6 Jun 2025 | Africa, Americas, DR Congo, Europe and Central Asia, Honduras, Hungary, Israel, Middle East and North Africa, News, Syria, Tanzania, United Kingdom
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 Hungary’s crackdown on LGBTQ+ content, and Tanzania’s shutdown of the social media platform X.
A “climate of hostility”: Hungary’s ban of LGBTQ+ content on TV and in schools violates human rights
The rights of LGBTQ+ people in Hungary have been under attack for years, as Index covered last week. With the latest development being a new law banning LGBTQ+ demonstrations, president Viktor Orbán and his government have drawn continued ire from the EU as they continue to ramp up oppression. Now, a senior legal scholar at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has stated that Hungary’s 2021 “child protection law” violates basic human rights and free expression.
In her 69-page non-binding opinion, CJEU advocate general Tamara Ćapeta said that rather than protecting children from harm, the law “expands such harm”, highlighting the law’s “stigmatising effects” and the “climate of hostility” it has created towards LGBTQ+ people. The law prohibits the depiction of LGBTQ+ individuals in school educational content, or any TV show, film or advert shown before 10pm, placing this content in the same bracket as sexually explicit content. Ćapeta said that the law illustrates a government belief that “homosexual and non-cisgender life is not of equal value or status as heterosexual and cisgender life”.
While a “non-binding opinion” does not strictly carry legal weight or enforcement, Ćapeta’s assessment reflects a growing trend amongst EU lawyers and officials that Hungary is falling foul of EU regulations when it comes to freedom of expression. With tensions only rising, it seems only a matter of time before a breaking point is reached; though it is yet to be seen what action the EU will take against Hungary.
Social blackout: Tanzania bans X under guise of pornographic content
In a move that has drawn much criticism, Tanzania has blocked social media platform X from being accessed in the country, on the basis that it allows pornographic content to be shared, according to the government. Minister for information, communication and IT, Jerry Silaa has said that this content is against the “laws, culture, customs, and traditions” of the East African nation. However, human rights organisations within the country have reason to believe that digital repression and censorship are the true reasons behind the ban.
In a post on the banned platform, the Legal and Human Rights Centre noted that a similar shutdown occurred ahead of the 2020 Tanzanian general elections, and that other platforms such as Telegram and Clubhouse are similarly inaccessible in Tanzania without the use of a virtual private network (VPN).
Indeed, access to X specifically has been prohibited previously, aside from during elections. Following an incident in May this year when the official account of the Tanzania Police Force was hacked, posting falsely that the country’s president had died, the platform was blocked temporarily.
This recurrence of digital restrictions, particularly in the run up to the 2025 Tanzanian elections, raises further concerns about free expression in a country that was recently subject to international outcry over the detention and alleged torture of two human rights activists.
No comment: DR Congo bans reporting on former president and his entire party
The government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo) has banned the media from reporting on the activities of former president Joseph Kabila, or interviewing any members of his party, the People’s Party for Reconstruction and Democracy.
The controversial former president returned to the country in May after two years in self-imposed exile. He had previously been accused of support for the Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group that is currently in conflict with Congolese forces, with senators stripping him of immunity and accusing him of treason. However, he has now returned to the M23-held city of Goma, in eastern DR Congo. Kabila has previously denied links with the rebel group, but has reportedly been seen visiting religious leaders in the presence of an M23 spokesperson.
Breaches of the blanket media ban will result in suspension, according to Christian Bosembe, head of DR Congo’s media regulator.
Kabila himself has not yet commented on the decision, but his party’s secretary Ferdinand Kambere described the decision as “arbitrary and illegal” in a statement on X, accusing the Congolese government of tyranny. A spokesperson for M23 stated that media outlets in rebel-controlled areas would not abide by the ban.
Detained for reporting: BBC crew held at gunpoint by IDF in southern Syria
The BBC has released a statement condemning the treatment of four BBC staff members and three freelance colleagues by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) while filming in southern Syria.
BBC Arabic special correspondent Feras Kilani detailed how himself and his crew were held at gunpoint on 9 May 2025 while at a checkpoint just outside Quneitra, which is located in the Israeli-Syrian buffer zone in the Golan Heights. Their phones and equipment were confiscated, before members of the crew were blindfolded, handcuffed and strip searched. Kilani was also strip searched and interrogated, with soldiers reportedly asking personal questions about his family, before proceeding to interrogate the rest of his team. Held for seven hours, their devices were inspected and some photos deleted. According to Kilani, they were told that the IDF knew everything about them, and that they would be tracked down if they published photos from the trip.
The BBC’s statement, released on 5 June, objected to the journalists’ treatment, stating that “the behaviour they were subjected to is wholly unacceptable.” The BBC has complained to the Israeli military, but is yet to receive a response.
Media abandoned: Journalist killed in Honduras despite state protection
Salvadoran journalist Javier Antonio Hércules Salinas was murdered by armed men on motorbikes in Santa Rosa de Copán, Honduras on 1 June. He was killed whilst driving a taxi, a part-time job he did alongside working as a reporter for the local news outlet, A Todo Noticias.
Salinas had been working in Honduras for more than 10 years, and had been under the protection of the Honduran government since October 2023, after being subjected to threats and a kidnapping attempt, which he escaped unharmed. Dina Meza, director of the Association for Democracy and Human Rights of Honduras, stated that the Secretariat of Human Rights (SEDH), Honduras’s government body responsible for implementing human rights plans, did not listen to advice for a more thorough security plan, and that state security had “[turned] their backs” on journalists in the country.
Salinas’s murder is the latest in a country that has proven to be extremely dangerous for journalists, with the Honduran College of Journalists (CPH) reporting that more than 100 journalists have been killed in the country since 2001. Honduras ranks 142 out of 180 countries for media freedom on Reporters Without Borders’ press freedom index.
4 Jun 2025 | News, United Kingdom
A growing number of UK journalists believe that the truth is shaped by those in power and many believe that media freedom in the country is at risk. UK journalists are also increasingly coming under attack for their work and are taking a more activist role in their reporting.
The findings are contained in a new report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and the University of Oxford, which is based on a survey conducted between September and November 2023 with a representative sample of 1,130 UK journalists.
The UK Journalists in the 2020s report revealed that almost half (48%) of journalists believe that “truth is inevitably shaped by those in power”. It also reveals that left-leaning journalists (55%) are more likely to agree with this than right-leaning ones (33%).
One of the report’s editors, Craig T Robertson, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Reuters Institute, said: “Journalists are in a key position to question those in power and try to get at the truth – it’s their job. For this reason, it may be somewhat surprising that almost half of UK journalists believed that ‘truth is inevitably shaped by those in power’. But this almost cynical feeling could come down to the fact that those in political power, especially, are difficult for journalists to work with.”
Another editor Jingrong Tong, a senior lecturer in media and information studies at the University of Sheffield, said: “It is worrying that, in total, 43% of respondents considered the UK news media to have only ‘some’, ‘little’, or ‘no media freedom’ at all. The divided views on media freedom echo the recent warnings signalled by observer groups such as Index on Censorship that the UK has already slid down to be only ‘partially open’”.
“Although UK journalists still considered their traditional roles as informers and watchdogs to be the most important, the emphasis they gave to these roles has shifted. Overall, the informer roles have decreased in importance, while watchdog roles have increased,” the report added.
Nearly three quarters of respondents (71%) found it very or extremely important to “counteract disinformation” and two thirds (65%) thought it very or extremely important to “shine a light on society’s problems”.
The growing threats to UK journalists are also laid bare by the report. It reveals that only 18% of UK journalists reported they had never experienced safety threats related to their work over the previous five years. The most frequent forms of safety threats experienced by journalists were “demeaning or hateful speech” (45% had experienced these at least “sometimes”), followed by “public discrediting” (39%) and “other forms of threats and intimidation” (16%). Gender was significant in journalists’ experience of safety threats. In the survey, 22% of women journalists had experienced sexual violence in the previous five years compared with only 4% of men. One in eight female journalists and one in twelve male journalists report that they had encountered demeaning or hateful speech often or very often.
The survey also suggests there is much work to be done in the UK to prevent journalists being threatened by powerful actors. Some 17% of journalists said they had been the subject of legal action because of their work. (Journalists facing legal threats can explore our new Am I facing a SLAPP tool here.)
The survey also reports that UK journalists are overwhelmingly privileged, white and university-educated and are increasingly left-leaning.
Of the 1,130 UK journalists surveyed, 90% were white, 91% had been to university and 71% came from a privileged background (as defined by their parents’ occupation).
Pete Clifton, former editor of BBC News and former editor-in-chief at PA Media, wrote in the foreword: “Despite so many people banging the drum for diverse newsrooms to cater for diverse audiences, the results make difficult reading once again.”
The survey reveals that the proportion of journalists from ethnic minority backgrounds has increased since the last survey was done in 2015 but the figures are still small compared to the general population: 3% of journalists are Asian (compared to 9% of the UK population in general) and 1.3% are Black (compared to 4%).
The survey also found that, as a group, UK journalists have moved further to the left since 2015. In 2015, around half (54%) identified with the political left, but this rose to three quarters (77%) by 2023.
4 Jun 2025 | Middle East and North Africa, News, Syria
“We affirm that we will hold accountable, firmly and without leniency, anyone who is involved in the bloodshed of civilians or harming our people, who overstepped the powers of the state or exploits authority to achieve his own ends,” said Ahmed al-Sharaa in a speech broadcast on national TV and posted online. “No-one will be above the law and anyone whose hands are stained with the blood of Syrians will face justice sooner rather than later.”
With these words, the self-proclaimed new Syrian president wanted to reassure the public about his desire to govern the country as a head of state for all Syrians, not only Sunnis.
Sharaa’s words came on 9 March, following the killing of civilians belonging to the Alawite minority – the branch of Shia Islam which former president Bashar al-Assad belonged to – in Syria’s coastal regions. Thousands of people were killed over days of clashes between security forces and Alawite fighters loyal to the former Assad regime.
In response, the new president announced the creation of a committee to conduct an investigation into the massacre of civilians, including women and children. The committee, which includes several judges, a lawyer and a defected Criminal Security Branch officer, will have to shed light on “violations against civilians” and “bring those responsible to justice”.
Sharaa also announced the creation of a second committee “to preserve civil peace”, which aims to listen to the requests of coastal minority groups and offer them future security and stability.
In another speech, the president addressed the country from a Damascus mosque, with Al-Sharaa reiterating his government’s desire to “preserve national unity and civil peace as much as possible”. “God willing, we will be able to live together in this country,” he said.
The government has not yet provided any official report on the massacre; but as of 17 March, the UK-based organisation Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) counted more than 1,500 civilians killed on Syria’s coastline as a result of the sectarian violence. They are mostly Alawites, but also Christians.
The Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, who is the head of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, responded: “The tragic events unfolding in the Syrian coastal region have claimed the lives of many civilians and public security personnel, leaving numerous others wounded. However, the majority of the victims were not affiliated with any militant factions; rather, they were innocent, unarmed civilians, including women and children.”
In addition to civilians, there were more than 500 combatants killed, including 273 members of security forces and the Ministry of Defence, and 259 Alawite gunmen affiliated with the former Assad regime.
A month later, clashes were reported near Damascus, resulting in the death of 13 people of the Druze minority group. Attackers from the town of Maliha and other predominantly Sunni areas reportedly converged on the majority Druze town of Jaramana after an audio clip circulated online attacking the Prophet Mohammad. The clip was attributed to a Druze leader, who denies that the audio was made by him. Authorities have again said there will be an investigation into the incident.
Violence is ongoing, and internal sectarian clashes show the risks to civilians, particularly those of minority groups. Given the historical oppression of Sunnis under the Assad regime, it would not be surprising if Al-Sharaa’s focus becomes transforming Syria into a centre of Sunni power, which could make the situation worse for minority groups.
This idea is not new. Sunnis in Iraq, for example, have long called for such an entity in the form of a federal region that would enable them to avoid the control of the Shia-led government in Baghdad.
But the new Syrian leader faces a fundamental problem: 25% of Syria’s territory is neither Sunni nor Arab, and is made up of minority groups such as Alawites, Kurds, Druze, Christians, Turkmen, Circassians, and Ismailis, who are unlikely to accept marginalisation. In a report for Syria in Transition, Malik al-Abdeh argued that the potential solution proposed by Al-Sharaa could be “a form of soft federalism – a loosely decentralised arrangement that accommodated minority demands while allowing the Sunni core to assert political and ideological dominance”. This could be the best solution, even if some Al-Sharaa supporters are skeptical or are working against such a “federalism” solution.
Despite the recent violence, the Syrian government appears to have made some progressive moves. An agreement has reportedly been signed with the Druze community leaders of the southern province of As Suwayda, which would reintegrate the province back into state institutions. A similar agreement has reportedly been made between the government and Kurdish-led forces in northeast Syria, which states that “the Kurdish community is an authentic community in the Syrian state” – the first time this has been proclaimed in contemporary Syrian history.
However, such agreements have not come without disruption or violations to free expression. According to Reporters Without Borders (RSF), in As Suwayda seven journalists were attacked by local armed factions when covering the signing of the political agreement. Some of these journalists were accused of being affiliated with government forces in Damascus.
This followed at least five journalists being targeted and injured during the violent clashes on Syria’s coastal regions earlier this year. The RSF is calling on Syria’s new government to implement seven priority recommendations to restore press freedom in the wake of Al-Assad’s regime, in which at least 181 journalists were killed since 2011. The new regime has promised to restore a free press, but only the future will tell if this promise will be kept.
Something is certainly moving in Syria: despite the sectarian violence and ongoing troubles, hopes for coexistence between religious and ethnic groups could be higher than expected.
It’s too soon to say whether it will become a country with a centralised system of equal rights for all Syrians. But now that the US administration has announced the end of sanctions on Syria and President Donald Trump has shaken hands with Al-Sharaa, the impossible has become possible. If Syria wants to return to the world order, it will need appropriate actions and reforms, and the leadership will need to do everything possible to reduce sectarian violence and societal instability.
2 Jun 2025 | Europe and Central Asia, Hungary, News, Newsletters
The European Convention on Human Rights was set up in the aftermath of World War Two to protect the rights of people in the Council of Europe’s 47 member states. Enshrined within it are fundamental obligations around free speech, including the right to free expression and the right to protest. It was intended to act as a blueprint for democracy and a rules-based order – but certain member states are tearing up this rulebook, none more so than Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, and seemingly getting away with it.
In recent years, Orbán has intensified his crackdown on democratic principles, including eroding academic freedoms and increasing hostility towards the media. In April, Orbán even decided to withdraw Hungary from the International Criminal Court – a pan-global organisation set up to uphold the rule of law and hold those charged with the gravest war crimes accountable.
The LGBTQ+ community has been particularly targeted in Hungary, with laws passed abolishing the legal recognition of transgender people in 2020 and banning the depiction of homosexuality to under-18s in 2021. A recent escalation is a law banning Pride marches, introduced in March, under the guise that such gatherings are harmful to children. At the time, Orbán said: “We won’t let woke ideology endanger our kids.”
Hungary’s parliament has since passed a series of other amendments tightening the government’s grip on those seeking to attend Pride, which will allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify people at events, and potentially fine them up to 200,000 Hungarian forint (HUF), the equivalent of $560. Protests have erupted across Hungary since the law was passed, and thousands are expected to turn out in defiance at Budapest Pride on 28 June.
Meanwhile, other draft legislation is making its way through parliament that is reminiscent of Russia’s “foreign agent” law – the Transparency of Public Life bill, if passed, would allow the government to penalise and ban dissenting voices and critics deemed detrimental to Hungary’s national interests, including the press and NGOs.
Hungary’s recent actions not only contravene the ECHR, but also the European Union’s (EU) policies around democracy and human rights, as laid out in its treaties and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, of which its 27 member states are meant to abide by.
But the political tide appears to be turning. Hungary is clearly moving further and further away from the fundamental values of the EU, and many member countries are growing frustrated with the Central European state, and with the European Commission for not taking strong enough action.
This week, 17 EU countries, including France, Germany, Ireland and Spain, signed a declaration expressing their concerns and dismay over Hungary’s anti-Pride law. They have called on Orbán to revise it, and have asked the European Commission to take legal action against Hungary if it does not do so.
Michael McGrath, the EU commissioner responsible for democracy, said this week the “willingness is there” to take action against Hungary, and that a “comprehensive analysis of the relevant legislation is underway now”.
But so far, retribution for Hungary’s actions has been negligible. The European Council has discussed Hungary’s rule of law violations seven times in the European Parliament since 2018, but has never taken the next step in the process, which would allow member states to vote on sanctions against Hungary.
There have been some financial penalties, but relations between the EU and Hungary are likely complicated by the need for cooperation against Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In December 2022, the European Commission froze €30 billion ($34 billion) in funds to Hungary, after the country’s failure to address concerns around democracy and the rule of law; a year later, a third of these funds were unfrozen, with speculation that Orbán was threatening to impede the EU’s actions in supporting Ukraine.
Patience with Hungary amongst EU nations appears to be wearing thin. The question is: how long will Orbán’s impunity be allowed to continue, and what example does this set for other EU countries wishing to replicate his methods?
