Which countries have the least freedom of speech? A comparative guide

Overview: what we mean by freedom of speech across countries

Short definition and scope: freedom of speech by country

Freedom of speech is a legal and civic concept about people, media and institutions being able to express opinions without undue state censorship, legal retaliation or violence. In comparative work, the term covers related but distinct areas such as press freedom, online expression, protections for journalists and the legal limits governments impose.

Comparing freedom of speech across countries is useful for spotting patterns and risks, but indices measure different things and use different methods. Readers should expect rankings to reflect specific indicators rather than a single universal truth; see our coverage of constitutional rights.

Why comparisons matter and their limits

Comparisons help voters, journalists and students identify where speech is most restricted and why. They are also limited by methodology differences, data gaps and rapid political change, so a low ranking is best interpreted alongside country reports and recent NGO findings.

This article uses three widely cited sources and complementary UN and NGO reporting to give readers a harmonised view and practical tips for responsible comparison.

How the main international indices measure limits on expression

RSF World Press Freedom Index: focus and indicators

Reporters Without Borders focuses on press outcomes such as censorship, legal pressure, and attacks on journalists when producing its rankings. The index combines observed incidents and press conditions to produce a country list that highlights where the media environment is most constrained, according to the 2024 results 2024 World Press Freedom Index.

Freedom House approach: civil liberties and political rights

Freedom House treats freedom of expression as part of its broader civil liberties and political rights assessments. Its country scores and the Free, Partly Free, Not Free categories reflect legal protections, media plurality and the broader political environment, which explains why its Not Free category overlaps with low press-freedom results.

V-Dem: disaggregated indicators and trends

The V-Dem Institute provides disaggregated indicators that separate legal restrictions, media autonomy and state control, which makes V-Dem useful for trend analysis and for spotting rising constraints that may not yet alter a single-year ranking V-Dem Democracy Report 2024.

Readers should treat these three sources as complementary. RSF gives outcome-focused press snapshots, Freedom House gives a wider civil liberties context and V-Dem helps trace change over time.

Which countries appear at the bottom across the major indices

Lowest scorers named by RSF and similarities with Freedom House

Reporters Without Borders’ 2024 index identifies a set of consistent lowest scorers. The list includes countries widely reported as having severe restrictions on media and expression, and the same states often appear in Freedom House’s Not Free category, showing substantial overlap between the indices 2024 World Press Freedom Index.

Those overlaps help validate where multiple measurement approaches point to the same practical problems, but identical rankings are rare because indices emphasize different indicators.

Named low scorers include North Korea, Turkmenistan and Eritrea as highlighted in RSF’s 2024 listing, and these countries also feature in Freedom House assessments of severely restricted expression 2024 World Press Freedom Index. Further reporting on the global decline in press freedom is available from the Global Investigative Journalism Network GIJN.

Even when several indices point to the same countries, each ranking is a snapshot. Analysts and readers should check the underlying notes in each index for context on incidents, laws and state practices.

Legal tools and laws that drive low freedom scores

Criminal defamation and broad national security laws

UN reporting and the special rapporteur note that criminal defamation laws and expansive national security exceptions are common legal tools states use to limit expression. These mechanisms allow authorities to prosecute or silence critics, and they are repeatedly cited as drivers of low freedom scores in country reports Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (2024).

Emergency-powers frameworks can temporarily expand state authority in ways that persist long after the declared emergency ends. UN and NGO reports link prolonged emergency measures to higher censorship, surveillance and legal pressure on journalists, which in turn affects index rankings.

When reading an index, check whether recent or ongoing emergency measures are mentioned in the country notes, as they can explain sudden deteriorations in media freedom.

Violence and detention of journalists: how case data explains index scores

CPJ data on imprisoned journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists compiles country-level data on imprisoned journalists and violent attacks, and its 2024 reporting shows that high rates of journalist imprisonment correlate with the worst press-freedom outcomes in several states Attacks on the Press and Journalists Imprisoned (2024 data).

Those case-level data help explain why particular countries fall to the bottom of press-freedom lists: arrests, prosecutions and workplace closures reduce the space for independent reporting and public criticism.

Human Rights Watch and RSF case attributions

Human Rights Watch and RSF attribute the poorest outcomes in several low-ranking countries to a mix of wartime censorship, centralized state control of media and legal repression, which together explain recurring adverse findings in country reports World Report 2025.

Using NGO case data alongside indices gives readers a clearer picture: index scores point to problems, and NGO reports give concrete incidents that clarify how those problems operate in practice.

What V-Dem trends reveal about emerging restrictions

Legal and regulatory constraints tracked over time

V-Dem’s disaggregated indicators are built to capture gradual changes in law and media autonomy, so they are useful when a country’s legal environment is changing but its single-year ranking may not yet reflect that trend V-Dem Democracy Report 2024.

Why trend data matters beyond single-year rankings

Trend indicators matter because they show sustained directional change. A country with a steady decline in media autonomy or rising legal restrictions on online expression may be entering a period of deteriorating speech freedom even if its rank has not yet crossed an index threshold.

For comparisons, combine V-Dem trend indicators with the most recent RSF and Freedom House notes to see both current outcomes and emerging risks.

How to read differences between indices and avoid common misreads

Method differences that produce divergent lists

Indices differ in indicator choice, weighting and source material, which produces divergent lists. RSF emphasizes press outcomes, Freedom House embeds expression in civil liberties scores, and V-Dem focuses on many disaggregated measures; these methodological choices explain much of the variation between rankings 2024 World Press Freedom Index.

Understanding which aspects each index privileges helps readers interpret why a country might score very poorly in one ranking and only moderately poorly in another.

Practical tips for nonexperts reading rankings

Nonexperts should avoid treating any single index as definitive. Cross-check the index notes, recent NGO reporting and V-Dem trends. Look for whether legal changes, emergency declarations or wartime measures are cited in the country notes.

As a short checklist: check the index methodology, review the country notes, consult NGO incident data and look for recent legal or emergency changes before citing a single ranking. For discussion of censorship and moderation debates see censorship vs moderation.

Data gaps, wartime volatility and limits of small-state reporting

Why some small states or conflict zones are undercovered

Small states and active conflict zones can present data gaps because reporters and NGOs face access restrictions and information is harder to verify. Those coverage issues mean rankings may lag real-time developments in some contexts, and analysts flag these as open questions when interpreting results V-Dem Democracy Report 2024.

Analysts should watch for explicit caveats in index notes when a country has limited reporting or recent disruptions to information flows.

How wartime changes can alter rankings quickly

Wartime censorship, targeted media closures and emergency laws can change a country’s practical freedom of expression in a short time. UN and NGO reporting often documents these legal tools and instances, which helps explain rapid shifts in index performance Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (2024).

When following evolving crises, combine index snapshots with NGO case reports and the latest UN notes to track material changes.

Common errors and pitfalls when citing rankings

Overgeneralizing from a single index

One common error is treating a single index ranking as exhaustive proof that a country lacks all forms of free expression. Rankings are indicators of specific risks and conditions, not final judgments on every aspect of civic life.

A safe practice is to attribute statements precisely, for example, the report states or according to the index, and to include a link to the primary source when citing a ranking.

Confusing press freedom with other social indicators

Another pitfall is conflating press freedom with unrelated social or economic measures. Press freedom relates to laws, media plurality and safety for journalists, not directly to economic performance or unrelated social indicators.

When writing about rankings, stick to what the index measures and avoid extending claims beyond the source material without additional evidence.

Practical framework: comparing two or more countries responsibly

Step-by-step checklist for side by side comparison

Use a short, repeatable procedure: pick two or more indices to compare, read the country notes, check recent NGO incident data, look at V-Dem trend indicators and review relevant national laws cited in UN or NGO reports. These steps help ensure comparisons are evidence-based and transparent 2024 World Press Freedom Index.

Prioritize recent NGO reports and V-Dem trends if you need to know whether a country’s situation is improving or deteriorating, and always note the index or report you are citing when summarizing findings.

Which indicators to prioritize for specific questions

If your question is about journalist safety, prioritize CPJ incident and imprisonment data. If you want to track legal risk, look for laws on defamation and national security in UN special rapporteur notes. For media plurality and market conditions, consult RSF country notes and Freedom House summaries.

Apply this checklist consistently and record the primary sources you consulted to make your comparison transparent to readers.

Short country case studies: North Korea, Turkmenistan, Eritrea

North Korea

RSF lists North Korea among the lowest-scoring countries for press freedom, noting extreme state control of media and closed information environments that effectively prevent independent journalism 2024 World Press Freedom Index.

NGO reporting and UN notes point to restrictions on all independent information channels and a legal environment that prohibits dissenting reporting, which together explain North Korea’s placement near the bottom of multiple indices.

Turkmenistan

Turkmenistan appears consistently among the worst performers in press-freedom lists because of centralized state broadcasting, legal constraints on expression and tight control over independent reporting, as described in RSF and Freedom House accounts 2024 World Press Freedom Index.

Those structural constraints are reinforced by legal tools and administrative measures that limit independent outlets and punish critical reporting, according to NGO reporting.

Eritrea

Eritrea is another country named by RSF for severe limits on press freedom, with state media monopoly and legal repression limiting journalistic activity and free expression 2024 World Press Freedom Index.

Human Rights Watch and other NGOs document how state control and legal restrictions combine with limited independent reporting to produce consistently poor outcomes in international rankings World Report 2025.

Conclusion: how readers should use indices and what to watch next

Key takeaways

Indices such as RSF, Freedom House and V-Dem point to the same core drivers when countries sit at the bottom: legal repression, state control of media and threats to journalist safety. Those core drivers are why North Korea, Turkmenistan and Eritrea are repeatedly identified among the lowest scorers 2024 World Press Freedom Index.

Use index scores as starting points, not final judgments, and always consult country notes and recent NGO or UN reports for context and incidents that explain the scores.

Indicators and reports to monitor going forward

For ongoing monitoring, check new RSF country notes, Freedom House updates and V-Dem trend indicators, and follow NGO incident reporting for journalist arrests or closures. These sources together provide the most reliable near-term view of changing speech conditions V-Dem Democracy Report 2024.

Readers who follow these sources will be better positioned to interpret sudden changes and to avoid overstating what a single ranking implies about every aspect of civic life.