Generally Free
This is the weighted total of the four scored pillars.
Solomon Islands · 2026
Online debate remains plural and access broadly open. Pressure on journalism, surveillance concerns, political instability, and weak institutional capacity reduce protection.
Finding
01Online debate remains plural and access broadly open. Pressure on journalism, surveillance concerns, political instability, and weak institutional capacity reduce protection.
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.
Oversight and remedies are weak, selective, or difficult to use against state digital powers.
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.
Solomon Islands: 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]
Solomon Islands's B1 evidence supports 3.5/4. Protection is strong, with a bounded exception preventing full credit.
Solomon Islands: Freedom House's 2025 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4 and private discussion 4/4; DSP's 2025 political-filtering estimate 4/4; the country OONI dashboard supplies direct network measurements. [3][1]
Solomon Islands's B2 evidence supports 3.5/4. Protection is strong, with a bounded exception preventing full credit.
Solomon Islands: Freedom House's 2025 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4 and private discussion 4/4; DSP's 2025 political-content censorship estimate 4/4; online-speech legal protection 3/4. [2][1]
Solomon Islands's B3 evidence supports 3.5/4. Protection is strong, with a bounded exception preventing full credit.
Solomon Islands: Freedom House's 2025 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4; DSP's online-speech legal protection estimate 3/4; protection against legal abuse by political elites 4/4. [2][1]
Solomon Islands's B4 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
Solomon Islands: Freedom House's 2025 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4 and private discussion 4/4; 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]
Solomon Islands'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.
Solomon Islands: Freedom House's 2025 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4 and private discussion 4/4; DSP's online-speech legal protection estimate 3/4; the relevant Freedom House country score 74/100. [1][7]
Solomon Islands's C1 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
Solomon Islands: Freedom House's 2025 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4 and due process 2/4; DSP's protection against abuse of defamation and copyright law 4/4; Freedom House country reporting supplies the offense and enforcement record. [2][1]
Solomon Islands's C2 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
Solomon Islands: Freedom House's 2025 country scorecard recorded due process 2/4 and equal treatment under law 3/4; DSP's 2025 political-arrest estimate 3/3; CPJ and Freedom House records provide the documented case check. [2][5][1]
Solomon Islands's C3 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
Solomon Islands: Freedom House's 2025 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4 and equal treatment under law 3/4; CPJ and Freedom House reporting provide the violence, harassment, and accountability record. [5][8][1]
Solomon Islands's C4 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
Solomon Islands: Freedom House's 2025 country scorecard recorded political choice free from domination 3/4 and assembly freedom 3/4; DSP's online-media pluralism estimate 4/4; ordinary people's online civic-mobilization estimate 2/4. [2][1]
Solomon Islands's C5 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
Broad surveillance powers and limited independent authorization weaken privacy and anonymity.
Solomon Islands: Freedom House's 2025 country scorecard recorded judicial independence 4/4 and due process 2/4; DSP's protection from political social-media monitoring 4/4. [1][7]
Solomon Islands's D2 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
Solomon Islands: Freedom House's 2025 country scorecard recorded private discussion 4/4 and due process 2/4; DSP's privacy-law constraint on government access 3/4; protection from political monitoring 4/4; UNCTAD and Freedom House records provide the retention and identity-law check. [1][6]
Solomon Islands's D3 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
Solomon Islands: Freedom House's 2025 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4 and equal treatment under law 3/4; DSP's protection from political monitoring 4/4; CPJ and Freedom House reporting provide the targeted-surveillance case record. [5][1]
Solomon Islands's D4 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
Solomon Islands: Freedom House's 2025 country scorecard recorded private discussion 4/4; DSP's political-filtering estimate 4/4; protection from political monitoring 4/4; OONI and Freedom House records provide the encryption and anonymity check. [3][1]
Solomon Islands's D5 evidence supports 3.5/4. Protection is strong, with a bounded exception preventing full credit.
Oversight and remedies are weak, selective, or difficult to use against state digital powers.
Solomon Islands: Freedom House's 2025 country scorecard recorded government safeguards against corruption 3/4 and government openness and transparency 1/4. [7][1]
Solomon Islands's E2 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
Solomon Islands: Freedom House's 2025 country scorecard recorded elected officials' authority 3/4 and assembly freedom 3/4; DSP's online civic-mobilization estimate 2/4. [2][1]
Solomon Islands'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]Broad surveillance powers and limited independent authorization weaken privacy and anonymity.
[6][1]Oversight and remedies are weak, selective, or difficult to use against state digital powers.
[7][1]Research record
04Solomon Islands, 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.