While Sport Governing Bodies can regulate freedom of expression for athletes in sports, the current approach of the IOC seems to fail to abide by the standards required under international human rights law. In particular, the lack of clarity on the content and forms of expression banned under Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter seems to conflict with the foreseeability expected by international human rights law.
A conversation with Catalina Botero-Marino, Martin Eifert, Matthias Kettemann and Erik Tuchtfeld. Hosted by Alexandra Kemmerer.
Maßnahmen, die die Möglichkeiten terroristischer Gruppen, sich zu organisieren, zu rekrutieren und aufzuwiegeln einschränken sollen, wurden in den letzten Jahren ausgeweitet und führen häufig dazu, dass nicht nur extremistische Äußerungen, sondern auch Menschenrechtsdokumente, Gegenrede und Kunst gelöscht werden. In allen Bereichen der Moderation kommt es zu Fehlern, unabhängig davon, ob die Moderation von Menschen, künstlicher Intelligenz oder einer Kombination aus beidem durchgeführt werden.
Policies intended to limit the ability of terrorist groups to organize, recruit, and incite — as well as for individuals to praise such groups — have been expanded in recent years via content moderation efforts online, and often result in the erasure of not only extremist expression, but human rights documentation, counterspeech, and art.
Expressions in support of social justice, inclusion, anti-discrimination and LGBTQI+ rights no longer appear to breach Rule 50. Where Rule 50 could still come into play is where athlete activists seek to demonstrate their support for overtly political causes. The guidance states unequivocally that expressions must not be targeted at people, organisations, or countries. At Beijing 2022, any expression/gesture aimed at an individual politician, the Communist Party of China, or the Chinese state will remain a breach of Rule 50.
Throughout history, the IOC always faced tough choices when it dealt with freedom of speech. It attempted to act within the framework of international human rights law whilst it continuously promoted the autonomy of sport from all political interests. At this point, it does not seem that the IOC will move away from its general, apolitical stance.
The 9/11 attacks exposed the precariousness of the public sphere, however, they did not result in a dramatic shift in the Turkish public sphere. Rather, the coup attempt of 2016 turned out to be Turkey’s “9/11 moment.”
The Beijing Winter Olympics might constitute a boiling point for the ongoing debate on the freedom of expression of athletes and fans participating in international sporting competitions. This blog symposium brings this debate to a more general audience interested in issues related to human rights, constitutionalization of transnational legal processes and private governance. As an introduction to the contributions, our blog highlights a number of fundamental points which will be at the heart of this discussion.
The horrifying nature and unpredictability of terrorist attacks in the past two decades meant that in the UK, the extensions of state power had considerable public support in the years following 9/11. While useful to authorities dealing with an unpredictable threat, there are several factors in the laws that provide a potent recipe to erode expression rights.
Today, there appears to be more consensus about the unjust nature of the Dutch/Indonesian war. As a scholar who has studied the evolution of the discourse on this topic, being asked to contribute to a symposium about the relation between decolonisation and human rights, is the perfect occasion to look back.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters