Generally Free
This is the weighted total of the four scored pillars.
Finding
01An accessible and politically plural internet operates amid media pressure, harassment, privacy gaps, and institutions whose independence remains uneven.
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.
Formal remedies exist, but cost, delay, secrecy, or inconsistent enforcement limits their practical value.
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.
Montenegro: DSP's 2025 shutdown-practice estimate 4/4; social-media shutdown estimate 4/4; OONI measurements and the Access Now shutdown record provide the incident check. [2][3][4]
Montenegro's B1 evidence supports 3.5/4. Protection is strong, with a bounded exception preventing full credit.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 3/4 and private discussion 3/4; DSP's 2025 political-filtering estimate 4/4; the country OONI dashboard supplies direct network measurements. [3][1]
Montenegro's B2 evidence supports 3.5/4. Protection is strong, with a bounded exception preventing full credit.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 3/4 and private discussion 3/4; DSP's 2025 political-content censorship estimate 4/4; online-speech legal protection 4/4. [2][1]
Montenegro's B3 evidence supports 3.5/4. Protection is strong, with a bounded exception preventing full credit.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 3/4; DSP's online-speech legal protection estimate 4/4; protection against legal abuse by political elites 3/4. [2][1]
Montenegro's B4 evidence supports 3.5/4. Protection is strong, with a bounded exception preventing full credit.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 3/4 and private discussion 3/4; DSP's political-filtering estimate 4/4; independence from state-controlled social platforms 4/4; OONI and Freedom House records provide the circumvention check. [3][1]
Montenegro's B5 evidence supports 3.5/4. Protection is strong, with a bounded exception preventing full credit.
Speech laws, official pressure, or civil liability create recurring risks for journalists and online critics.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 3/4 and private discussion 3/4; DSP's online-speech legal protection estimate 4/4; WJP's effective-expression measure 2.5/4; the relevant Freedom House country score 68/100. [1][7]
Montenegro's C1 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 3/4 and due process 2/4; DSP's protection against abuse of defamation and copyright law 3/4; Freedom House country reporting supplies the offense and enforcement record. [2][1]
Montenegro's C2 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded due process 2/4 and equal treatment under law 3/4; DSP's 2025 political-arrest estimate 2/3; CPJ and Freedom House records provide the documented case check. [2][5][1]
Montenegro's C3 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 3/4 and equal treatment under law 3/4; the 2026 RSF press-freedom score 71.8/100; CPJ and Freedom House reporting provide the violence, harassment, and accountability record. [5][8][1]
Montenegro's C4 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded political choice free from domination 4/4 and assembly freedom 3/4; DSP's online-media pluralism estimate 3/4; ordinary people's online civic-mobilization estimate 3/4; WJP's civic-participation measure 2.2/4. [2][1]
Montenegro's C5 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
Privacy law provides meaningful rights, but exemptions, enforcement gaps, or intelligence powers remain material.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded judicial independence 2/4 and due process 2/4; DSP's protection from political social-media monitoring 3/4; WJP's effective-privacy measure 2.3/4. [1][7]
Montenegro's D2 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded private discussion 3/4 and due process 2/4; DSP's privacy-law constraint on government access 4/4; protection from political monitoring 3/4; UNCTAD and Freedom House records provide the retention and identity-law check. [1][6]
Montenegro's D3 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 3/4 and equal treatment under law 3/4; DSP's protection from political monitoring 3/4; the RSF press-freedom environment 71.8/100; CPJ and Freedom House reporting provide the targeted-surveillance case record. [5][1]
Montenegro's D4 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded private discussion 3/4; DSP's political-filtering estimate 4/4; protection from political monitoring 3/4; OONI and Freedom House records provide the encryption and anonymity check. [3][1]
Montenegro's D5 evidence supports 3.5/4. Protection is strong, with a bounded exception preventing full credit.
Formal remedies exist, but cost, delay, secrecy, or inconsistent enforcement limits their practical value.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded judicial independence 2/4 and due process 2/4; WJP's judicial-constraint measure 1.7/4; administrative due-process measure 1.1/4; civil-justice independence measure 1.7/4. [7][1]
Montenegro's E1 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded government safeguards against corruption 2/4 and government openness and transparency 2/4; WJP's independent-review measure 2.6/4; regulatory independence measure 2.7/4. [7][1]
Montenegro's E2 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded government openness and transparency 2/4; WJP's publicized-laws measure 1.9/4; right-to-information measure 2/4. [7][1]
Montenegro's E3 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded judicial independence 2/4 and due process 2/4; WJP's complaint-mechanisms measure 2.6/4; civil-justice access measure 2.6/4; civil-justice enforcement measure 1.8/4. [7][1]
Montenegro's E4 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
Montenegro: Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded elected officials' authority 2/4 and assembly freedom 3/4; WJP's civic-participation measure 2.2/4; DSP's online civic-mobilization estimate 3/4. [2][1]
Montenegro's E5 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]Speech laws, official pressure, or civil liability create recurring risks for journalists and online critics.
[2][5][8]Privacy law provides meaningful rights, but exemptions, enforcement gaps, or intelligence powers remain material.
[6][1]Formal remedies exist, but cost, delay, secrecy, or inconsistent enforcement limits their practical value.
[7][1]Research record
04Montenegro, 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.