rules  
include  a  long  list  of  banned  content,”  including,  a  prohibition  on  writings  that  “hurt  China’s  
reputation.”
45  Under  these  provisions,  an  NGO  is  prohibited  from  exchanging  over  the  internet  
any  information  that  could  be  perceived  as  harmful  to  China’s  reputation.  
 
• Thailand  is  one  of  the  few  remaining  countries  in  the  world  to  prosecute  crimes  of  lèse  majesté;  
individuals  who  insult,  defame,  or threaten  the  Thai  royal  family  can  be  sentenced  to  up  to  
fifteen  years of imprisonment.
46  Lèse  majesté  has  begun  to form  the  basis  for  the  blocking  and  
removal  of  Thai  web  sites.
47   The  Ministry  of  Information  and Communication  Technology  
indicated  that  it  has  shut  down  more  than  2,000  websites  alleged  to have  contained  lèse  
majesté  material,  and  considers  the  crackdown  policy  a  priority.
48  Thus  any  NGO  that  uses  the  
internet  to  discuss  critical  issues  regarding  the  Thai  royal  family  could  become  a target  for  
government  action.   
 
• In April  2009,  the  Iranian  parliament  passed amendments  to  the  Press  Law that extended  its  
coverage  to  content  found  on  the  internet.  The  Press  law outlines  broad  restrictions  on  speech,  
including  prohibitions  on  “promoting  subjects  that  might  damage  the  foundation  of  the  Islamic  
Republic  … or  encouraging  and  instigating  individuals  and  groups  to  act  against  the  security,  
dignity  and  interests  of  the  Islamic  Republic  of  Iran.”
49  Given  the  ambiguous  wording  of the  
amendments,  critics  say  that  any  web  site  that  can  be  viewed  by  the  public  may also  fall  within  
the  new  definition,  allowing  greater  discretion  to  the  government  to  inhibit  freedom  of  
expression  over  the  internet.   This restriction  may  have a  particularly  negative  impact  on  NGOs  
that  espouse  unpopular  views  using  websites.   According  to the  Open  Net  Initiative,  Iran  
employs  one  of  the  most  extensive  internet  filtering  systems  in  the  world.
50  During  the  2009  
presidential  elections  the  government  blocked  access  to  a  number  of  sites  including  Facebook, 
YouTube,  and  Twitter.  
 
 
 
                                                           
  44  Id.  45 Id.   46 Open  Net Initiative,  Thailand  available  at  https://opennet.net/research/profiles/thailand .   47Article  19,  Impact  of  Defamation  law on  Freedom  of  Expression  in  Thailand  available  at  
https://www.article19.or g/pdfs/analysis/thailand ‐impact ‐of ‐defamation ‐law ‐on ‐freedom ‐of ‐expression.pdf
.   48 Id . 49 Press  Law of  the  Islamic  Republic  of Iran , Article  6,  available  at  https://www.parstimes.com/law/press_law.html .    50 Open  Net Initiative,  Iran  available  at  https://opennet.net/research/profiles/iran .   

IV. Legal  Framework  
International  law  recognizes  that  everyone  has  the  right  to freedom  of  expression  and  opinion. 51   For 
example,  Article  19  of the  ICCPR  protects  the  right  to seek,  receive  and  impart  information  and  ideas  of  
all  kinds,  regardless  of  frontiers,  either orally,  in  writing  or in  print,  in  the  form  of  art,  or  through  any  
other  media  of  [one’s]  choice.
52  As  the  Inter ‐American  Court  on  Human  Rights has  recognized  with 
respect  to  the  equivalent  provision  of the  American  Convention  on  Human  Rights:  
These  words establish  literally that  persons  under the  protection  of the  Convention  not only  have  
the  right  and  freedom  to  express  their  own  thoughts,  but  that  they also  have  the  right  and 
freedom  to  seek,  receive,  and  impart  information  and ideas  of  all  kinds.   Consequently,  when an  
individual’s  freedom  of  expression  is  illegally  restricted,  not only  is  it  that  individual’s  right  that  is 
being  violated,  but  also  the  right  of  everyone  to  “receive”  information  and  ideas.    . .  .    In  fact,  
this  right  requires  first  that  no persons  be  arbitrarily  impaired  or  prevented  from  expressing  their  
thoughts,  and  in this  way  it  represents  an  individual  right.   But it  also  implies  a  collective  right  to  
receive  any  information  and to hear  the  expression  of the  thoughts  of  others.
53 
Articles  19  and  20  of the  ICCPR  set  out  the  very  limited  conditions  under  which  a  restriction  on  the  right  
to  free  expression  is  permissible.   The  restriction  must  be  prescribed  by law  and necessary  in  a 
democratic  society  in the  interests  of  national  security, public  safety, public  order,  the protection  of  
public  health or  morals,  or the  protection  of  the  rights  and  freedoms  of  others.
54  In  addition,  any  
propaganda  for  war,  and  any  advocacy  of  national,  racial  or  religious  hatred  that  constitutes  incitement  
to  discrimination,  hostility  or  violence  shall  be  prohibited  by  law.
55  
Freedom  of  expression  is  also  necessary  to  the  preservation  of  other  human  rights.   The  U.N. 
Declaration  on  the  Right  and Responsibility  of  Individuals,  Groups  and  Organs  of  Society  to  Promote  and  
Protect  Universally  Recognized  Human Rights  and  Fundamental  Freedoms
56 recognizes  this  concept  in  
its  inclusive  list  of  the  activities  protected  by  the  right  to  free  expression,  which  include  “to  know,  seek, 
obtain,  receive  and  hold  information  about  all  human  rights  and  fundamental  freedoms,” and  “to  
submit  to governmental  bodies  and  agencies  .  .  .criticism  and  proposals  for  improving  their functioning  
                                                           
  51  International  Covenant of  Civil  and Political  Rights  (ICCPR)  (Article  19);  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights  
(UDHR)  (Article 19)  (1948);  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights  (Article  10)  (1950)  (ECHR);  African  (Banjul) 
Charter  on  Human  and  Peoples’  Rights  (ACHPR)  (Article  9)  (1982);  American  Convention  on  Human  Rights  (ACHR)  
(Article  13)  (1978);  and  Arab  Charter  on  Human  Rights  (Article  32).  
52 ICCPR  Article  19(2).  53 Inter ‐American  Court  of  Human  Rights,  Advisory  Opinion  OC ‐5/85,  (Series  A),  No.  5  (1985)  (compulsory  
membership  of  journalists  in  a  professional  association  represented  a  restriction  of  freedom  of  expression  under  
Articles  13  and  29  of  the  American  Convention  on  Human  Rights).  
54 Id . 55 ICCPR  Article  20.   56 Adopted  by  the  U.N.  General  Assembly  in  Resolution  53/144  (December,  9  1998)  available  at  
https://www.ohchr.org/En glish/law/freedom.htm
.  

12 
and
 to  draw  attention  to any  aspect  of their  work  that  may  hinder  or  impede  the  promotion,  protection  
and  realization  of human  rights  and  fundamental  freedoms.”
57 
  The  laws  discussed  above raise  concerns  under  the  ICCPR  and  other  conventions  protecting  the  right  to  
free  expression: 
• Restrictions  on  transfers  of  knowledge  and  information  such as  those  posed  by  international  
cooperation  laws explicitly  allow  the  government  to  interfere  in  contacts  between  a  country’s  
residents  and  foreign  persons,  impeding  the ability  of  people  both  to  express  their  thoughts  and  
to  “receive  any  information  and  to  hear  the  expression  of  the  thoughts  of  others,  regardless  of  
frontiers.”
58   
• Legal  restrictions  on  NGO  activities  using  vague  terminology  such as  “influence  .  .  .ideological  
tendencies”(Honduras)  or  “activity  in  the  processes  of  nationwide  reform”  (Kyrgyzstan),  or 
broadly  prohibiting  NGO  “political”  activity  chill  free expression  and  allow  government  
significant  discretion  in  determining  what  speech  it  will  allow  and  what  speech  it  will  punish.   
The  ICCPR  Human  Rights  Committee  recognized  this problem  in  its  review  of  the  Russian  law,  
“Combating  Extremist Activities,”  explaining that  “the  definition  of ‘extremist  activity’   . .  . is  too  
vague  to protect  individuals  and  associations  against  arbitrariness  in  its application.”
59 
• Restrictions  that  directly  or  indirectly  limit  NGOs  from  engaging  in certain  activities,  such  as  
human  rights  defense,  not  only  impinge  upon  the right  to  associate,  but  also  impede  the  right  of  
people,  individually  and  through  their  organizations,  to speak  out  on  matters  of public  concern.  
Conclusion  
Restrictions on  NGO  public  policy activities  deprive  individuals  of  an  important  vehicle  for  educating  
themselves  and  voicing  their opinions  on  important  issues.   The absence  of critical  voices weakens  the  
resulting  policies, and  by  extension,  effective  governance.  Governments,  along  with  civil  society  
organizations  and  the  public,  stand  to  gain  by removing  barriers to  NGO  participation  in  public  policy 
development.    
We  invite  you  to  submit  comments  and  reports  of  emerging  issues  in  your  country  by visiting  
https://www.icnl.org/globaltrends/
.   
 
                                                           
  57  Id .  The  complete  list  is  found  at  Articles  6 ‐9.  58 ICCPR  Article  19.   59 ICCPR,  Human  Rights  Committee,  A/59/40  vol.  I  (2003)  20  at para.  64  (20).