About the Project

The Lawfare against Journalism project’s main purpose is to analyse how lawfare — the weaponisation of legal and administrative systems — is used to silence journalism, exploring its mechanisms, impacts, and differences across political regimes.

Background and rationale

Across democratic, hybrid, and authoritarian contexts, journalists and media organisations are increasingly targeted through the strategic use of legal and administrative systems. Lawsuits, regulatory measures, and restrictive legislation are being mobilised not primarily to resolve disputes, but to intimidate, exhaust, and silence journalistic scrutiny. These practices have expanded beyond traditional Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), revealing a broader pattern of legal repression against the press.

This project starts from the premise that such practices constitute a form of Lawfare: the weaponisation of legal and administrative mechanisms to achieve political, economic, or reputational objectives. When directed at journalism, Lawfare undermines not only press freedom but also democratic accountability, public oversight, and the right to information. Despite growing concern among journalists, civil society organisations, and policymakers, systematic, comparative, and data-driven analyses of Lawfare against journalism remain limited. This project addresses that gap.

Objectives and research questions

The project aims to analyse how Lawfare is used to silence journalism, examining its mechanisms, impacts, and variations across political regimes. Its core objectives are:

To identify where and how Lawfare is deployed against journalists, media practitioners (e.g., fact-checkers, photojournalists, etc.), and media organisations
To distinguish Lawfare from traditional SLAPPs and other forms of legal, judicial, and administrative harassment
To develop typologies of legal repression affecting journalism across democratic, semi-authoritarian, and authoritarian contexts
To assess the impacts of legal intimidation on journalistic practice, safety, and democratic accountability
To identify mechanisms and policy responses capable of protecting journalism from legal and administrative abuse (e.g., anti-SLAPP laws)
To identify the actors and perpetrators involved in the deployment of Lawfare against journalism, including state institutions, political elites, private entities, and their networks of influence.

Why this project matters for journalism and democracy

Legal intimidation of journalists produces effects that go far beyond individual cases. Prolonged lawsuits, administrative pressure, and legal uncertainty generate chilling effects, encourage self-censorship, and disproportionately affect investigative and accountability journalism. Over time, these dynamics weaken media pluralism, limit public debate, and erode democratic oversight.
By conceptualising these practices as Lawfare against journalism, the project reframes legal harassment as a structural threat to democracy rather than an accumulation of isolated disputes. Its findings aim to inform academic debates, support evidence-based policy interventions, and contribute to broader efforts to protect journalism as a cornerstone of democratic life.

Geographic and thematic scope

The project adopts a comparative and multinational approach, supported by a worldwide research network. Rather than treating geographic regions as static, the project intersects regions and themes to identify cross-contextual patterns of Lawfare against journalism.
Empirically, the project is grounded in large-scale data collection and analysis. Drawing on sources such as journalist safety organisations, press freedom monitors, and media databases, news articles and scientific research. These data are systematically filtered, coded, and verified to identify lawsuits, administrative measures, and restrictive legal actions targeting journalism.

By combining interdisciplinary research with geographically diverse perspectives, the project seeks not only to understand how legal systems are abused to silence journalism but also to support policies and actions that defend democratic values and democratic practice.