Cartoonists and the Right to Freedom of Expression: An International Law

Perspective Based on the 2020–2022 Global Report

Introduction

Freedom of expression is a foundational principle of international human rights law,

indispensable for the functioning of democratic societies. The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted by the United Nations in 1966, enshrines this
freedom in Article 19, affirming the right of every individual to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds through any
media.1 Among the various forms of expressive media, editorial cartooning holds a unique
position as a mode of political and social commentary. Through satire, caricature, and
symbolism, cartoonists distill complex issues into provocative imagery that challenges the
powerful and speaks to the masses.

However, the power of satire often invites retaliation. From 2020 to 2022, cartoonists across
more than 20 countries have faced escalating threats—ranging from online abuse to criminal
prosecution and exile.2 This trend, documented in the 2023 report Cartoonists on the Line,
co-produced by Cartooning for Peace and Cartoonists Rights Network International,
illustrates a global pattern of silencing dissent through legal and extra-legal means. 3

This paper draws exclusively on the findings of this report to evaluate the state of freedom of
expression for cartoonists in light of international human rights standards. It seeks to examine
whether Article 19 of the ICCPR and related international instruments are effectively
protecting cartoonists, or whether the international legal framework is falling short in the face
of state repression, legal vagueness, and digital surveillance.

I. International Legal Framework Protecting Freedom of Expression

Article 19 of the ICCPR forms the cornerstone of the international legal regime protecting
freedom of expression. It guarantees the right to impart information and ideas "regardless of
frontiers," and specifically includes artistic expression. The provision is further reinforced by
General Comment No. 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee, which interprets freedom of
expression as encompassing all forms of commentary, including satire and artistic works.4

However, Article 19(3) introduces limitations to this right. It allows states to impose
restrictions only when they are provided by law and are necessary for respecting the rights or
reputations of others, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health, or
morals.5 The Rabat Plan of Action, an interpretative guideline from the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), clarifies that such limitations must meet a three-
part test: legality, necessity, and proportionality.6
1 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 19, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171
2 . Cartoonists on the Line: Report on the Situation of Threatened Cartoonists Around the World (2020–2022),
Cartooning for Peace & Cartoonists Rights Network International (2023), at 2.
3 Id. at 3.
4 . U.N. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and
Expression, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34 (Sept. 12, 2011).

5 ICCPR art. 19(3).

6 Office of the U.N. High Comm’r for Hum. Rts., Rabat Plan of Action (2012).
Despite these safeguards, states have frequently invoked national security or public morality
in vague and arbitrary ways to suppress artistic expression. The failure to meet the necessity
and proportionality requirements has led to the erosion of protections supposedly guaranteed
under international law.

II. Criminalisation and Judicial Harassment of Cartoonists

The report documents numerous instances where cartoonists have been subjected to criminal
charges, defamation suits, or contempt proceedings for their artistic work.

● In India, Rachita Taneja was charged with contempt of court for a cartoon published
on Twitter that criticized judicial bias. Though no final conviction has been made, the
pending nature of the case itself acts as a deterrent, chilling free expression.

● In Malaysia, Fahmi Reza was interrogated nine times and faced multiple charges for
satirical depictions of political figures. His home was raided, and electronic devices
were seized. This level of legal intimidation creates a hostile environment for artistic
dissent.

● In Türkiye, Zehra Ömeroğlu faced obscenity charges for a cartoon published in the
magazine LeMan. The judicial delays and lack of procedural transparency reflect a
broader pattern of using courts to intimidate and exhaust artists.

● In Cuba, cartoonists working for elTOQUE faced public condemnation, forced

resignations, and legal scrutiny. The report notes that the Cuban government exploited
new Penal Code provisions to limit freedom of expression under the guise of national
integrity.

● In Bangladesh, Ahmed Kabir Kishore, who was arrested under the Digital Security
Act, endured physical torture, was denied medical treatment, and faced inhumane
prison conditions for months. His release only came after sustained international
pressure, and he continues to suffer long-term physical and psychological
consequences.

● In Jordan, Emad Hajjaj, a leading cartoonist, was detained under anti-cybercrime

laws for publishing a cartoon criticizing the normalization of relations with Israel. His
arrest marked a shift in how Jordan polices digital satire. Hajjaj remarked, “In the
past, I used to draw a cartoon and send it directly to publication. Today, I have to ask
my lawyer before publishing it.”

● In Nicaragua, Pedro X. Molina was forced into exile following the government's
campaign to shut down independent media outlets.¹⁴ Despite his respected status, he
faced coordinated attacks and threats to his life.

● In Hungary, Gábor Pápai faced legal action after publishing a COVID-19-related

cartoon. The lawsuit reflected increasing restrictions on media and artistic freedom,
even in EU member states.
These case studies highlight how cartoonists, regardless of jurisdiction, are increasingly being
subjected to disproportionate sanctions. They also demonstrate the inconsistency of national
laws with the obligations under Article 19 of the ICCPR.

III. Opinions and Voices of Cartoonists

Beyond statistics and legal analysis, the personal reflections of cartoonists bring vital context
to the global free speech crisis. The report amplifies several voices that articulate how fear,
censorship, and repression are affecting artists on an emotional and professional level.

Emad Hajjaj of Jordan reflected on the chilling transformation in his creative process: “In the
past, I used to draw a cartoon and send it directly to publication. Today, I have to ask my
lawyer before publishing it.” This sentiment is echoed by many cartoonists, particularly
those in the Middle East and South Asia, who have shifted from bold critique to cautious
expression.

A cartoonist from Myanmar, speaking anonymously, shared: “I have hidden my drawing

tools. I have erased all social media accounts. They are arresting people for jokes now.” The
military coup and ensuing crackdown on media forced many artists underground.

Another artist from Cuba remarked, “The revolution used to stand for freedom. Now it fears a
drawing more than a protest.” This underscores the symbolic power of visual satire in
authoritarian contexts.

These opinions are more than anecdotes—they are testimonies of the human cost of
censorship. They serve as urgent reminders that international protections must not remain
aspirational but be enforced and defended.

IV. Gender-Based and Digital Threats

The report highlights how female cartoonists face compounded challenges, often becoming
targets of misogynistic abuse. Rachita Taneja and Swathi Vadlamudi have both experienced
online threats and smear campaigns. This gendered form of silencing is rarely addressed in
national or international forums.

Further, major social media platforms frequently remove or suppress cartoon content through
flawed moderation systems. The report documents several cases where satire was flagged as
hate speech or misinformation. For example, Maltese cartoonist Ġorġ Mallia had content
removed from Facebook without proper review.

Algorithmic suppression not only limits audience reach but also jeopardizes livelihood for
artists who rely on digital platforms for visibility and income.

V. Exile and Forced Displacement

The report also details cases of cartoonists forced into exile due to threats and state
persecution. Afghan cartoonist Hossein Rezaei had to flee to the Netherlands, while Cuban
artist Wimar Verdecia relocated to France. The relocation process often lacks institutional
support and leaves the artists in legal and financial uncertainty.

VI. International Mechanisms and Civil Society Responses

International bodies such as UNESCO, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of
Expression, and civil society organizations play a vital role in advocating for cartoonists.
Initiatives like the Global Media Defence Fund offer emergency support, legal aid, and
international visibility.

However, the report notes that many of these responses remain reactive rather than
preventive. There is a need for systemic reforms, such as:

● Decriminalisation of defamation and sedition laws

● Enhanced due process guarantees in expression-related cases
● Independent oversight of digital platform content moderation
● Capacity-building for legal actors to understand satire’s protective status under
international law

VII. Voices of Resistance: What Cartoonists Say About Censorship and Fear

The report Cartoonists on the Line captures not only the cases but also the voices of
cartoonists who are living with the burden of censorship, threats, and fear of prosecution.
These first-person narratives reveal the emotional toll of losing expressive freedom and the
resilience it takes to persist in drawing truth to power.

Emad Hajjaj, a well-known cartoonist from Jordan, summarizes this chilling shift: “In the
past, I used to draw a cartoon and send it directly to publication. Today, I have to ask my
lawyer before publishing it.” His statement reflects how fear of arrest and arbitrary detention
has seeped into the creative process itself.

A cartoonist from Myanmar stated: “I have hidden my drawing tools. I have erased all social
media accounts. They are arresting people for jokes now.” This speaks volumes about how
repressive environments have turned art into a legal hazard.

A Cuban cartoonist expressed: “The revolution used to stand for freedom. Now it fears a
drawing more than a protest.” This powerful quote reflects how satire has become more
threatening to authoritarian regimes than public demonstrations themselves.

These expressions of fear, self-censorship, and resilience must be understood as direct

evidence of the declining space for free speech and artistic commentary across the world.

VIII. Freedom of Expression in Indian Law – Judicial Perspectives on Cartoonists

While the primary focus of this paper lies in the international legal domain, India's
constitutional protection of speech under Article 19(1)(a) resonates with international
commitments like the ICCPR. Indian courts have, in several instances, upheld the rights of
cartoonists to express criticism through satire.

1. Mammen Varghese & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 7The Kerala High Court quashed
proceedings under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 against the editors
of Malayala Manorama for publishing a cartoon stylizing India’s “70”th Independence Day.
The court held that satire is protected expression, stating:

7 Crl.M.C. No. 4384 of 2019 (Ker. HC, Jul. 22, 2024)

 “A small picturization of a cartoonist will speak volumes... That is the beauty of
Cartoon and the Cartoonist.”

2. Balamurugan @ Bala v. State of Tamil Nadu, 8Here, the petitioner was booked for a
cartoon criticizing state officials after a self-immolation incident. The court found no malice
or obscenity, and emphasized that satire is a form of dissent. It quashed the case, reaffirming
the space for political commentary. even offensive or exaggerated—must be tolerated in a
democracy unless it crosses lawful thresholds. It underscored that cartooning remains a
protected art form under both constitutional and international standards.

Conclusion

Cartoonists occupy a unique position in the spectrum of expressive freedom. Their work
challenges, questions, and sometimes offends, yet it remains a protected form of discourse
under international law. The increasing attacks on cartoonists are not isolated incidents but
symptoms of a broader authoritarian trend that seeks to dismantle the foundations of
democratic engagement.

Drawing exclusively on the Cartoonists on the Line report, this paper demonstrates that the
legal frameworks of Article 19 ICCPR and associated interpretations are robust in principle
but weak in implementation. It calls for renewed international commitment and state
accountability to ensure that artists, satirists, and cartoonists continue to enrich public
discourse without fear.

References :

1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S.
171.

2. United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34: Article 19 –
Freedoms of Opinion and Expression, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34 (Sept. 12, 2011).

3. Cartooning for Peace & Cartoonists Rights Network International, Cartoonists on the Line:
Report on the Situation of Threatened Cartoonists Around the World (2020–2022) (2023).

4. Mammen Varghese & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., Crl.M.C. No. 4384 of 2019, High
Court of Kerala (Jul. 22, 2024).

5. Balamurugan @ Bala v. State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.O.P.(MD). No. 15546 of 2017, Madras
High Court (Apr. 19, 2021).

8 Crl.O.P.(MD). No. 15546 of 2017 (Mad. HC, Apr. 19, 2021)