The week in free expression: 12 – 18 July 2025

In the age of online information, it can feel harder than ever to stay informed. As we get bombarded with news from all angles, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at how UK police are interpreting the proscription of Palestine Action, and the detention and extradition of a Beninese government critic.

An oppressive interpretation: Kent woman threatened with arrest over Palestine flags

On 1 July 2025, UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper proscribed Palestine Action, a pro-Palestinian activist group founded in 2020, calling it a “dangerous terrorist group”. The move, which sees PA’s name added to this list, was made after two members of the organisation broke into RAF Brize Norton airbase on scooters and defaced two military planes with red paint, the latest in a long line of actions taken by the group to halt proceedings at locations and factories they believe to be aiding Israel’s offensive in Gaza. Proscription means that joining or showing support for Palestine Action is punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

The Home Secretary’s decision has provoked controversy. The move has been described by Amnesty International as “draconian” and a “disturbing legal overreach”. Since the ruling, over 70 protesters have been arrested for displaying signs showing direct support for Palestine Action, and numerous lawyers, UN experts and human rights groups have voiced concerns that the vague wording of the order could be a slippery slope into more general support for the pro-Palestinian cause being punished.

On Monday 14 July, peaceful protester Laura Murton was holding a Palestinian flag as well as signs that read “Free Gaza” and “Israel is committing genocide”, when she was threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act by Kent police. Despite showing no support for Palestine Action, she was told by police that the phrase “Free Gaza” was “supportive of Palestine Action”; police were recorded by Murton stating that “Mentioning freedom of Gaza, Israel, genocide, all of that all come under proscribed groups, which are terror groups that have been dictated by the government.” She was made to provide her name and address, and was told that if she continued to protest, she would be arrested

Murton told the Guardian that it was the most “authoritarian, dystopian experience I’ve had in this country”. Labour’s Minister of State for Security Dan Jarvis seemed to condemn the incident, stating “Palestine Action’s proscription does not and must not interfere with people’s legitimate right to express support for Palestinians.

Defying refugee status: Beninese journalist forcibly detained and extradited

On 10 July, Beninese journalist and government critic Hughes Comlan Sossoukpè was arrested in a hotel room in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire and swiftly deported back to Benin, in violation of his status as a refugee.

Sossoukpè, who is the publisher and director of online newspaper Olofofo, had been living in exile in Togo since 2019 due to threats received regarding his work criticising the Beninese government and has held refugee status since 2021. He had reportedly been invited to Abidjan by the Ivorian Ministry of Digital Transition and Digitalisation to attend a forum on new technologies – one of Sossoupkè’s lawyers accused Cote d’Ivoire of inviting him for the purpose of his capture.

Another of his lawyers, speaking to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), reported that Sossoupkè recognised two of the five police officers that arrested him as being Beninese officers rather than Ivorian. They allegedly ignored his request to see a judge, confiscated his personal devices and escorted him to a plane back to Benin.

On 14 July, Sossoukpè was brought before the Court for the Repression of Economic Offences and Terrorism (CRIET) in Cotonou, Benin, and charged with “incitement to rebellion, incitement to hatred and violence, harassment by electronic means, and apology of terrorism”. He has been placed in provisional detention in a civil prison, and numerous groups such as CPJ, Frontline Defenders, and the International Federation of Journalists have called for his unconditional release. 

The crime of a Google search: Russia ramps up dissent crackdown under guise of “anti-extremism”

Russia’s lower chamber of parliament, the State Duma, passed legislation on 17 July that greatly extends the state’s ability to crack down on dissenters. Starting in September, in addition to criminalising taking part in activities or groups that the Kremlin deems “extremist”, you can be fined just for looking them up online.

Anti-extremism laws in Russia have long been used to crack down on organisations whose views do not align with the state’s; There have been over 100 extremism convictions for participating in the “international LGBT movement”, and lawyers who defended opposition leader Aleksei Navalny were also arrested and imprisoned on extremism charges. But with the new changes passed on Thursday, those who “deliberately search for knowingly extremist materials” will face fines of up to 5000 roubles, or around £47

Extremist materials are designated by the justice ministry via a running list of over 5000 entries which includes books, websites and artworks. Other materials that could result in a fine include music by Russian feminist band Pussy Riot, articles related to LGBTQ rights, Amnesty International and various other human rights groups, pro-Ukraine art or works..

The ruling has been met with a backlash from politicians and organisations from across Russia’s political spectrum; the editor-in-chief of pro-Kremlin broadcaster Russia Today said she hopes amendments will be made to the legislation, as it would be impossible to investigate extremism if online searches are prohibited, while Deputy State Duma speaker Vladislav Davankov reportedly called the bill an “attack on the basic rights of citizens”.

The Taliban vs journalism: Local Afghan reporter detained  

In the most recent case of the Taliban’s crackdown on journalism in Afghanistan, journalist Aziz Watanwal was arrested and taken from his home on 12 July alongside two of his friends in a raid by intelligence forces. 

A local journalist of the Nangarhar province of eastern Afghanistan, Watanwal had his professional equipment confiscated. Despite his friends being released in the hours following his arrest, Watanwal is still in custody with no information regarding his whereabouts, and the Taliban reportedly gave no reason for his detention.

Since the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan in August 2021, journalistic freedoms have taken a sharp decline. Afghanistan Journalists Centre have reported that in the first half of 2025, press freedom violations increased by 56% compared to the same period in 2024. In the three years following the Taliban’s return to rule, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reported that 141 journalists had been arrested for their work, and the country currently sits 175th out of 180 countries on RSF’s Press Freedom Index.

Censorship of an archive: Chinese tech corporation seeks closure of crucial social media archive

Chinese multinational tech conglomerate Tencent has launched legal action against censorship archive organisation GreatFire to take down FreeWeChat, a platform run by GreatFire that aims to archive deleted or blocked posts on prominent Chinese messaging and social media app WeChat. 

WeChat is one of the most popular apps for Chinese citizens and diaspora, and posts on the platform critical of the government are frequently subject to censorship. FreeWeChat was created in 2016 in an effort to catalogue posts taken down by Chinese authorities, but it is now under threat from this legal attack by Tencent.

Tencent’s claim is that FreeWeChat’s use of “WeChat” in the domain is a trademark and copyright infringement, submitting a takedown complaint with this reasoning on 12 June. GreatFire rebutted the allegations, stating that they do not “use WeChat’s logo, claim affiliation, or distribute any modified WeChat software”, and claim that Tencent’s intent is to “shut down a watchdog”. 

Martin Johnson, lead developer of GreatFire, stated that the organisation have previously dealt with state-sanctioned DDoS attacks, but they have outlined their intent to keep FreeWeChat up and running despite a takedown order from the site’s hosting provider.

Africa’s appetite for coups grows as military leaders strengthen their grip

The 2020s have been a busy time for military coups in Africa. 

University of Kentucky political scientists Jonathan Powell, who specialises in the study of political instability, and Professor Clayton Thyne, whose research focuses on domestic conflict and coups d’état, said there were 13 attempted coups in Africa in the years 2021 to 2023.

Powell says eight of those coups succeeded – in Chad, Mali, Guinea and Sudan in 2021, two separate coups in Burkina Faso in 2022, one on 23 January of that year and another on 30 September, and in Niger and Gabon in 2023..

The remaining five coups failed: in Niger and Sudan in 2021, in Guinea-Bissau and São Tomé and Príncipe in 2022 and in Sudan in 2023. In the latter, the military rulers who had seized power in 2021 continued to run the war-torn country.

Where the military have been successful in taking control, the army generals leading the coups have since shown no appetite for a return to civilian rule despite promising to do so when they took control..

Two of the coup leaders – Chad’s military leader Mahamat Idriss Déby, who seized power in 2021,and Gabon’s General Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema who masterminded a coup in 2023have since held disputed elections in an attempt to give their rule a measure of legitimacy. In May 2024, Déby swept the presidential polls with more than 60% of the vote while Nguema won with 90% of the vote in April this year.

The effects of these coups have been devastating: brutal repression marked by arbitrary detentions, torture, disappearances, and extrajudicial killings to stifle political dissent.

There has also been corruption, erosion of free speech and strained relations with neighbouring countries or former colonial powers in some instances.

Promises to restore security, revitalise the economy or champion the will of the people that were invariably given as a motivation to seize power have been substituted by measures to entrench the rule of the military dictatorships.

Powell said the wave of coups have a common thread, a reluctance to relinquish power and erosion of rights such as free speech.

“The big takeaway is that previously coup leaders or the armed forces typically retreated from power, and often very quickly. This has radically shifted since 2021. Since then, all coups have seen the coup leaders remain in power,” he told Index.

“The coups since 2021 occurred within varying contexts, but major commonalities are other forms of domestic instability, civil war, violence, political manipulation and governments’ loss of legitimacy in the eyes of their people even with [previously] elected leaders “

In those countries where coups have seen the de facto establishment of military rule, freedoms in general are suffering, with journalists and media freedom in particular coming under attack. 

“We have seen the arbitrary arrest of journalists in different countries, while Mali’s junta has attempted to virtually ban political coverage altogether,” Powell added.

Mali, Burkina Faso, and Gabon offer a study in how military rulers are corrupted by power, becoming worse or more brutal than the regimes they overthrew.

Mali’s transitional military government, which seized power in May 2021, announced that scheduled elections would be delayed indefinitely for technical reasons.

The military government also suspended political parties, a development the human rights watchdog said violates both Malian law and the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly under international human rights law.

Human Rights Watch also said that Mali’s council of ministers has adopted a decree directing all media to stop “broadcasting and publishing the activities” of political parties and associations. 

In the case of Burkina Faso, coup leader Lieutenant Colonel Paul-Henri Damaogo Damiba became interim president in January 2022 but was ousted by Captain Ibrahim Traoré in a subsequent coup nine months later.

Traoré pledged to restore the civilian government by 1 July 2024 but last year he extended the transition period by another five years, adding that he would be eligible to contest the elections.

In Gabon, according to the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, the country is on track to swap one form of autocratic governance with another. The military regime of Brigadier General Brice Oligui Nguema, who seized power in a coup on 30 August 2023, has instituted a “sequence of actions to pave an unobstructed pathway to claim the presidency” in upcoming elections.

This includes appointing loyalists to two-thirds of the Senate and National Assembly, appointing all nine members of the Constitutional Court, hosting a tightly scripted national dialogue process in mid-2024, from which 200 political parties were banned and rewriting of the constitution to allow members of the military to contest political office, and extend presidential terms to seven years.

An activist from Niger, Dr Mayra Djibrine, told Index that since the July 2023 coup in her country led by General Abdourahamane Tiani, there has been a rise in arbitrary arrests and detentions of political opponents, activists, and journalists.

Djibrine said while military leaders may justify coups as necessary measures to restore order or combat corruption, history has shown that military governance often leads to prolonged instability. 

She said the military leaders in Niger have announced their intentions to transition to civilian rule but have not specified a concrete timeline for elections but given the uncertainty and historical precedents in the region, skepticism remains about how soon Niger will revert to a stable civilian government.

“The military regime has imposed restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, accompanied by heightened surveillance and censorship of media outlets critical of the government. Additionally, ongoing insecurity due to extremist violence in certain regions has further complicated the human rights landscape. Humanitarian access has also been limited in some areas, worsening the plight of those in need,” said Djibrine.

“Freedom of speech in Niger is facing significant challenges in the wake of the coup. While there was some degree of media freedom prior to the coup, the current military government has implemented measures that stifle dissent and control public discourse. Journalists are often subjected to intimidation, harassment, and detention for reporting critically on the regime. Access to independent media has been increasingly limited, and public protests against the government are met with a strong repressive response. This environment has led to self-censorship, diminishing the space for open dialogue and critical expression.”

She said to prevent coups throughout Africa, several approaches could be considered that include building robust democratic institutions that ensure citizen representation and accountability can help reduce discontent and the likelihood of military takeovers. 

She said this involves not only conducting credible elections but also promoting transparency within the government.

She said there is also a need to strengthen the role of civil society organisations to enhance public engagement and create mechanisms for citizens to collaboratively voice their concerns, thus reducing disillusionment with political systems.

“Reforming security forces to ensure they operate under civilian authority and focus on national defense rather than political ambitions is crucial. Prioritising military professionalism is essential for building trust between civilians and the armed forces,” she said.

In July 2023, as the world was witnessing an uptick in coups in African countries, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) released a report titled Soldiers and Citizens: Military Coups and the Need for Democratic Renewal in Africa as part of its partnership with the African Union Commission which offered insights into what fuels coups in Africa.

The report said readily exploitable grievances, linked to African leaders’ failures to deliver inclusive development as they rule behind a façade of democracy while deploying innately exclusionary models of governance has created fertile ground for coups to be staged on the continent.

It said there is a correlation between heightened coup risk and stagnant growth, exclusionary economic governance, multidimensional poverty, inequality, reduced youth and women’s participation, governance deficits, among others.

The findings confirm that coup risk can be viewed as a subset of state fragility. Countries that experience contemporary coups perform poorly on global development indices. These rankings are not abstract, but represent millions of lives marred by exclusion, infringement of rights, restriction of opportunity and frustration. These grievances create a base of frustration that coup leaders can readily exploit,” the report said.

Nick Watts, the vice president of EuroDefence UK told Index that the countries affected by coups have been courted by China and Russia who are playing on anti-colonial sentiment.

He said a Russian proxy, the Wagner Group, has been providing the means of removing governments deemed too close to their former colonial masters.

Watts said Wagner has continued operating in the region even after the death of its former powerful leader Yevgeny Prigozhin.

He offered an explanation on why these coups have taken place.

“The regimes have been seen as out of touch, which has played into the hands of ‘liberation’ movements,” he said.

The desire for power in Africa has not diminished. 

In May 2024, a failed coup took place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo while other African dictators, such as Togo’s Faure Gnassingbé who ruled the country from 2005 after he was installed by the army when his autocratic father Gnassingbé Eyadéma died, changed the constitution to prolong his rule. Gnassingbé, whose family has ruled the country for nearly six decades, was sworn into a new post of President of the Council of Ministers which has no official term limits, a move which sparked deadly protests.

While the 2020s have been a particularly fertile period for coups in Africa, it continues a historical precedent. The UNDP report says there have been 98 coups in Africa between 1952 and 2022, more than one a year.

The report’s authors said that to mitigate coup risk, African governments must strive to deliver better governance, deepen democracy and inclusive development.

It called on regional and international actors to engage proactively with countries where presidents are nearing the end of their term limits to secure public assurances that they will resign and allow for a peaceful transfer of power. History tells us that Africa’s military leaders are unlikely to listen.

Will The Telegraph’s new owners give China media influence in the UK by the back door?

For years, the United Kingdom has looked to the United States for moral clarity and strategic leadership in confronting the challenge posed by China’s authoritarian state. Whether it was the decision to ban Huawei from Britain’s 5G networks or to speak out against abuses in Xinjiang and the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong, British policymakers often found strength in US resolve. Washington’s warnings were heeded, and alignment on values was assumed. That is why it is all the more jarring that a possible threat to Britain’s free press is now emerging, not from Beijing, but from a private equity office in New York.

The deal in question is RedBird Capital Partners’ proposed acquisition of The Daily Telegraph, one of the UK’s oldest, most important and influential newspapers. At face value, this might seem like a typical media buyout. But behind the gloss lies something more serious: a growing fear that this deal could open the door to Chinese influence in Britain’s media ecosystem.

At the heart of these concerns is John Thornton, RedBird’s chairman. Thornton’s connections to the Chinese state are not historical or incidental, but ongoing. He sits on the International Advisory Council of the China Investment Corporation (CIC), the country’s sovereign wealth fund. He has held senior roles at Chinese state-linked institutions. He has chaired the Silk Road Finance Corporation, a Belt and Road Initiative vehicle backed by state-aligned Chinese entities. Most tellingly, he has consistently echoed CCP narratives in public, once praising Xi Jinping as “the right man, at the right place, at the right time,” according to the Wire.

In 2023, Thornton himself related that he had told senior Chinese officials that they were losing the global narrative war because their story was being told by Westerners. He advised them to “get into” English-language media channels to shape international perceptions. He said: “The Chinese story is told by people who are not Chinese… until you start to get into those channels, you’re going to be at a big, big disadvantage.”

Now, under his chairmanship, RedBird is attempting to purchase The Telegraph.

This is where the line between ownership and influence becomes critical. The UK government is proposing to change the law to facilitate the RedBird deal, lifting the ban on foreign government ownership of UK media, and allowing up to 15% instead (coincidentally precisely the percentage needed to facilitate the Telegraph deal). This, argues the UK, will be sufficient to prevent foreign influence. But ownership, especially in an era of sophisticated financial engineering and opaque sovereign investment, tells only part of the story.

Thornton leads a firm with documented co-investments alongside Tencent, a Chinese tech giant designated by the US Department of Defense as a Chinese military company. RedBird has established a regional headquarters in Hong Kong, now subject to China’s national security laws. And Thornton himself maintains overlapping personal, commercial and political links to the CCP ecosystem that make it more than valid to question whether genuine independence would be possible. It’s not for nothing that Thornton received the CCP’s highest honour for foreigners in 2008, or was invited to tour Xinjiang when even the United Nations wasn’t allowed in to investigate atrocity crimes against Uyghurs and other minorities.

Influence can be subtle: a boardroom conversation, a commercial pressure, a well-timed phone call. But in the case of a national newspaper like The Telegraph, even subtle influence can be profoundly distorting. It sets the editorial tone, shapes hiring decisions, filters coverage, inculcates self-censorship and ultimately shifts public debate. The risk is not just theoretical, it is structural.

And yet, instead of confronting the risk, the UK government is falling over itself to facilitate the acquisition. Happily, not everyone is fooled. A major rebellion is brewing in the House of Lords, where, on 22 July, lawmakers in the UK’s appointed House will vote on a fatal motion to block these changes, in what could be one of the most consequential media votes in a generation. I hope they succeed.

Curiously, meanwhile, the British press has largely remained silent. A kind of omertá seems to be prevailing, perhaps for fear of offending potential future owners, or attracted by the possibility of selling 15% of their own business to foreign governments. But silence only compounds the danger. If influence is allowed to masquerade as passive ownership, the integrity of democratic debate really is at risk. Nobody in their right mind believes that news proprietors have no influence over editorial direction.

This isn’t just a British problem. It’s a case study in how soft power and sovereign wealth are used to circumvent democratic safeguards. RedBird has also been at the heart of the effort to acquire Paramount, drawing criticism from the House Committee on the CCP over the involvement of Chinese company TenCent. The fact that these media deals are occurring under the umbrella of a US firm – one led by a man who has publicly supported a more assertive Chinese media presence in the West – should raise serious questions.

Democracies must learn to distinguish ownership from influence, and legislation from reality. The Telegraph may soon become a test of whether we still can.

RedBird and Thornton were approached for comment

Luke de Pulford is creator and executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China 

Environmental defenders facing violent attacks as social media platforms fail to act

A new survey of more than 200 environmental defenders from around the world show they are facing increasing online threats of death, sexual violence, doxxing (publishing private or identifying information about an individual online) and other cyberattacks because of their work. Worryingly, the activists say that online platforms are not doing enough to address these threats and the abuse and harassment is increasingly translating into real-world violence and intimidation. Defenders also feel that the business models employed by digital platforms are contributing to the problem.

Threats to environmental defenders are almost universal, the Global Witness survey reveals: some 92% of the land and environmental defenders who responded said they had experienced some form of online abuse or harassment as a result of their work. The threats experienced by environmental defenders are widening. The survey found that 77% of respondents had experienced attacks on their work or character, 65% had had their images shared online without their permission, 61% had experienced cyberattacks while 58% had experienced doxxing.

Facebook is the worst platform for defenders, the survey reveals, with almost two-thirds (62%) having experienced abuse on the platform, compared with 37% on X, 36% on WhatsApp and 26% on Instagram.

“Meta therefore holds a huge amount of responsibility when it comes to finding ways to address online harms to defenders,” said the report’s authors.

Defenders believe that the business models adopted by digital platforms are contributing to the harm caused to them.

“Social media companies use algorithms that can reinforce biases and reaffirm beliefs to keep users engaged and maximise time on the platform. This can create echo chambers, deepen divisions and fuel extremism,” the report said.

One defender told the survey’s authors, “Hateful comments get more traction.”

The report features testimonies from a number of environmental defenders who have received online threats because of their activism. They have asked not to have their full names published.

Warom has been working with environmental defenders in the Congo basin for nearly three years to help defend Indigenous land rights and enforce environmental protections. He also works at a radio station raising awareness of local environmental and human rights issues. He has been targeted for his activism.

“As part of our work, we sometimes document and expose abuses related to land grabbing and resource exploitation,” he said. “Already we have seen that Indigenous lands have been grabbed, and communities have been displaced and evicted, without proper consent or compensation. As a result, we believe we have been subjected to surveillance, which has included phone tapping, monitoring of our online communications, and other kinds of digital spying.”

He added, “Digital platforms have been used to spread disinformation about us. We have been falsely accused of being terrorists, and of having taken illegal payments by foreign organisations in return for our work. Our attackers use many different platforms to spread these lies – sometimes they use WhatsApp, other times they use YouTube, other times they text us directly or speak about us on the radio.

“In 2022, there was a group of people who decided they wanted to ban our radio station because we were spreading information to help local communities hold on to their land title. They spread lies – saying we wanted to grab the land for ourselves. They issued threats on Twitter and on WhatsApp – telling me they were planning to kill me and two of my colleagues.”

Sharanya has been working with NGOs in the Odisha region of India for more than 20 years.

“This region is very rich in bauxite, so there are many mining projects there that have been forcefully pushed by the government sometimes using military power. Along with a few others, I have stood alongside Indigenous communities who oppose these mining projects. These communities are fighting for their land rights, against evictions, and against harassment by the police. This resistance has been met by violence. We use social media to document this violence as well as the environmental destruction these projects cause. For example, we have posted videos on our Facebook page showing the beating of protesters, and videos showing how mining companies are releasing their wastewaters into rivers which local communities are using.”

Sharanya said, “We have been attacked online and offline for doing this. For example, when we helped stage a protest against one mining project, people took our photos and circulated them on WhatsApp, accusing us of brainwashing indigenous communities and identifying our personal information like our home addresses. After these online attacks, the police showed up at our door and accused us of being criminals and served us trespassing notices.”

Fanø from Denmark manages social media, logistics and outreach for Extinction Rebellion.

He said, “I often managed the live-streams that we did during our protests. On more than one occasion, people have sent threats to us during these livestreams. Some of them were so concerning I took a screenshot so I could report them. They have said things like ‘If I were there, I would run you over with my car’ or ‘this is why I have a shotgun.’”

“I reported these threats to Facebook, who said they would investigate, but nothing seems to have happened,” said Fanø. “Facebook should stop people from sending these types of threats, but right now it seems like they are going the other way. It looks like now people are pretty much free to say anything to us, even death threats.”

The research reveals a growing link between online and offline harm.

Speaking to Index, Hannah Sharpe, a senior campaigner at Global Witness and co-author of the report, said, “We already knew that environmental defenders experienced a lot of offline harms. Our London environmental defenders team publish a report every year, and that tries to get a sense of the offline harm that they experience. This is the first time that we’ve really looked at the relationship between online and offline, and for a lot of them, they felt that online was laying the groundwork, and it was this sort of warning sign that offline attacks could be imminent.”

Some 45% of respondents had faced offline threats of physical violence while 28% had received threats to their family, friends and coworkers. These threats often materialised: 22% had experienced physical violence, 10% had had their homes attacked and 3% had been subject to sexual violence. Thirty percent of respondents had been unjustly accused of behaving illegally regardless of the actual legality of their actions.

Many of the threats appear to be coming from anonymous trolls and bots.

Defenders who responded to our survey also report that some bots and trolls operate behind anonymous profiles, allowing them to harass with impunity. While most digital platforms have policies prohibiting inauthentic accounts and spam, they sometimes fail to effectively enforce these policies, giving abusers license to escalate harms unchecked,” the report said.

One respondent told the organisation, “Troll farms are rampant. Pages with big followings are bought and used by troll farms to reach even bigger audiences.”

Sharpe said that the trolls are being empowered in the new world being architected by climate change denier and oil fan President Donald Trump.

I think maybe that shift has given other people licence to speak out more online. I think it’s really hard for activists to have a voice at this time. A lot of defenders were using online platforms for organising as part of their work, especially in Covid. We had a lot of people talking about that: they couldn’t be on the ground and they turned to social media platforms instead. As a result of the abuse and harassment, a lot of them have gone quiet online, it’s really silencing the movement.“

The rise of “free speech” online under Trump and the decline in content moderation at social media platforms is having a particularly worrying effect. Earlier this year, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced significant changes to its community guidelines, admitting that their content moderation efforts would “catch less bad stuff”.

Sharpe said, “Environmental defenders see social media as essential for their work, it is really important for organising, raising awareness, finding an audience and engaging with other activists. All the defenders we spoke to were unsatisfied when they’ve reported issues and the platforms haven’t responded in a satisfactory manner. The platforms should be doing more.”

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK