Key issues
- The condition of freedom of expression remains good, but requires ongoing vigilance.
- The spread of fake news, especially on social media, and other harmful online content is creating a debate in the world about restrictions on online content; we also have to be vigilant and combat harmful consequences without excessively limiting freedom of expression.
Political and institutional developments
The state of freedom of expression in Estonia remains good, and is supported by the Supreme Court of Estonia in its practice. Estonia is doing well in international rankings, and has risen within the year. According to the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) estimate, Estonia ranks second in the world among 180 countries in 2025, having been sixth the year before. The RSF mentions that while journalists may be subjected to threats either virtually or physically, there is a protective political and legal environment there. The problem areas are the oligopolistic state of the media market and low funding, however, the political situation allows journalists to carry out their work free from influences, and violence against journalists is very uncommon.[1]
Freedom House’s “Freedom on the Net” survey gave Estonia 92 points out of 100, and 96 points in the overall freedom rating, where 100 represents complete freedom.[2] There has been a slight decline in recent years, due to restrictions to access to Russian media following Russia’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine, which is justified in a war situation.
The tense political and security situation in the world affects freedom of expression in other ways as well – when there were attempts to disproportionately restrict slogans at a demonstration, which is described below.
During the reporting period debate arose about the nature of political advertising in regards to the web series “Varivalitsus” in Postimees online version, which was led by the chairman of the Fatherland Party (Isamaa), Urmas Reinsalu. The Political Party Funding Supervision Committee (ERJK) decided that it was political advertising, and therefore a prohibited donation from a legal entity that must be returned. Urmas Reinsalu was given time to respond to the ERJK’s injunction[3] and a final decision has not yet been made at the time of writing this chapter.
As of 1 January 2025, several communication topics were transferred from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications to the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs, as it is now named.[4]
Legislative developments
In June 2023 the government approved the hate speech draft act that passed the first reading in Riigikogu in September of 2024, but so far, the law has not been adopted. The need for criminalisation of hate speech has arisen primarily in connection to the European Union Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia 2008/913/JHA. The topic has been the subject of a lively discussion for years already.
The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) entered into force in 2024, with its various provisions entering into force over the next few years. This mainly affects large web platforms, which in turn affects their users. The impact is still difficult to assess currently. After the 2024 EU Regulation on transparency and targeting of political advertising[5] enters into force in October 2025, Google and Meta will no longer publish ads on political, election-related nor probably on so-called social topics in Europe, and it may be difficult for instance for civic associations to get their message heard. Even though there are various dangers associated with political content on social media platforms, its complete elimination threatens rather than protects public debate.
The European Parliament and the Council regulation (EU) 2021/784 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online brought about certain changes to the Information Society Services Act and the Penal Code regarding the order to remove terrorist online content.[6] The amendments were adopted in June of 2024.
Case law
During the reporting period the Supreme Court of Estonia made an important decision on freedom of expression and its possible limitation in connection with a poster used at a political demonstration against Israeli aggression in Palestine, which had the phrase “from river to the sea”. The police took the posters bearing this message from the participants and fined them based on Penal Code § 1511 which deals with the public display of a symbol related to the commission of an act of aggression, genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime in a manner that supports or justifies these acts. The Supreme Court of Estonia pointed out that freedom of expression can be restricted – including by prohibiting and punishing displaying of a symbol – only if there is a compelling reason for doing so, especially in case of political speech, when restrictions must be very well considered. The court said: “The more important a problem is to society and the greater the number of people it affects and the more topical the discussion around it, the more expansive the freedom of expression and the higher the threshold for intervening in it. Whether what was expressed exceeds the limits of the protected offensive, shocking and disturbing expression must be assessed in context, given, among other things, the history of the country, the social situation at the time of the act and whether the display of the symbol may pose a real threat.” Accordingly, the court held that the prohibition was in accordance with the constitution only in the case of symbols that are clearly understandable to the average person in Estonia and could cause harm, which was not shown in this case.[7]
In another case related to freedom of expression, the Supreme Court of Estonia did not support Delfi’s appeal about declaring the hearing closed to the public, where Delfi considered the content of the case to be of public interest, but the court found it justified to declare the hearing partially closed to the public in order to protect business secrets and health records.[8] This was a case of a corruption suspicion against the deputy mayor and a business tycoon.
Statistics and surveys
In 2024 the Press Council received 59 complaints and made 49 decisions (respectively, 46 and 40 in 2023). In 2024, 28 acquittals and 21 reprimanding decisions were made (respectively, 23 and 17 in 2023).[9]
Promising and good practices
Estonia’s state of freedom of expression and internet freedom remain good in international comparison. Estonian residents have good digital literacy, but that does not mean that there are no risks arising from harmful online content. What is promising is the awareness of this topic and that digital knowledge is addressed at different levels at school, as well as discussed in society. The Supreme Court of Estonia has continued its practice of supporting freedom of expression also during the period under review, generally taking the practice of the European Court of Human Rights into account in its decisions.
Noteworthy public discussions
The Russian propaganda directed at Estonia still poses a threat. Although Estonia restricted access to Russian state media channels due to the deteriorated security situation because of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, and it is detectable that the use of Estonian Russian-language channels has increased slightly, the researchers emphasise that closing of Russian channels should not be seen as a guarantee that their content will not be accessed through other means (e.g. the social media).[10] An analysis recently published in Riigikogu Toimetised warns that many Estonian residents remain vulnerable to targeted propaganda on social media, despite their high level of media literacy.[11] In Estonia, a country with high internet usage, challenges related to global social media and other online content are important topics in the public debate.
In public debate, it is sometimes expressed that there is a certain crisis of trust between the public sector and the media, when, for example, the provision of information to the media is restricted or at least discouraged.[12]
Trends and outlook
Globally, and especially in Europe, developments regarding regulation of online content are expected to continue, and along with it, the debate on the relationship between freedom of expression and the restrictions. There are no simple answers: potential harmful effects of the internet and especially social media are known – fake news, propaganda, incitement to hatred, and crime directed at young people or other vulnerable groups especially. Media content reaches people without any professional editors, effective control mechanisms or the methods that, in the case of traditional media, guaranteed a certain quality. At the same time, there is a risk of imposing excessive restrictions that may not be effective, but which could excessively threaten freedom of expression. The tense situation in the world means that propaganda, incitement of hatred and other negative media content is spreading rapidly and it is increasingly difficult for people to understand where the messages are coming from and what is reliable information. Unfortunately, there are no simple solutions and the ever-higher technical quality of artificial intelligence means that there is increasingly more manipulative content (although scientists are also studying how to use artificial intelligence to detect fake content). In a tense political situation, it is particularly important that society vigilantly protect rights and that and an appropriate balance is sought between regulations and freedoms.
Case study
The above-mentioned court cases regarding the ban on posters at a pro-Palestinian demonstration in Tallinn on 5 November 2023 are an example of how restrictions on freedom of expression should be assessed. The Estonian Human Rights Centre, with attorney-at-law Ronald Riistan (from the law firm Syndicate Legal) via strategic litigation supported individuals who carried slogans with the text “From the river to the sea” and who were removed from the demonstration by the police, and fined. Although freedom of expression may be restricted to protect the rights of others, such restrictions – given the central role of freedom of expression in the exercise of other freedoms – must be clear, necessary, and proportionate.
The section used (§1511 of the Penal Code) was adopted in 2022 in the context of the Russian war of aggression, and its use in the referred case was the first one out of this context. Since restriction of freedom of expression must be necessary and proportionate to the situation, the context is very important. People’s awareness of words or symbols determines the impact of the expression and therefore the justification for the restriction. This means that banning the same expression may be justified in one country or context, but not in the other. In this case, detaining, interrogating, and fining people was an abuse of power. Persons who used the aforementioned sentence and also people who seized them for it were unaware of the possible illegality of the sentence, which shows that it was both a disproportionate and unjustified restriction on freedom of expression, which the Supreme Court confirmed in its decision.
Recommendations
- The act of law criminalising hate speech must be passed; the law must also ensure a clear and proportionate prohibition.
- As a developed digital country, Estonia must actively participate in international discussion on what measures are effective for proportional regulation of the internet and especially social media.
- Digital literacy needs to have continued support both at school and in society at large. It is important to also involve the non-Estonian speaking population.
[1] Reporters Without Borders. 2025. Estonia, veebis 25.09.2025.
[2] Freedom House. 2025. Estonia, veebis 25.09.2025.
[3] Riigikogu. 2025. ERJK Protokoll nr. 52, 22.05.2025; ERR. 2025. Reinsalu tegi seitse Postimehe saadet tasu eest, 17.07.2025.
[4] Riigi Teataja. 2024. Vabariigi Valitsuse seaduse muutmise ja sellega seonduvalt teiste seaduste muutmise seadus, 30.12.2024.
[5] EUR-Lex. 2024. Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus (EL) 2024/900, 13.märts 2024, poliitreklaami läbipaistvuse ja suunamise kohta (EMPs kohaldatav tekst), 13.03.2024.
[6] Riigi Teataja. 2024. Infoühiskonna teenuse seaduse ja karistusseadustiku muutmise seadus, 04.07.2024.
[7] Riigikohus. 2025. Riigikohtu kriminaalkolleegiumi 05.03.2025 otsus asjas 4-23-4296, 05.03.2025.
[8] Riigikohus. 2025. Riigikohtu kriminaalkolleegiumi 17.04.2025 otsus asjas 1-24-2128, 17.04.2025.
[9] Eesti Meediaettevõtete Liit. 2025. Pressinõukogu, veebis 25.09.2025.
[10] H. Mölder, V. Sazonov. Riigikogu Toimetised. 2025. Venemaa strateegiline mõjutustegevus Eestis 2020–2025, 51/2025, lk 39-50, 09.06.2025.
[11] M. Murumaa-Mengel, I. Klesment. Riigikogu Toimetised. 2025. Riigi toimimiseks vajalik infovastupidavus ei teki iseenesest, 51/2025, 09.06.2025.
[12] ERR. 2025. Valga valla juhid kehtestasid kontrolli meediapäringute üle, 13.08.2025.
