laws, arguing that the provisions of those laws did not meet the tests of necessity and legitimate aim to restrict freedom of speech and freedom of the press during elections. In South Korea, the Constitutional Court was called on to rule on the constitutionality of a legal provision that prohibited candidates from publishing a column, comment, contribution, or writing on online media within 90 days of an election. In this case, 2016Hun-Ma90 (Case on Restricting Online Media from Publishing Columns, etc. Written by Candidates for Public Official Election), the Court acknowledged that, while the restriction was intended to avoid unfairness in online election news reporting and the circumvention of campaign rules, it was overly broad because it prohibited the online publication of information that might not necessarily be political speech or otherwise tied to an election campaign. The Court found that the provision placed an unconstitutional restriction on the complainant’s freedom of speech. 41 During Nepal’s 2022 elections, voters created an online campaign expressing disenchantment with mainstream politics and career politicians. A member of one political party filed a complaint against the campaign, causing the ECN to warn the campaigners to cease campaigning or face fines, imprisonment, or both. The ECN relied on a broad provision of its Election Code of Conduct (“false or incorrect statement”) and referred the case to the Cyber Bureau, requesting that the police take down the campaign’s web pages. Responding to this warning, Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi filed a writ petition at the Supreme Court of Nepal, Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi v. Election Commission of Nepal (#NoNotAgain Campaign), arguing that the warning to cease campaigning violated the campaigners’ rights. The Supreme Court ordered the ECN and Cyber Bureau not to take any actions against the campaigners, stating that the campaign was an example of freedom of thought and expression. On November 6, 2022, the Supreme Court issued an interlocutory interim order against the decision of the ECN to refer the case to the Cyber Bureau until the final decision. Despite a lack of time to adjudicate this case on the merits, the Supreme Court’s quick actions nevertheless ensured that free speech would not be undermined during the election campaign. In France, the Constitutional Council reviewed French Law No. 2018-1202 on the “fight against the manipulation of information” prior to its adoption in 2018. 42 Unlike many supreme/apex courts that previously struck down provisions of the law, the Council dismissed the allegations that certain provisions of the law were in breach of freedom of expression. The Council acknowledged the legislature's responsibility “to bring an end to the abuse of the right to exercise freedom of expression and communication which infringe on public order and the rights of others” and found that the wording of the law was necessary, suitable, and proportional to the legislature’s aim of fighting manipulated information. Indeed, an interlocutory proceeding under this law has a limited scope, wherein only "incorrect or misleading allegations or accusations which have the effect of altering the honesty of the upcoming elections” fall within its purview. The law excludes opinions, parodies, partial inaccuracies, or simple exaggerations and only allows for three cumulative conditions for spreading such allegations or accusations: “they must be artificial or computerized, deliberate and spread by mass distribution.” Constitutional Court, November 28, 2019, 2016Hun-Ma90 (Case on Restricting Online Media from Publishing Columns, etc. Written by Candidates for Public Official Election) (S. Kor.). 42 Constitutional Council, December 20, 2018, Decision no. 2018-773 DC (Fra.). 41 12