15 Dec 2025 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, United Kingdom
As reporters and organisations representing the interests of media workers and the broader rights of free expression and privacy, we have come together to highlight the extreme danger that the UK’s plan to break end-to-end encryption poses to investigative journalism and even to the lives of journalists.
Cases such as Breen v PSNI (2009) have shown that reporters – particularly those who report on terrorism and criminal gangs – may face a serious threat to their lives if they cannot guarantee source protection, and as such can claim legal rights under Article 2 and Article 10 of the ECHR.
The current proposal by the UK government would mean that UK-based reporters using end-to-end encrypted services such as Signal, WhatsApp and other vital tools, would be forced to deal with government-mandated vulnerabilities in messaging systems that much of the rest of the world considers secure.
In an age of global media, but also international organised crime and rising transnational repression by autocratic states, the UK, which for centuries has provided a home for free speech and free media and a haven for dissidents seeking refuge from the secret police of their own lands, risks becoming the place where freedom dies.
As MPs gather to debate this potentially disastrous law, we urge the government to rethink its dangerous encryption-breaking law which endangers journalism and journalists at home and around the world.
Signed,
Index on Censorship
National Union of Journalists (UK)
International Press Institute
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
Global Forum for Media Development
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)
Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (Italy)
Carole Cadwalladr (personal capacity)
Association of European Journalists (AEJ)
Big Brother Watch (UK)
Open Rights Group (UK)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
15 Dec 2025 | Hong Kong, News and features, Statements
We at Index on Censorship condemn today’s guilty verdict coming out of Hong Kong in the “trial” of democracy activist and media mogul Jimmy Lai. Nothing about this trial has been free or fair. Indeed the National Security Law itself, which Lai has been charged under, is an affront to free speech, masquerading as justice when instead its sole purpose is to criminalise and crush opposition voices.
Lai has been imprisoned in Hong Kong since 2020. He has already been sentenced for separate charges of unauthorised assembly and fraud, but the National Security Law charge he has now been convicted of was the most serious accusation. As a result of today’s verdict Lai, who is 78 years old and a British citizen, could face life in prison.
Lai has a long history of being an advocate for free speech and democracy. He describes himself as having a “rebellious nature”, which he has demonstrated throughout his life. Born in mainland China in 1947 during the Chinese Civil War, when he was just 12 years old Lai smuggled himself into Hong Kong as a stowaway on a fishing boat. He launched a very successful career in the city through his role at a garment factory, and later his clothing line, before being inspired to go into the media business in the 1990s by his outrage at the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
Lai founded the media company that went on to become Next Digital in 1990. It grew to include Apple Daily, a popular opposition newspaper dedicated to free speech, in 1995. After the Hong Kong handover in 1997, Apple Daily became known for challenging Beijing’s party line, as did Lai, who emerged as a key figure in Hong Kong’s pro-democracy camp, which emerged in response to the increasing attacks on freedoms in the region.
Since the ascension of Xi Jinping to power from 2012, the CCP ‘s crackdown on freedoms in Hong Kong only intensified. Then on 30 June 2020, the National Security Law was passed. Speaking before its passage, Lai called the law “a death knell for Hong Kong”. Lai was arrested on 10 August of that year, as were others from Next Digital.
Following his arrest, Apple Daily was also targeted. The newspaper was forced to shut down a year later when its assets were frozen.
Index has campaigned on behalf of Lai since his arrest. We have covered updates on his situation, published letters of Lai’s written from prison and launched A Postcard for Jimmy, a campaign encouraging people to write a brief message of support to Lai in order to boost his morale and let him know he has not been forgotten.
Throughout his ordeal, Jimmy Lai – whose health has visibly deteriorated – has never backed down from his pro-democracy position. Preferring to be a martyr for the cause rather than sacrifice his principles, Lai is being punished for exercising his right to free speech. It is vital that his case does not go unnoticed. The guilty verdict returned in relation to these charges is an appalling breach of Lai’s personal rights and freedoms, and we will continue to condemn the decision while Lai continues to be incarcerated. Advocating for human rights is not a crime. Keeping Jimmy Lai locked up is.
12 Dec 2025 | Americas, Brazil, News and features
Brazilian left-wing influencer Thiago Torres, best known as Chavoso da USP (roughly translated as the University of São Paulo’s swaggy chav), has faced increasing political persecution in the last months. This reached international levels last month when Thiago’s main Instagram profile, with more than one million followers, was taken down by Meta.
Thiago then started using an old backup Instagram account with 385,000 followers, which was also taken down after allegations that it had been created to circumvent the previous block. Arbitrarily and without possibility of appeal, Meta blocked all access to his accounts and is set to permanently delete their content. A warning on Instagram said that the account “does not follow Community Standards” although the company did not specify which specific rules had been breached. Even after a preliminary injunction was issued on the morning of 20 November that forced Meta to return Thiago’s main account under threat of a fine, three other accounts were taken down later that same evening.
By maintaining the block on the influencer, Meta is involved in yet another case of big tech insubordination to Brazilian justice according to politicians. Federal Congresswoman Sâmia Bomfim, from PSOL (Freedom and Socialism Party), classified the event as a “direct attack on freedom of speech and the work of those who denounce injustices within Brazil.” Thiago sees it as “an offensive against progressive, mainly radical, left-wing voices”.
This is not the first time Meta has taken down accounts with large numbers of followers linked to the Brazilian left. In August this year, historian and influencer Jones Manoel, former candidate for governor of Pernambuco with the PCB (Brazilian Communist Party) and the Brazilian influencer with the most growth on the platform since June, was arbitrarily banned from Instagram. In October, activist and comedian Tiago Santineli also had his 850,000 followers account blocked, following online comments about the death of Charlie Kirk.
Since 9 December 2025, members of parliament from PSOL, PT (Worker’s Party), and left-wing news outlets have reported that their profiles “don’t appear in searches, can’t be tagged, and [that] their reach has plummeted in an orchestrated manner”, according to Federal Congresswoman Fernanda Melchionna. This is known as shadow-banning.
The bans follow a dispute between big tech companies and the left wing government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva which dates from January 2025, when Brazil’s Attorney General’s Office sent an extrajudicial notification to Meta because of the company’s decision to stop using independent fact-checkers. The concern was that this would further exacerbate the problem of “fake news”, which became prevalent in the 2018 and 2022 election processes, particularly on the part of the Brazilian right wing. A major dispute between the Brazilian judiciary and Elon Musk’s X also took place last year, resulting in the social network being blocked in the country until Musk complied with court orders.
The regulation of big tech companies – largely similar to what the EU has instigated – is considered by the current government as a matter of national sovereignty. In July, President Trump sent a letter to Brazil’s president, Lula, imposing a massive 50% tariff that rendered the export of a range of Brazilian products to the USA unfeasible. According to the letter, the measure came as retaliation for the sanctions against big tech and in support of former president Jair Bolsonaro, a representative of the Brazilian far right and ally of Trump who was convicted for attempted coup d’état.
In his speech at the UN General Assembly in September, President Lula said that “even under unprecedented attack, Brazil chose to resist and defend its democracy. There is no justification for the unilateral and arbitrary measures against our institutions and our economy. The aggression against the independence of the judiciary is unacceptable.”
It is not only in Brazil that US intervention in favour of big tech been felt. Back in January, Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg clearly stated on the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast that “the US government has a role in basically defending [big tech] abroad”.
In the same week that Brazil hosted COP30 and witnessed the preventive arrest of Bolsonaro, the suspension of five accounts belonging to a left-wing influencer shows that big tech might also have a role in defending the US government’s interests abroad in Brazil.
Researchers like the Brazilian academic Walter Lippold denounce what they call “digital colonialism”, the interconnection between imperialist interests and big tech. To Brazilian sociologist Sérgio Amadeu, “online social networks and platforms controlled by big tech companies are geopolitical structures increasingly aligned with the far right.” In June, at seminars held by Bolsonaro’s right-wing Liberal party (PL), executives from Meta gave workshops teaching how to use AI and achieve greater reach on the platform.
Born and raised in Brasilândia, an outlying neighbourhood of São Paulo, Thiago Torres first rose to prominence as a social sciences student at the University of São Paulo.
Ranked many times as the best university in Latin America, the University of São Paulo subscribes to a national public education project aimed at social development. Despite this, USP remains elitist in the social and racial makeup of both its faculty and students. Thiago spoke about the way this composition shaped the production of knowledge within USP, and used his platform to share social theory with a wider public.
Now graduated and a teacher, Thiago has become known for denouncing cases of political corruption and police violence. Overtly anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, it’s not surprising that his head is wanted by public officials and companies who benefit from the country’s social division.
In August this year, Thiago was called to testify in the controversial CPI dos Pancadões, a parliamentary commission inquiring into street funk parties. Under the pretext that they disturb public order, it is common for the military police to raid pancadões, using extreme violence and murdering the young people present, many of whom are from racial minorities and come from lower social strata.
Thiago’s account dedicated to police violence, @fim.da.pm (“End the Military Police”), is among those blocked by Meta. The company had until 28 November to return the influencer’s main account, but this didn’t happen.
“Instagram will face a daily fine for each day it fails to comply [with the judiciary decision]”, Thiago explained. “But it’s a relatively small fine for them, so it’s possible they might disregard the court order.” Unfortunately, this seems to be the case.
11 Dec 2025 | Asia and Pacific, Australia, News and features
Read Index’s statement on why Australia’s ban on social media for under 16s is disproportionate
When Australia passed a world-first social media ban for teens, there was a display of national pride from the prime minister, and even the Sydney Harbour Bridge was lit up in the country’s national colours, green and gold, to celebrate the historic achievement.
The law, which came into effect on 10 December, requires 10 platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from having accounts on their platforms, or risk fines of up to $49.5 million.
The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 had bipartisan support and sailed through Australian parliament last December. Seventy per cent of Australians are said to support it.
Australia is being feted. The EU, Malaysia, and others are said to be watching, including the UK, although the culture secretary has expressed doubts over whether it could be enforced in the country.
But a barrage of human rights groups and others, including Index on Censorship, Amnesty International and Save the Children, have all criticised or opposed the ban.
Tom Sulston, head of policy at Australian charity Digital Rights Watch, told Index that they were broadly supportive of the idea that internet access is a human right. While the new law only restricts teens from accessing 10 specific sites – X, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Kick and Twitch – he said that the space these social media companies represent is enormous.
“They do occupy this space as the town square of digital society,” Sulston said. “So, is it proportionate to remove that right of access to a group of people in order to protect their safety, or under the guise of protecting their safety? We don’t think so.”
He added that there were alternative measures that many organisations were asking for, such as regulation and investment in digital literacy, which could have been put in place instead of an outright ban.
There is now an interesting legal conversation to be had about the ban, Sulston said. On 26 November, two 15-year-olds launched a legal challenge to the law, supported by rights group the Digital Freedom Project (DFP), in Australia’s High Court. They are arguing that all Australians have a constitutional implied right to freedom of political communication.
“Young people like me are the voters of tomorrow,” said one plaintiff Macy Neyland in a statement. “Why on earth should we be banned from expressing our views?” Neyland added that the situation was “like Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four”.
Noah Jones, who is also suing the government, told the media: “We’re disappointed in a lazy government that blanket-bans under-16s rather than investing in programmes to help kids be safe on social media. They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence.”
A direction hearing for the teens’ court challenge will be heard in February at the earliest.
Digital Freedom Project president John Ruddick, who is also a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council with the Libertarian Party, has branded the ban the world’s most draconian legislation. He said that it was “as Big Brother as you can get” and that “even the Chinese Communist Party would be drooling over this”.
Reddit was also reportedly looking at legal action, but has confirmed it will comply with the restrictions.
In submissions to Australia’s Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications last November, before it became law, the Australian Human Rights Commission said that it had “serious reservations” about the legislation. While it said that it understood the significance of protecting young people from online harm and the negative consequences of social media, the ban would affect some human rights outlined in international human rights treaties including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
These include the right to freedom of expression and information, and the freedom of association and peaceful assembly, as contained in both treaties.
Digital Rights Watch’s Sulston said that he was also worried about autocracies eyeing up the law. According to digital rights non-profit Access Now, 2024 was the worst year on record for internet shutdowns.
“Young people are not represented democratically, even in democratic societies. If you’re under the age to vote, then you get nothing,” Sulston said. “So being able to organise and develop political understanding and take political action online is really important for that cohort. You can see why it would be very attractive for authoritarian regimes to clamp down on that.”
But Sulston said that even though he considered the law a “disaster” and there was no evidence that it would improve children’s lives, it had already been showcased at the UN General Assembly and “deemed a great success”.
He said: “It’s really hard to see what a path to change looks like, because no matter how harmful it is, it seems we’re stuck with it.”
Read Index’s statement on why Australia’s ban on social media for under 16s is disproportionate
