Model Training Materials: Hate Speech, Defamation and National Security Individuals who do not work for the government, such as journalists or civil society activists who receive leaked confidential information, should not be penalised for sharing government information with the public. They are not responsible for managing this information and should not be held responsible for the failure of the government to protect it. Furthermore, such sanctions may have a chilling effect on journalistic work and public interest advocacy. As articulated by the special international mandates on freedom of expression in a Joint Declaration: Public authorities and their staff bear sole responsibility for protecting the confidentiality of legitimately secret information under their control. Other individuals, including journalists and civil society representatives, should never be subject to liability for publishing or further disseminating this information, regardless of whether or not it has been leaked to them, unless they committed fraud or another crime to obtain the information152 Public officials and government officials, on the other hand, can be sanctioned for inappropriately sharing confidential information although such sanctions should not apply where the public interest in the information outweighs the harm caused by disclosure.153 To achieve this, States should provide proper protection to whistleblowers, who serve an important function in ensuring the public can access critical information about misconduct, corruption and human rights abuses.154 In the landmark case of Guja v. Moldova, a Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found Moldova had failed to respect its freedom of expression obligations after a whistleblower who exposed wrongdoing in the public prosecutor’s office was dismissed from his job in that office. The Court noted that the public interest in accessing information about prosecutorial misconduct outweighed the government interests in non-disclosure.155 The Court found that such a restriction on freedom of expression was unnecessary after considering factors including that the employee had acted in good faith and not for personal advantage, had no effective alternative options for reporting the misconduct and faced a heavy sanction.156 In general, prior censorship poses high risks to freedom of expression and carries a heavy presumption of invalidity under international law. The American Convention on Human Rights disallows any form of prior censorship except in very limited circumstances.157 The 2004 Joint Declaration, note 149. Johannesburg Principles, note 115, Principle 16. 154 UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, note 150. 155 12 February 2008, Application No. 14277/04, para. 91, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-85016. 156 Ibid., para. 97. 157 American Convention on Human Rights, 22 November 1969, in force 18 July 1978, Article 13(2). See also Johannesburg Principles, note 115, Principle 23. 152 153 The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 33