On June 5, the Samarkand Criminal Court in Uzbekistan denied the release of a 20-year-old man who was convicted a year and a half ago for insulting the president of Uzbekistan online. The young man, whose name has not been disclosed, had posted a single comment two years earlier under a video titled “The President’s Family.” His comment “avlodinniga …. Sh.M.Mirziyoyev,” which roughly translates from Uzbek as “F… your family, Sh.M.Mirziyoyev” (the original comment also masked the obscene word with dots), became the basis for his prosecution.
According to a linguistic analysis by the Republican Center for Forensic Expertise under the Uzbek Ministry of Justice, the expression contained insults and discredited Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev. This analysis formed the basis of the court’s decision to sentence the teenager to two years and six months in a penal colony. This month, after serving part of his sentence, the young man appealed to the court, expressing remorse and asking for his sentence to be replaced with a non-custodial punishment. The court rejected his appeal, stating there were no grounds to alter the sentence.
This case is one of many where social media users and bloggers in Uzbekistan have been criminally prosecuted for their comments about government officials.
Since 2021, insulting the president of Uzbekistan in the media or online has been a criminal offense punishable by corrective labor, restricted freedom, or imprisonment. Analysis of dozens of such cases reveals that this law is applied extremely broadly, covering blogs, social media posts, and even private messages and comments under photos or videos. In fact, enforcing this law in such a manner in most free countries would result in the imprisonment of a large portion of their populations.
Social media in Uzbekistan has become the primary space for accessing information and voicing public concerns. However, while digital access has expanded, so too has the government’s control over online expression. The space that once offered hope for openness and democratization is now heavily restricted by laws and practices that limit freedom of speech on the internet.
A new report by the Uzbek Forum for Human Rights, “A Dark Cloud: No Space for Freedom of Expression in Mirziyoyev’s Uzbekistan,” analyzes 16 criminal and administrative cases against bloggers and social media users over the past three years. These cases involved critical and sometimes offensive statements, yet none included direct threats or calls for violence or unrest.
The report finds that Uzbek laws and their enforcement concerning online speech are overly vague and fail to differentiate between defamatory remarks and legitimate criticism of officials. Over the past two years, prosecutions related to social media statements have intensified, with many bloggers still imprisoned at the time of writing. As one local blogger lamented: “President Mirziyoyev’s promises of freedom of speech will lead us all to prison.”
Uzbekistan’s leadership, which previously sought to improve its international image and freedom of speech rankings, now appears to prioritize control of public discourse through the security services over civil liberties. The president’s declared commitment to openness is not reflected in practice, as evidenced by the continued persecution of those exercising their right to freedom of expression.
One striking case is that of social media activist Valijon Kalonov, who has been confined in a psychiatric facility since December 2021. The U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention recognized his detention as arbitrary and called for his release in February 2025. Instead of following the recommendation, the authorities recently transferred him to a psychiatric clinic in Samarkand with an even stricter regime.
The relative freedom of expression that emerged in Uzbekistan following the death of dictator Islam Karimov never amounted to genuine freedom. Journalists and bloggers remained aware of unspoken red lines and taboo topics. Those limits now appear to have tightened further. For example, bloggers have reported receiving phone calls ordering them to delete posts about the growing dominance of Chinese businesses or about the arrest of religious bloggers. In one case, the police threatened the parents of a female journalist who had published a critical video report about Chinese businessmen in Uzbekistan. She was ordered by the police to leave the media outlet that published (and later removed) the report.
Ahead of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s 2024 visit to Uzbekistan, social media users were called or summoned by police and instructed to remove critical posts.
Uzbek authorities seem to be testing the boundaries of criminal punishment by prosecuting virtually any statement that could be perceived as offensive or insulting, regardless of the speaker’s intention or the societal relevance of the topic.
A notable case is that of journalist Akmal Eshonkhonov, who, in April 2025, was found guilty of violating an administrative law on “the dissemination of false information that degrades the dignity of a person or discredits a person.” The charges stemmed from two articles published on Eshonkhonov’s website that critically examined the procedure for appointing judges and mentioned convictions of Uzbek judges for bribery. The chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council filed a complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office, claiming that the articles were aimed at “discrediting judges and undermining public trust in the judiciary.” The court based its decision on a state-ordered linguistic analysis, which alleged that the articles contained “discrediting content” – though no evidence was provided to show the information was false or how it discredited the authority of the judiciary. Eshonkhonov was fined the equivalent of $900.
Another example is the prosecution of popular blogger and former Kengash (district council) member Kabul Dusov, who was recently sentenced to five years in prison. Dusov was known for his critical position on Uzbekistan’s education system and specifically targeted the minister and deputy minister of preschool and school education. Although Dusov deleted the initial offensive posts, he was found guilty in November 2024 of criminal charges for insult. He was sentenced to one year of restricted freedom, including travel bans and internet restrictions. In January 2025, Dusov was arrested and sent to a penal colony for “violating the court’s decision” – essentially for using the internet and violating travel restrictions. His arrest came shortly after he submitted a corruption-related complaint concerning the education system to the Prosecutor’s Office. While in detention, additional charges were brought against him, including insulting and defaming education officials and “false denunciation,” or knowingly filing a false crime report. On June 16, 2025, the Tashkent Criminal Court found Dusov guilty on all charges and sentenced him to five years and two months in prison.
The evidence used in criminal and administrative cases raises serious concerns for fundamental rights. In speech-related prosecutions, the state frequently relies on political science and linguistic “expert analyses” to claim that language is defamatory or insulting. According to practicing lawyers in Uzbekistan, defendants have no real opportunity to involve independent experts in these cases. While the law technically allows for independent expert input, in practice, only state-appointed experts are heard, and courts show little interest in considering independent opinions. The report concludes that these linguistic analyses often fail to meet international standards on freedom of expression and fair trial rights.
As social media in Uzbekistan continues to serve as one of the last remaining spaces for civic engagement, the persistent targeting of bloggers, journalists, and ordinary users sends a chilling message: critical thought and freedom of expression remain dangerous in Mirziyoyev’s Uzbekistan.
As one popular Uzbek blogger commented, “These days a ‘dark cloud’ is hovering over the public…What could be the purpose of this? To instill fear? If the purpose is to instill fear, isn’t it enough already?”
For now, the only ones benefitting are those who still believe it is possible to convince an international audience, including investors and strategic political partners of Uzbekistan, that Mirziyoyev’s reform process toward democracy, human rights, and rule of law is still on course. For now, the regime appears to be willing to bet their security apparatus and PR strategy will maintain that myth.
