opinion and expression is not part of the problem, it is the objective and the means for combating disinformation.” 14 Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 19 of the ICCPR both guarantee the rights to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers and through any media. Freedom of opinion is absolute, but freedom of expression may be restricted under certain circumstances. States have both a duty to refrain from interfering with this right and an obligation to ensure that others, including businesses, also do not interfere with it. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression notes that freedom of expression is fundamental to a functioning democracy, and human rights law has traditionally afforded strong protections in this area, especially in terms of criticism of government and political leaders and speech by politicians and public figures and in the media. 15 Regional instruments echo this balance. In Europe, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects freedom of expression but allows for tailored restriction in defense of national security, territorial integrity or limiting hate speech. While we have not seen any cases at the European Court of Human Rights dealing with Article 10 and disinformation related to elections, there is important jurisprudence related to Article 10 and hate speech in elections, particularly where the internet is concerned. 16 In Nikula v Finland, the court noted the special status of lawyers as intermediaries between the public and the courts and ruled that legitimate restrictions may be part of their professional codes of conduct, given the expectation of the members to “contribute to the proper administration of justice, and thus to maintain public confidence therein.” 17 In Central and South America, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights expressly protects the right to freedom of thought and expression from censorship except when necessary to ensure “a. respect for the rights or reputations of others; or b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.” 18 Similarly, in Africa, Article 9.2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides that “every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law” [emphasis added]. 19 Consensus has emerged at the international level that there are likely to be legitimate reasons to restrict the publication of materials that might be classed as disinformation and that existing human rights instruments have the space to accommodate the necessary balance around defending this right. As the case law in this paper shows, when confronted with the facts of specific cases, courts have been able to draw on some longstanding principles to navigate their way through the emerging phenomenon of disinformation in the internet age. 14 Id. at p. 17. Id. at p. 8. 16 See Application No 45581/15, Sanchez v. France 2023 E.C.R. The confluence of hate speech and freedom of expression is explored in significant legal jurisprudence and Article 4 of the ICCP on the “Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.” It is not the intention of this paper to repeat that analysis. 17 Application no. 31611/96, Nikula v Finland 2002 E.C.R. 12. 18 American Convention on Human Rights, Art. 13, November 22, 1969. Disinformation also cannot be used to promote propaganda for war or to advocate for national, racial or religious hatred that incites violence. 19 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Art. 9.2., June 1981. 15 7