비공개 상태로 영정당하면 아무도 정지당한 내 트위터 계정을 볼 수 없는거야.

Will Human Rights Survive a Trumpian World?

Authoritarian Advances Threaten Rules-Based Order

The global human rights system is in peril. Under relentless pressure from US President Donald Trump, and persistently undermined by China and Russia, the rules-based international order is being crushed, threatening to take with it the architecture human rights defenders have come to rely on to advance norms and protect freedoms. To defy this trend, governments that still value human rights, alongside social movements, civil society, and international institutions, need to form a strategic alliance to push back.

To be fair, the downward spiral predated Trump’s reelection. The democratic wave that began over 50 years ago has given way to what scholars term a “democratic recession.” Democracy is now back to 1985 levels according to some metrics, with 72 percent of the world’s population now living under autocracy. Russia and China are less free today than 20 years ago. And so is the United States.

Of course, democracy is not a panacea for human rights violations; the US and other longtime democracies have their own histories of colonial crimes, racism, abusive justice systems, and wartime atrocities. More recently, authoritarian leaders have exploited public mistrust and anger to win elections and then dismantled the very institutions that brought them to power. Democratic institutions are crucial to represent the will of the people and keep power in check. It’s no surprise that whenever democracy is undermined, rights are too, as evident in recent years in India, Türkiye, the Philippines, El Salvador, and Hungary.

In this context, 2025 may be seen as a tipping point. In just 12 months, the Trump administration has carried out a broad assault on key pillars of US democracy and the global rules-based order, which the US, despite inconsistencies, was, with other states, instrumental in helping to establish.

In short order, Trump’s second-term administration has undermined trust in the sanctity of elections, reduced government accountability, gutted food assistance and healthcare subsidies, attacked judicial independence, defied court orders, rolled back women’s rights, obstructed access to abortion care, undermined remedies for racial harm, terminated programs mandating accessibility for people with disabilities, punished free speech, stripped protections from trans and intersex people, eroded privacy, and used government power to intimidate political opponents, the media, law firms, universities, civil society, and even comedians.

Claiming a risk of “civilizational erasure” in Europe and leaning on racist tropes to cast entire populations as unwelcome in the US, the Trump administration has embraced policies and rhetoric that align with white nationalist ideology. Immigrants and asylum seekers have been subjected to inhumane conditions and degrading treatment; 32 died in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in 2025, and as of mid-January 2026, an additional 4 have died. Masked immigration enforcement agents have targeted people of color, using excessive force, terrorizing communities, wrongfully arresting scores of citizens, and, most recently, unjustifiably killing two people in Minneapolis, whose deaths Human Rights Watch has documented.

The US president of course has the authority to tighten US borders and enforce stricter immigration policies. The administration is not, however, entitled to deny legal process to asylum seekers, mistreat undocumented migrants, or unlawfully discriminate. In a well-functioning democracy, no electoral mandate should supersede domestic legislation, constitutional protections, or international human rights law. Trump’s team has repeatedly bypassed these guardrails.

The violations have not stopped at the border. The Trump administration used a 1798 law to send hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to an infamous prison in El Salvador, where they were tortured and sexually abused. Its blatantly unlawful strikes on boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific extrajudicially killed more than 120 people whom Trump claims were drug traffickers.

After the US attacked Venezuela and apprehended its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, Trump claimed the US would “run” the country and control its vast oil reserves. Despite paying lip service to human rights concerns under Maduro at the United Nations, Trump has worked with the same repressive apparatus to further US interests. Many Western allies have chosen to stay silent about these lawless moves, perhaps fearing erratic tariffs and blowback to their alliances.

Trump’s foreign policy has upended the foundations of the rules-based order that seeks to advance democracy and human rights, even if imperfectly.

Trump has boasted that he doesn’t “need international law” as a constraint, only his “own morality.” His administration has politicized the US State Department’s annual human rights report, stepped away from the global prohibition on antipersonnel landmines, voiced support for rewriting international rules on asylum, and skipped the UN’s Universal Periodic Review of the US’ human rights record.

His administration withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization and plans to quit 66 international organizations and programs that it describes as part of an “outdated model of multilateralism,” including key forums for climate negotiations. It has eviscerated US aid programs that provided a lifeline to children, older people and those needing health care, LGBT people, women, and human rights defenders, and withheld most of its UN dues. 

Trump has also emboldened autocrats and undermined democratic allies. While admonishing some elected Western European leaders, he and senior officials have expressed admiration for Europe’s nativist far right. He has favored autocrats such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Türkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, while continuing decades of US support to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

His administration has unjustifiably imposed sanctions to punish respected Palestinian human rights organizations, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecutor and many of its judges, a UN special rapporteur, and for several months, a Brazilian Supreme Court judge and his wife.

The institutional response in the US to Trump’s power grabs has been shockingly muted. Much of Congress, controlled by his own party, has not challenged his supercharged expansion of executive power. The leaders of the US’ most powerful technology companies have made significant donations and sought to placate the president. Some big law firms and prestigious universities have made deals rather than assert their independence, and some media organizations seem afraid to attract the president’s ire.

Has the US switched sides on the human rights playing field? While US engagement with human rights institutions has always been selective, China and Russia have long pursued an illiberal agenda. They stand much to gain from a US government that now expresses open hostility to universal rights. China and Russia remain strategic rivals of the US, but all three countries are now led by leaders who share open disdain for norms and institutions that could constrain their power.

Together, they wield considerable economic, military, and diplomatic power. If they were to consistently act as allies of convenience to erode global rules, they could threaten the entire system. Already, a loose international network of countries such as North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Myanmar, Cuba, and Belarus work in concert with Russia and China. These leaders share very little ideologically but align in undermining human rights and promoting a regressive international agenda. In word and in practice, the US government is now helping them in this endeavor.

The US’ weakening of multilateral institutions also dealt a serious blow to global efforts to prevent or stop grave international crimes. The “never again” movement, born from the horrors of the Holocaust and reignited by the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides, spurred the UN General Assembly to embrace the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in 2005. Meant to guide international intervention to prevent and stop atrocities in tandem with efforts to prosecute and punish serious crimes, R2P made a real difference in places like the Central African Republic and Kenya.

Today, R2P is rarely invoked and the ICC is under siege. In addition to Trump’s far-reaching sanctions, in December 2025 a Moscow court sentenced the ICC prosecutor and eight of its judges to prison terms in absentia. Moreover, despite being ICC fugitives, in 2025, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin was welcomed by Donald Trump in Alaska, and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Hungary, an ICC member state at the time, at Orban’s invitation.

Twenty years ago, the US government and civil society were instrumental in galvanizing a response to mass atrocities in Darfur. Sudan is burning again, but this time under Trump, with relative impunity. Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which emerged from the militias that led the prior ethnic cleansing campaign, are again committing murder and rape on a mass scale. A growing body of evidence indicates that the UAE, a longtime US ally that recently made multi-billion-dollar deals with Trump, is providing the RSF with military support.

In the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Israeli armed forces have committed acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, killing over 70,000 people since the October 2023 Hamas-led attacks on Israel and displacing the vast majority of Gaza’s population. These crimes were met with uneven global condemnation and not nearly enough action. Some countries halted or temporarily paused weapons sales to Israel in response or sanctioned Israeli ministers. Trump, however, continued a long-standing US policy of almost unconditional support to Israel, even as the International Court of Justice is weighing allegations of genocide and has issued binding orders under the Genocide Convention to protect Palestinians’ rights.

Trump announced in February an alarming US plan to transform Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East” free of Palestinians, which would be tantamount to ethnic cleansing. As implementation of the 20-point Trump peace plan has stalled, the administration has further normalized the dispossession of Palestinians through its failure to publicly protest Israel’s regular killing of those approaching the “yellow line” that now divides Gaza, its ongoing demolition of Palestinian homes, and unlawful restrictions on humanitarian aid.

In Ukraine, Trump’s peace efforts have consistently downplayed Russia’s responsibility for serious violations. These include indiscriminate bombing, coercing Ukrainians in occupied areas to serve in the Russian military, systematic torture of Ukrainian prisoners of war, the abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia, and the use of quadcopter drones to hunt and kill civilians. Rather than applying meaningful pressure on Putin to end these crimes, Trump publicly berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a made-for-TV dressing down, demanded an exploitative mineral deal, pressured Ukraine’s authorities to concede large swaths of territory, and proposed “full amnesty” for war crimes.

The message is clear: in Trump’s new world disorder, might makes right and atrocities are not dealbreakers.

공동법률사무소 인도 안병찬 변호사는 아동청소년이용 음란물에 대해 좋아요를 누른 경우라면 아청법상 유포로 처벌될 수 있다고 말했다. 좋아요의 의미가 그 의견에 동의한다는 의미를 가지는 의견의 표명일 뿐 직접적인 모욕행위로 볼 수 없어서 처벌이 어렵지 않나 사료됩니다. 혹시라도 비활외에 다른 방법도 있으면 알려줘 2. 공동법률사무소 인도 안병찬 변호사는 아동청소년이용 음란물에 대해 좋아요를 누른 경우라면 아청법상 유포로 처벌될 수 있다고 말했다.

좋아요의 의미가 그 의견에 동의한다는 의미를 가지는 의견의 표명일 뿐 직접적인 모욕행위로 볼 수 없어서 처벌이 어렵지 않나 사료됩니다.

트위터 아청물에 마음좋아요를 눌렀는데 저두 검거대상.. Kr › qna › 186995트위터 영상 좋아요 누른 것도 처벌이 됩니까.. 안됨 애초에 트위터는 그정도 사건으로 수사협조 안해준다..

트위터 비공개계정이면 좋아요 누른건 안전하다 고소.

트위터 하트도 처벌되지 않냐 통매음 미니 갤러리.

지인능욕정상적인 사진과 함께 성적허위사실글에 리블로그, 게시한 사람들은 고소된다는 걸 아는데, 그러면 좋아요 누른 사람들을 사이버명예훼손, 모욕죄로 고소하면 고소성립이 되나요.. 이러한 경우에 제가 처벌 대상이 되는지 두려워서 올리게..

이런 경우도 처벌이 가능한지 궁금합니다. 제가 의도치 않게 음란물 사이트에 들어가져서 빨리 끌려고 조치를 취하다 실수로 어떤 게시물에 좋아요를 누르게 되었습니다. 박원순 피해자를 두고 민주당 의원이 시장님한테 꼬리친년 운운하는 글 수십껀에 좋아요를 눌러댄건데 야붕이들 여기서 민주당편 들어줄꺼임.

구체적인 사안에 따라 추적이 가능한 경우 고소를 통해 실질적 처벌의 여부가 달라질 수 있다는 점을 알려드립니다.

Sns 게시물에 무심코 누른 좋아요⋯혹시 법적 책임을 질.

단순히 좋아요를 눌렀다는 사정만으로 범행에 가담을 했다고 해석이 되지 않기 때문에 문제될 가능성은 낮습니다, 악플러 형사처벌 40∼50代가 가장 많아 10대50대 등 범위가 넓으며 악플러들의 수도 엄청 많다. 안됨 애초에 트위터는 그정도 사건으로 수사협조 안해준다. 댓글 좋아요를 모욕죄로 처벌할수 있나요. 트위터 협조할꺼같지도 않지만 하트는 유포소지까지 되서 처벌되지않음.

목츄리 빨간약 이런 경우도 처벌이 가능한지 궁금합니다. 공동법률사무소 인도 안병찬 변호사는 아동청소년이용 음란물에 대해 좋아요를 누른 경우라면 아청법상 유포로 처벌될 수 있다고 말했다. 악플러 형사처벌 40∼50代가 가장 많아 10대50대 등 범위가 넓으며 악플러들의 수도 엄청 많다. 4개월쯤전 구글 계정으로 로그인된 트위터 계정으로 아청영상 좋아요,북마크 눌렀는데 리트윗x 구글 계정은 탈퇴한지 2개월쯤 되었고 트위터에 개인정보 있는건 계정정보밖에 없고 생년월일은 틀리게 적었습니다. 댓글 좋아요를 모욕죄로 처벌할수 있나요. 메이플키우기 디

모든 이탈리안 브레인롯 Redirecting to sgall. Kr › qna › 117980트위터 아청물에 마음 좋아요를 눌렀는데 저두 검거대상 인가요. Kr › qna › 364959sns상에서 좋아요와 리트윗에 대한 법적 문제점 디지털 성범죄. 그래서 다시 그 좋아요를 취소를 하려고 눌렀지만 취소가 되지 않았고, 영구적으로 기록이 남게되었습니다. 트위터 협조할꺼같지도 않지만 하트는 유포소지까지 되서 처벌되지않음. 모텔 데이트 현타

메이플 키우기 아레나 디시 Pm유저협회측의 디시인사이드 법적대응 요구에 대해서는 오히려 환영하는 입장인데, 진영에 상관없이 선을 넘은 유저는 당연히 처벌받아야 한다는 스탠스이므로 오히려. 혹시라도 비활외에 다른 방법도 있으면 알려줘 2. 지인능욕정상적인 사진과 함께 성적허위사실글에 리블로그, 게시한 사람들은 고소된다는 걸 아는데, 그러면 좋아요 누른 사람들을 사이버명예훼손, 모욕죄로 고소하면 고소성립이 되나요. N번방 사건때도 가해자들 정보제공 안해준게 트위터임. 트위터 협조할꺼같지도 않지만 하트는 유포소지까지 되서 처벌되지않음. 모리멘스 덱

목츄리 빨간약 안됨 애초에 트위터는 그정도 사건으로 수사협조 안해준다. Com › lawfirmyein › 223133374461디시통매음, 처벌 수위와 대처 방법은. 제 동생이 텀블러라는 앱에 있는 게시물에 좋아요를 눌렀답니다. Pm유저협회측의 디시인사이드 법적대응 요구에 대해서는 오히려 환영하는 입장인데, 진영에 상관없이 선을 넘은 유저는 당연히 처벌받아야 한다는 스탠스이므로 오히려. 다만,리트윗같은 공유행위를 하였다면 문제가 되는겁니다.

메이플 키우기 스타 포스 디시 Pm유저협회측의 디시인사이드 법적대응 요구에 대해서는 오히려 환영하는 입장인데, 진영에 상관없이 선을 넘은 유저는 당연히 처벌받아야 한다는 스탠스이므로 오히려. 좋아요 10만개를 찍든 니꼴리는대로 해도 아무 문제없음. Com › lawfirmyein › 223133374461디시통매음, 처벌 수위와 대처 방법은. 트위터 협조할꺼같지도 않지만 하트는 유포소지까지 되서 처벌되지않음. 트위터 아청물에 마음좋아요를 눌렀는데 저두 검거대상.

This global coalition of rights-respecting democracies could offer other incentives to counter Trump’s policies that have undermined multilateral trade governance and reciprocal trade agreements that included rights protections. Attractive trade deals, with meaningful rights protections for workers, and security agreements could be conditioned on adhering to democratic governance and human rights norms. Democracy already comes with benefits. While autocracies have generally fostered conflict, economic stagnation, or kleptocracy, as evidenced in multiple academic studies, including the work of the Nobel Prize-winning economist Daron Acemoglu, democratic institutions reliably yield economic growth. 

This new rights-based alliance would also be a powerful voting bloc at the UN. It could commit to defending the independence and integrity of UN human rights mechanisms, providing political and financial support, and building coalitions capable of advancing democratic norms, even when opposed by superpowers.

Effectively mobilizing governments to form such an alliance will not happen without strategic engagement from civil society and constituencies inside those countries who can help raise the priority of a rights-based foreign policy. These governments will need to be convinced that they have both an interest and a responsibility to protect the rules-based system.

Projects of this nature are bubbling up. Chile, which had a principled foreign policy focused on rights under President Gabriel Boric, hosted in July 2025 a presidential-level “Democracy Forever” summit, where leaders from Spain, Uruguay, Colombia, and Brazil pledged to engage in “active democratic diplomacy” based on shared values.

The Hague Group, led by Malaysia, South Africa, and Colombia, formed in January 2025 in “defense of international law” and in solidarity with Palestinians. Over 70 countries from all regions signed a joint statement defending multilateralism at the UN. Earlier, in 2017, former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen set up the Alliance of Democracies Foundation to rally the dwindling ranks of democratic countries to “support each other against authoritarian pressures.”

Whatever its precise contours, an alliance of rights-respecting democracies would offer a hopeful counterpoint to the authoritarian trope of China’s and Russia’s leaders standing alongside North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, observing military hardware in a parade in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in September. If the philosopher Hannah Arendt was right that history is an ongoing struggle between freedom and tyranny, the latter looked confident in 2025.

Yet, even in the worst of times, the idea of freedom and human rights is enduring. People power remains an engine for change. In the US, “No Kings” marches have drawn millions, protesters in Chicago, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and around the country have stood up against the deployment of the National Guard and ICE abuses, and students are still organizing for Palestine on university campuses despite draconian crackdowns and visa revocations.

Buoyed by popular resistance, South Korean parliamentarians impeached their president to prevent him from grabbing power through martial law. Grassroots aid efforts by Sudan’s emergency response rooms, Hong Kong’s fire relief, Sri Lanka’s cyclone relief community kitchens, and Ukrainian mutual aid and solidarity collectives represent the best of this trend.

In 2025, Gen Z protests against corruption, inadequate public services, and poor governance in Nepal, Indonesia, and Morocco brought to the forefront the need for governments to listen to their youth and tackle corruption and inequality. But as the difficulties of restoring rights in Bangladesh after years under an authoritarian government illustrates, gains won through public mobilization can easily be lost unless democratic participation and free expression remain unassailable.