Constrained
This is the weighted total of the four scored pillars.
Maldives · 2026
An active online sphere operates amid legal pressure, threats against journalists and critics, surveillance concerns, political polarization, and uneven judicial safeguards.
Finding
01An active online sphere operates amid legal pressure, threats against journalists and critics, surveillance concerns, political polarization, and uneven judicial safeguards.
The score draws on country reporting, network measurements, shutdown records, journalist cases, privacy law, and rule-of-law data. The indicator findings below show how that evidence was converted into points. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
This is the weighted total of the four scored pillars.
Targeted blocking and regulatory pressure occur without a comprehensive national filtering system.
Violence, harassment, or impunity materially limits journalism and civic participation online.
8 cited sources support this assessment.
Scored assessment
02Each indicator receives 0–4 points. Five indicators form a pillar. The pillar average is converted to a percentage and multiplied by its published weight.
Targeted blocking and regulatory pressure occur without a comprehensive national filtering system.
Maldives: DSP's 2025 shutdown-practice estimate 3/4; social-media shutdown estimate 3/4; OONI measurements and the Access Now shutdown record provide the incident check. [2][3][4]
Maldives's B1 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
Maldives: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 1/4 and private discussion 1/4; DSP's 2025 political-filtering estimate 3/4; the country OONI dashboard supplies direct network measurements. [3][1]
Maldives's B2 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
Maldives: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 1/4 and private discussion 1/4; DSP's 2025 political-content censorship estimate 3/4; online-speech legal protection 2/4. [2][1]
Maldives's B3 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
Maldives: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 1/4; DSP's online-speech legal protection estimate 2/4; protection against legal abuse by political elites 2/4. [2][1]
Maldives's B4 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
Maldives: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 1/4 and private discussion 1/4; DSP's political-filtering estimate 3/4; independence from state-controlled social platforms 3/4; OONI and Freedom House records provide the circumvention check. [3][1]
Maldives's B5 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
Violence, harassment, or impunity materially limits journalism and civic participation online.
Maldives: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 1/4 and private discussion 1/4; DSP's online-speech legal protection estimate 2/4; the relevant Freedom House country score 41/100. [1][7]
Maldives's C1 evidence supports 1.5/4. Restrictions are widespread, although limited protection remains.
Maldives: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 1/4 and due process 1/4; DSP's protection against abuse of defamation and copyright law 2/4; Freedom House country reporting supplies the offense and enforcement record. [2][1]
Maldives's C2 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
Maldives: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded due process 1/4 and equal treatment under law 2/4; DSP's 2025 political-arrest estimate 1/3; CPJ and Freedom House records provide the documented case check. [2][5][1]
Maldives's C3 evidence supports 1.5/4. Restrictions are widespread, although limited protection remains.
Maldives: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 1/4 and equal treatment under law 2/4; the 2026 RSF press-freedom score 49.2/100; CPJ and Freedom House reporting provide the violence, harassment, and accountability record. [5][8][1]
Maldives's C4 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
Maldives: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded political choice free from domination 2/4 and assembly freedom 2/4; DSP's online-media pluralism estimate 3/4; ordinary people's online civic-mobilization estimate 3/4. [2][1]
Maldives's C5 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
Broad surveillance powers and limited independent authorization weaken privacy and anonymity.
Maldives: DSP's privacy-law existence measure 1/1; privacy-law constraint on government access 2/4; Broad surveillance powers and limited independent authorization weaken privacy and anonymity.. [6][1]
Maldives's D1 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
Maldives: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded judicial independence 2/4 and due process 1/4; DSP's protection from political social-media monitoring 2/4. [1][7]
Maldives's D2 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
Maldives: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded private discussion 1/4 and due process 1/4; DSP's privacy-law constraint on government access 2/4; protection from political monitoring 2/4; UNCTAD and Freedom House records provide the retention and identity-law check. [1][6]
Maldives's D3 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
Maldives: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 1/4 and equal treatment under law 2/4; DSP's protection from political monitoring 2/4; the RSF press-freedom environment 49.2/100; CPJ and Freedom House reporting provide the targeted-surveillance case record. [5][1]
Maldives's D4 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
Maldives: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded private discussion 1/4; DSP's political-filtering estimate 3/4; protection from political monitoring 2/4; OONI and Freedom House records provide the encryption and anonymity check. [3][1]
Maldives's D5 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
Formal remedies exist, but cost, delay, secrecy, or inconsistent enforcement limits their practical value.
Maldives: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded government openness and transparency 2/4; Formal remedies exist, but cost, delay, secrecy, or inconsistent enforcement limits their practical value.. [7][1]
Maldives's E3 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
Country findings
03These are the principal findings for each scored part of the report. The indicator records above provide the supporting detail.
Targeted blocking and regulatory pressure occur without a comprehensive national filtering system.
[2][3][4]Violence, harassment, or impunity materially limits journalism and civic participation online.
[2][5][8]Broad surveillance powers and limited independent authorization weaken privacy and anonymity.
[6][1]Formal remedies exist, but cost, delay, secrecy, or inconsistent enforcement limits their practical value.
[7][1]Research record
04Maldives, assessed from January 1 through December 31, 2025.
Network measurements, legal and institutional datasets, shutdown records, and documented cases support the findings.
Twenty indicators measure content openness, expression, privacy, security, and institutional checks under Methodology v0.3.
Source register
05Country reporting, open measurements, and cross-national datasets form the report record.