An international conference on censorship was itself censored.
In late April 2026, Zambia canceled RightsCon — an international conference dedicated to digital rights and freedom of expression — after demanding that organizers prove full alignment with government-defined national values. The decision, condemned by over a hundred civil society organizations worldwide, carries a particular weight: a conference built to examine censorship was itself censored. It is a moment that reveals, with quiet clarity, how the spaces where dissent is discussed are often the first spaces a government moves to close.
- Zambian authorities demanded that RightsCon organizers submit their programming to a vague standard of 'national values' — a requirement that effectively handed the government editorial control over an independent advocacy conference.
- The cancellation landed like a provocation on the global human rights community: ARTICLE 19, Index on Censorship, the World Organisation Against Torture, and a coalition of 132 digital rights stakeholders all issued public condemnations.
- The irony sharpened every criticism — a conference whose entire purpose is to resist government suppression of speech was suppressed by a government, making the absence itself a kind of proof.
- Inside Zambia, civil society figures like Emmanuel Mwamba pushed back, underscoring that the harm is not abstract: local activists lose a rare platform for solidarity, documentation, and connection with the global rights community.
- Observers see this not as an isolated incident but as part of a widening regional pattern — governments increasingly hostile to international civil society forums, framing control as cultural protection while narrowing the space for independent thought.
RightsCon, the annual international conference on digital rights and freedom of expression, will not take place in Zambia. In late April 2026, the Zambian government canceled the event after requiring organizers to demonstrate what officials described as 'full alignment' with national values — a condition that would have subjected speakers, programming, and conclusions to state approval. Human rights organizations around the world condemned the decision immediately.
The conference brings together activists, technologists, journalists, and civil society organizations to confront issues like surveillance, online harassment, and government censorship. Its value lies precisely in the openness of its conversations. The government's demand made that openness impossible — and the vagueness of 'national values' meant the standard could expand to cover almost anything authorities found inconvenient.
More than 132 digital rights stakeholders joined a public statement of condemnation, alongside major organizations including ARTICLE 19 and Index on Censorship. Zambian civil society figure Emmanuel Mwamba also spoke out, a reminder that the cancellation cuts deepest for those working on these issues inside the country — people who now lose access to a platform for learning, documentation, and solidarity.
What troubles observers most is the pattern the decision reflects. Across the region and beyond, governments have grown more aggressive in restricting international civil society spaces, wrapping suppression in the language of sovereignty and cultural values. For the digital rights community, the empty conference hall in Lusaka is a loss — but it is also, in its own way, an argument. The cancellation demonstrates in real time exactly what RightsCon was built to resist.
RightsCon, an international conference dedicated to digital rights and freedom of expression, will not be held in Zambia. The Zambian government canceled the event after demanding that organizers demonstrate what officials called "full alignment" with the nation's "national values." The decision, announced in late April 2026, has drawn sharp criticism from human rights organizations across the globe who see it as precisely the kind of censorship the conference was designed to examine.
RightsCon is a gathering that brings together digital rights advocates, technologists, civil society organizations, and activists to discuss internet freedom, surveillance, online harassment, and government control of information. It is held annually in different countries and has become a crucial space for people working on these issues to share strategies, build networks, and push back against digital authoritarianism. The conference's very existence depends on the ability of participants to speak openly about sensitive topics—government overreach, corporate data practices, censorship mechanisms, and the rights of marginalized communities online.
Zambia's requirement that the conference demonstrate alignment with national values before proceeding created an impossible situation. The phrase itself is vague enough to encompass almost anything a government might object to. In practice, it meant that organizers would need to submit their programming, speakers, and likely their conclusions to government approval. This is not how academic or advocacy conferences operate. It is how governments control information.
The irony is not subtle. An international conference on censorship was itself censored. A gathering meant to discuss how governments restrict freedom of expression was shut down by a government restricting freedom of expression. Several major human rights organizations—including ARTICLE 19, Index on Censorship, and the World Organisation Against Torture—issued statements condemning the cancellation. A coalition of 132 digital rights stakeholders added their names to a public endorsement of these criticisms. The message was clear: this was not a bureaucratic misunderstanding or a scheduling conflict. This was suppression.
Emmanuel Mwamba, a prominent figure in Zambian civil society, was among those who spoke out against the decision. His involvement signals that the issue resonates beyond international observers; it matters to people working on these questions inside Zambia itself. The cancellation affects them most directly. They lose access to a platform where they could learn from peers in other countries, where they could document abuses, where they could find solidarity and practical support for their work.
The broader pattern is what concerns observers watching the region. Zambia's move is not isolated. Governments across Africa and beyond have grown increasingly hostile to international civil society spaces, to conferences and forums where citizens can gather without state control. They frame such restrictions as protecting national sovereignty or cultural values. What they accomplish is the narrowing of space for dissent, for independent thought, for the kind of conversation that democracies depend on.
For the digital rights community, the cancellation is a setback. Hundreds of people who planned to attend—activists, researchers, journalists, technologists—will not gather in Lusaka. The conversations that would have happened will not happen. The connections that would have been made will not be made. But the cancellation also serves as a kind of evidence. It demonstrates, in real time, exactly what RightsCon exists to oppose. The conference's absence has become its own argument.
Citas Notables
Multiple human rights organizations stated the cancellation represents censorship of free expression and restricts access for digital rights advocates and civil society organizations— ARTICLE 19, Index on Censorship, World Organisation Against Torture, and coalition of 132 digital rights stakeholders
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does a conference on digital rights matter enough that a government would want to stop it?
Because it's a space where people working against censorship, surveillance, and government control of information can actually talk to each other. Once you gather those people in one room, they become harder to isolate, harder to ignore.
But couldn't Zambia have just let the conference happen and ignored it?
They could have. But that would mean tolerating a gathering where their own citizens might hear from international experts about how to document abuses, how to protect themselves online, how to organize. That's a risk some governments won't take.
Is this about protecting national values, or about protecting power?
Those are often the same thing to the people in charge. When a government says it needs "alignment with national values," what it usually means is alignment with how the government wants things to be. The values are whatever serves that purpose.
What happens to the people who were planning to attend?
They lose access to knowledge, to networks, to the sense that they're not alone in this work. For activists in countries with tight restrictions, that matters enormously. A conference like this can sustain you for a year.
Does this change anything about how the digital rights community operates?
It makes them more cautious about where they hold conferences, more aware of which governments will tolerate them. It also makes the work harder, because the spaces to do it keep shrinking.