A new policy to clear the fog of war
ARTICLE 19’s new policy, Clearing the fog of war: Protecting freedom of expression in armed conflict, sets out:
- How international law protects people’s free expression in armed conflict
- Where it can be strengthened
- What states, the private sector, humanitarian organisations, and others must do to protect civilians’ right to speak and to know
During armed conflict, reliable information saves lives.
For people trapped amid the horrors of war, reliable information can be as lifesaving as accessing emergency aid: it enables them to contact their loved ones, avoid active fighting, and access food, water, shelter and medical treatment.
That’s why the internet and mobile networks have become as indispensable to today’s civilians as radios used to be. It’s why tech companies play an outsized role in contemporary conflicts.
And it’s why journalists and the media are so essential during conflict.
The importance of journalists and the media cannot be overstated: they disseminate lifesaving information, bring war crimes to light, and amplify the voices of people trapped amid violence.
International humanitarian law (IHL) explicitly prohibits targeting journalists. Despite this, they are often killed, kidnapped, tortured, harassed, and prevented from entering conflict zones to carry out their vital work; and media outlets are regularly banned, restricted, or attacked during conflicts.
Worldwide, we are witnessing an explosion of attacks on people’s right to speak and to know.
Even during peacetime, hate speech, censorship, disinformation, propaganda, website blocking, and media bans are on the rise. These attacks on expression are red flags pointing towards war – yet our leaders are ignoring the signs at best and exacerbating them at worst.
When conflict breaks out, states and armed groups attack journalists and media outlets with impunity. Tech companies bow to government pressure to shut down the internet and spread propaganda. Social media platforms remove vital evidence of war crimes and profit from content that stokes violence.
We believe international humanitarian law can protect expression for today’s civilians.
IHL was invented in a pre-internet era – and analogue laws cannot protect people from digital wars.
But IHL exists to mitigate the impacts of war. If clarified, strengthened, and interpreted in light of human rights, ARTICLE 19 believes that it can protect free expression for today’s civilians.
In addition to states, the private sector has a responsibility to respect human rights – including during conflict.
States bear primary responsibility for upholding the law. But to truly protect civilians’ right to speak and to know during conflict, we need all hands on deck – and that includes the private sector.
This matters even more for social media platforms, which are forums for public discourse, sharing information, and forming opinions.
Investing in expression fosters security and promotes peace.
Only by investing in expression and addressing the root causes of societal divisions before and after conflict can we achieve lasting peace and security.
The stakes couldn’t be higher.
Because when it comes to armed conflict, free expression is a ‘survival right’.
It throws a lifeline to people trapped in unimaginable violence. It equips the rest of us to hold our governments accountable. And it empowers everyone, everywhere, to demand a peaceful future for all.
Reliable information saves lives
Our policy shows why – and how – everyone working on armed conflict must protect people’s right to free expression.
FAQs
The importance of journalists and the media in wartime cannot be overstated: they disseminate lifesaving information, bring war crimes to light, and amplify the voices of people trapped amid violence. That’s why international humanitarian law prohibits the targeting of journalists.
Yet in 2023, more than half of journalists killed worldwide were killed in conflict and crisis zones.
Journalists are also kidnapped, tortured, harassed, and prevented from entering conflict zones to carry out their vital work, and media outlets are regularly banned, restricted, or attacked.
The technology weaponised in these attacks changes – in 1992, we documented Israel jailing a West Bank journalist for owning a fax machine; today, journalists face doxxing and spyware – but the motives remain the same: crush dissent, control the narrative, and gag the truth-tellers.
Yes.
For people trapped amid war, the internet is as vital as radios were when the foundations of international humanitarian law were laid.
It enables people to stay in touch with their loved ones, find out how to access aid, avoid areas of active combat, and document evidence that can bring war criminals to justice – and it keeps medical facilities and aid agencies running.
When it comes to conflict, internet access saves lives.
Yet governments are increasingly weaponising internet shutdowns to control the narrative and cover up their abuses, which harms people trapped amid violence, deprives the world of the truth, and perpetuates impunity for the most heinous crimes imaginable.
2023 was the worst year for internet shutdowns ever recorded – there were 283 shutdowns in 39 countries – and conflict was the leading driver.
Governments are increasingly demanding that tech companies restrict their services, spread state propaganda, or undertake mass surveillance. Sometimes they use local laws or regulations to enforce these demands. And companies are increasingly caving into these demands – and failing to protect their users.
But even when faced with such demands, the private sector, including telecom providers, internet service providers, and social media companies, has a responsibility to respect human rights.
The private sector cannot point to damaging local or national laws to justify bowing to these demands. They must fulfil their responsibilities – even when the states are not fulfilling theirs.
This means legally challenging government demands, interpreting them as narrowly as possible, and being transparent with users and the public about any steps taken.
Sometimes.
Social media plays a crucial role in documenting conflicts, shaping public understanding around them, and lending a voice to those impacted.
Yet hate speech and disinformation spread like wildfire on social media – with catastrophic consequences in wartime.
In the second quarter of 2024, Facebook removed 7.2 million pieces of content marked as ‘hate speech’.
But as well as failing to tackle incitement and discrimination, platforms are censoring protected speech and public-interest content, including evidence of war crimes – and videos and photos shared on social media are sometimes the only evidence of these crimes.
Platforms are failing people because they prioritise profit over peace.
The root problem is their business models, which rely on keeping us engaged so as to sell our attention to advertisers. This means amplifying problematic content and suppressing diverse viewpoints that could help to diffuse polarisation and dehumanisation. If they care about their users, they should change their business models – in war and in peace.
Sometimes.
Freedom of expression can be restricted under very specific circumstances, including to protect national security. But any restrictions – whether they affect people inside or outside the state’s borders – must have a legal basis, be legitimate, necessary and proportionate.
Governments regularly use ‘national security’ as a ruse to justify censorship, stifle journalism, and crush dissent. That’s why any law restricting expression must come with safeguards, such as judicial scrutiny, to prevent misuse.
If governments are serious about protecting national security, they should invest in the right to free expression in peacetime – not sacrifice it in wartime.
Conflict parties have indeed always used propaganda to shore up support, mislead the public and their enemies, and incite violence.
But new technologies are supercharging its spread – and digital platforms are ill-equipped to address it.
One recent study, which analysed nearly 350,000 pro-Russia tweets posted from February–July 2022, found that 20% were spread by bots created at the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Propaganda is not prohibited per se under international law but certain forms of propaganda are. Propaganda for war is often a precursor to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and incitement to genocide. That’s why it is prohibited under international law.
But while it is prohibited in theory, there is little guidance on how this should work in practice. This leads to a lack of accountability for propagandists, which emboldens them, perpetuates impunity, and harms more civilians.
Coming soon…
A new ARTICLE 19 policy on how to tame propaganda for war while protecting freedom of expression.
If governments are serious about protecting national security, they should invest in the right to free expression in peacetime – not sacrifice it in wartime.
How freedom of expression can help to prevent and resolve conflict
Truth, reconciliation, and reparation in the Gambia
Justice for victims of Mexico’s Dirty War
Tackling hate speech while protecting free speech
10 principles to protect expression in conflict
ARTICLE 19 urges everyone working on armed conflict to adopt these principles.
Our current work to protect expression in conflict
Israel and Palestine: Ceasefire now
Harnessing the power of social media for peace
Demanding accountability in Sudan’s ‘silent war’
Explore our past work on conflict
Find out more about ARTICLE 19’s work to protect people’s right to speak and to know in global conflicts.
- Conflict in Israel and Palestine [2023–present]
- Western Europe: Yes, even at a time of war, protect right to protest and dissent [2023]
- Ukraine: Expression remains casualty two years into Russia’s invasion [2024]
- Sudan: A year into the conflict, the fog of war persists [2024]
- Sudan: Free expression must be protected amidst violence [2023]
- Myanmar’s Civil War [2021–present]
- Ethiopia: Freedom of expression under threat during ongoing conflict [2021]
- Ethiopia & Eritrea: End to conflict must be first step to wider human rights reforms [2018]
- Israel: Al Jazeera ban is an attack on media freedom and war reporting [2024]
- Israel and Palestine: Journalists in the conflict zone must be protected [2023]
- Defending press freedom in times of tension and conflict [2022]
- Ethiopia: Release all detained journalists now [2022]
- Perugia Declaration for Ukraine: Journalists must be protected [2022]
- Myanmar: Pattern of attacks on press freedom must end [2018]
- Russia: Protect the right to truth about human rights atrocities [2024]
- Why the right to truth matters [2021]
- Boundaries of Expression: The right to truth [2021]
- The Gambia: Truth, Reconciliation and Reparation Commission marks a milestone in the country’s history [2018]
- Sri Lanka: Time to ensure the right to truth [2015]
- UN: Human Rights Council gets underway as global conflicts continue [2024]
- UN: Statement on propaganda for war and free expression [2023]
- ’The survival right’: Freedom of expression in armed conflicts [2022]
- Joint declaration on freedom of expression and responses to conflict situations [2015]
- Joint declaration on crimes against freedom of expression [2015]