Irene Khan’s job is hard. As the United Nations special rapporteur on protecting the right to freedom of expression, she must navigate the fine line between freedom of expression and hate speech, while also defending independent media.
Khan shared with PassBlue her latest report, released in June 11 and covering the 2024 election cycle globally, when millions of people went to the polls. The findings of her report reflect a changing media landscape, including the dependence on digital platforms for visibility and revenue; the disappearance of local media, creating “media deserts”; ethical issues on how outlets handle misinformation and disinformation; and how these developments fuel distrust in democracy and election integrity.
Pointing to the weakening of the traditional media ecosystem due to financial difficulties and the rise of social media, Khan says concentrated media ownership in most Western liberal countries is a major problem.
“You may have 300 different outlets, but when the ownership is just one or two people, then you have no media pluralism,” she said. “There is also editorial pressure on editorial independence from media owners. Media owners are not going into the media business to make money, but the owner wants political influence, because today’s traditional media does not make money.”
Overall, she added, “my approach is that media is not a commercial commodity, it is actually a social good. It’s about our right to know, so it is also associated with human rights,” Khan added. “I compare it to water: You don’t leave it to the wide market to decide [the quality of water.] The state does not allow people to poison the water, or put more sugar in it so that we drink more of it. So why do they not look at the media in the same way — as a public good that needs to be supported and protected by the state?”
Apart from media regulation for transparency and to avoid media concentration in a few hands, Khan recommends that traditional media “develop viable financial support systems and really listen to their audiences . . . respect and take responsibility when there’s misinformation or disinformation . . . and ensure safety of journalists.”
As to the heated debate in the US over freedom of expression and its possible abuse in the name of anti-Semitism, Khan said she believes free speech is a broad right.
“However, there is only one prohibition under law, and that is the prohibition of advocacy, of hatred, to incite violence, discrimination, and hostility against others. That is hate speech,” she said. “Anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jewish people, and that is prohibited, and that is to be condemned.”
She added: “I think when we look at the issue of Israel or anti-Semitism, political criticism of a government is one of those aspects of freedom of expression that has the highest protection under international law for politicians: to say what they want and for people to criticize politicians. Israel is a state. Every state in the world is subject to criticism. Zionism is a political ideology. That is, again, open to criticism.”
A Bangladeshi-British lawyer, Khan is the first woman to hold this special rapporteur position since it was created by the Human Rights Council in 1993. Since her appointment in August 2020, she has been reporting to the Geneva-based UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), saying that the state of freedom of expression and media independence have been getting worse every year. Governments, institutions and individuals are increasingly using tactics to block access to information for the public and pressuring media through civil and criminal lawsuits.
The interview, conducted over Zoom, has been edited and condensed for clarity. — ILGIN YORULMAZ
PassBlue: How is the state of freedom of opinion and expression in the world now?
Irene Khan: Even in liberal democracies in the West, we see pressure on freedom of expression, for example, regarding protests in favor of Palestine or against Israel, or climate-related protests.
PassBlue: Last year, millions of people voted in the so-called “super-electoral cycle” around the world. Your latest report emphasizes the vital role of freedom of expression and opinion, especially for free and fair elections. What are some of the vulnerabilities you are referring to?
Khan: Article 19 put out their Global Expression Report 2025, which showed freedom of expression declining. There are two issues the public perceives to be restricted and doesn’t have trust in: one, freedom of expression; and two, electoral integrity. The two seem to be linked. Without freedom of expression, people don’t believe elections are free and fair.
PassBlue: Politicians right or left in Europe, Asia or in the US eager to win elections are using tactics to win at all costs. What are some of the ways the information is being manipulated by the governments and individuals according to your findings?
Khan: We’re seeing a number of trends that are coalescing: One trend is the toxic political speech and the other is the authoritarian trend, which means “I speak, but you don’t.” We also see on social media a lot of disinformation, misinformation, false news, attacks, smear campaigns, especially against women candidates. A lot of the vilification of minorities or other vulnerable groups, like migrants, are happening online but also offline. I feel very strongly that politicians and public officials, whether they are in power or trying to get into power, seem to have interpreted their own freedom of expression as a license to attack and hurt others. They believe that prohibiting hate speech is tantamount to censorship. With that kind of absolutist approach to freedom of expression, they have made the political arena an extremely dangerous one, especially for vulnerable groups. In some cases, the threats are translating into actual violence. For example, in Mozambique, we’ve seen a very high number of people being attacked and killed.
Another very dangerous sign is an effort to delegitimize the electoral process or the electoral outcomes: Claiming that elections are unfair and claiming that the outcomes are wrong is becoming a tactic. We have seen that in Brazil, Venezuela and in the US, for example, with dangerous effects, because it can lead to violence. It also undermines people’s trust in democracy. When there is a decline of freedom of expression, the right to vote is being threatened and people are staying away from the polls. If I believe that the elections are not fair, then I’m basically saying democracy isn’t working in my country. And the more people that feel that way, the less they’re going to engage in democracy.
PassBlue: How about the outright jailing of potential candidates and or preventing them from speaking directly to voters?
Khan: In a number of countries, the tendency has been for the incumbent to try to hamper the political opponent, either with legal cases or by throwing them into prison. There have also been physical attacks. Now, of course, it works both ways: The government will say: “Well, we are not actually going after the opponent. We are trying to use the rule of law because of some crime that has been committed,” whether that’s corruption or a breaking of some electoral rules. So, the legal system is manipulated.
PassBlue: Then there is the issue of disinformation.
Khan: Disinformation sometimes has a grain of truth in it, manipulated in such a way that the recipient on the other side doesn’t really know what is true and what is false. Those who are in power and want to retain power or politicians who want to gain power at any cost are the two groups that are manipulating information to their advantage and trying to see how they can deter or put up obstacles in the way of others. Again, opposition figures are probably the number one target of disinformation and hate speech. Very often opponents or supporters of the opposition are thrown into prison just before elections.
Sometimes politicians are also using agents, such as influencers, who are being drawn into this debate. Unlike journalists, influencers don’t have any obligation to follow professional standards of truth or objectivity, or to reveal any affiliations or commercial interests that they may have. So there is a whole manipulation of the social media platforms alongside what is actually happening in the political arena.
PassBlue: Various politicians actually issue statements that offend immigrants, ethnic communities, same-sex couples and other disadvantaged groups. In fact, they think this position wins them elections. We’ve seen it in the AfD party in Germany and with Geert Wilders in Holland. Why do the political parties in the US, the most powerful democracy in the world, overlook such political-hated speech and continue to endorse candidates with apparent lack of remorse over their statements? Does that not mean this is actually an approval of these candidates’ conduct?
Khan: I’m shocked and alarmed at the use of this degree of hate speech and violent speech, and disinformation about vulnerable minorities, which leads to a lot of attacks on them. Politicians are basically doing what “dog whistling” and encouraging others to join the attacks. It’s happening on campaign trails and on social media platforms. Under international law, advocacy of hatred that leads to incitement of violence is a crime and must be prohibited. And yet, we see that, as you said, neither the political parties nor the state are acting against it. The state institutions are also allowing it to happen, especially if the source is in the government. It’s a very dangerous thing, because the politicians are weakening the principles of law and encouraging lawless behavior by those who should know better.
One of my recommendations is that political parties should introduce some code of ethics. They should actually discipline their candidates, workers and party officials when this happens. The state is obliged to prohibit hate speech that leads to violence. The state institutions, the police, the prosecutors, they also need to act against politicians who behave in such a way, because basically they’re committing a crime.
PassBlue: Are there any good practices and effective regulation? Can you briefly give an example?
Khan: The Electoral Commission in Mexico has introduced various strategies to reach out to Indigenous communities and get them to come out and vote. They provided material in their own language, making sure that the publicity campaigns reach out to them. There has been another very good practice in South Africa, where its electoral commission has partnered with a nongovernmental organization to create a platform on which people probably can complain when they see hate speech or any attack on electoral integrity. In India, a collection of civil society called Shakti, comes together to do fact-checking. When lies are being spread, they provide reliable information to correct the mistakes.
On the other hand, when you have very powerful governments or government agencies that have a lot of resources and they’re actually poisoning the electoral and the political environment, then it is extremely hard for civil society and electoral commissions to work. We also have to remember that electoral commissions are state institutions and very often they’re under political influence and pressure. In many countries, unfortunately, the electoral commissions are not properly resourced or properly trained.
I think this sort of push from civil society that is coming from ordinary citizens is extremely important. This partnership between civil society and experts creates confidence in the system. This is a longer-term issue. It’s before, during and after elections. False news, disinformation attacks, smear campaigns, incitement of violence leads to political polarization. Polarization encourages more disinformation, more attacks, undermines people’s confidence in institutions and people’s trust in elections.
We welcome your comments on this article. What are your thoughts?
Ilgin Yorulmaz has reported from Turkey, India, Nepal, Philippines, China and Japan for BBC World Service, Huffington Post, Vice, The Guardian, PassBlue, Vogue, Condé Nast Traveller UK, Voices and Maison Française. She has an M.S. from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. In addition, she has an M.A. in international relations and economics from the International University of Japan in Niigata and a B.A. in business administration from Bogazici University in Istanbul. Yorulmaz speaks Turkish, Japanese, French and English.
