This submission is being published as part of the series at HRH, which is dedicated to Human Rights Day (s) to foster meaningful discussions on human rights issues.
By: Alice Dejean de la Bâtie
While censorship and direct threats against journalists have long been recognised as threats to press freedom, a more insidious danger is emerging – one rooted in the use and misuse of criminal law. In recent years, legal mechanisms originally used to control activism, such as charges of unlawful assembly, public disorder or even terrorism-related offences, have been applied to journalists covering protests. No longer seen as mere observers, journalists are then treated as participants, exposing them to the same risks of arrest, prosecution and violence.
Examining how the tools of protest repression have been extended to journalism, this short piece argues that criminal law, designed to protect public order, is being diverted to stifle not only dissent but also the documentation thereof. If we are to meaningfully defend press freedom today, we must address this creeping extension of criminal liability to those who bear witness.
The criminalisation of dissent: A legal trend
Over the past two decades, the criminalisation of dissent has intensified in many jurisdictions. States are turning to criminal law as a tool to manage – and sometimes suppress – protest movements. As recent developments show (see e.g. Amnesty International’s report on European countries), lawmakers are increasingly enacting repressive measures that blur the line between maintaining public order and restricting fundamental rights. This raises serious concerns about the erosion of the right to peaceful assembly protected under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Offences such as unlawful assembly (e.g. Eckert v. France, 2024, no. 56270/21), sedition, sexual exhibition (e.g. Bouton v. France, 2022, no. 22636/19) and damage to property have been broadly interpreted and applied against activists.
This phenomenon is marked by a shift from sanctioning clearly harmful, unlawful behaviour to criminalising acts that are symbolic, often peaceful or only tangentially related to public disorder. In many cases, the mere act of gathering, chanting or being present at a protest has been enough to trigger criminal liability (e.g. Bodson v. Belgium, 2025 no. 35834/22). Laws that were originally designed to protect public order have thus become instruments to deter civic participation, especially in the context of environmental and climate activism.
The same expansive interpretations are increasingly being applied to journalists. The criminal frameworks used against activists now cover those who document activism, creating new dangers for press freedom.
From neutral observers to criminalised witnesses
Traditionally, journalists covering protests occupy a protected position as neutral observers. As ‘watchdogs of democracy’ (Dupuis and others v. France, 2007, no. 1914/02, § 46), their role is essential: they document events, inform the public and contribute to transparency and accountability. In practice, however, this neutrality is increasingly disregarded in the application of criminal law. Journalists are now regularly treated as active participants in protests simply by virtue of their physical presence at scenes deemed unlawful by the authorities. This has two main consequences for the application of criminal law and policy during and after protests.
First, journalists are regularly treated as would-be criminals by the police during protests: they are subjected to assaults and violence, such as the violent arrest of a Dutch journalist covering the Extinction Rebellion demonstrations in The Hague in 2021, or the brutal beating of a Russian journalist in 2024 after covering protests linked to the Navalny movement. Arrests and detentions have become common, such as during the Gilets Jaunes demonstrations in France in 2020, where several journalists were arrested; in Moscow in February 2024, where around thirty reporters were arrested at a peaceful protest by the wives of mobilised soldiers; or in Turkey in 2025, where journalists were arrested while covering protests following the arrest of Istanbul mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu. In some cases, (photo)journalists’ equipment is confiscated or damaged.
Second, journalists are also treated like criminals by the justice system after the protests. They are charged with broad offences often punishable by imprisonment, such as ‘harming national unity’ and ‘inciting unarmed assembly’ (Algeria, 2021), ‘obstruction of government function’ and ‘disorderly conduct’ (USA, 2023), ‘participating in unarmed meetings’, ‘marches against the law’ and ‘not dispersing on their own despite warnings’ (Turkey, 2025), or trespassing, attempted theft and intimidation (India, 2025).
Foreign journalists are sometimes less vulnerable to criminal sanctions for diplomatic reasons, but they can still face deportation. Freelance journalists and independent media workers are particularly vulnerable: without the institutional protection of large news organisations, they may struggle to have their journalistic status recognised by local police forces. Nonetheless, even journalists with visible press credentials have been arrested or forcibly removed. A ‘catch and release’ strategy – already used in some countries, such as China, to neutralise dissidents ahead of major protest periods (Truex, 2018) – is sometimes used to deliberately disrupt protest coverage by temporarily detaining journalists, interrupting their reporting and discouraging them from remaining on the scene.
A threat to civic space
Such incidents illustrate a worrying phenomenon: criminal law is being used not only to suppress protests, but also to suppress their documentation. The legal justifications may vary, but the effect is the same: the surveillance and criminalisation of journalist who cover dissent.
From a criminal law perspective, this calls into question basic principles such as legality, necessity and proportionality. The arrest or prosecution of journalists for documenting public events often lacks a legitimate legal basis and fails the tests of necessity and proportionality required by human rights law, such as found in Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR (McGonagle, 2013). The criminal targeting of journalists poses serious risks to fundamental rights protected under national constitutional and international law. Freedom of expression, the right to information, and the right to peaceful assembly are closely interlinked.
When journalists are prevented from covering protests – through arrest, violence or intimidation – it is not only the press that suffers, but the wider civic space itself. Moreover, the chilling effect is profound (Eide, 2019). Subjection to surveillance and the threat of prosecution can deter journalists from covering politically sensitive protests, leading to the silencing of dissenting voices in the public sphere. The independence and vibrancy of the media depends on the ability to report without fear of legal retribution.
Bio:
Alice Dejean de la Bâtie is Assistant Professor in criminal law in Tilburg University. Her current research focuses on the criminalisation of activism and dissent, restrictions on freedom of expression, and whistleblower protection in comparative, European and international law, with particular expertise in French law.