Global Trends and Cases in Global Freedom of Expression and Information
I was asked to reflect on ‘important’ cases in the last year or so – and to indicate why they’re important; to indicate trends; and…
I was asked to reflect on ‘important’ cases in the last year or so – and to indicate why they’re important; to indicate trends; and…
This article was written and published on 14 February 2022 by Tow Fellow Patricia Campos Mello for Folha De S.Paulo and was translated from Portuguese to English for…
Overview Ethiopia’s Council of Ministers issued the following Regulations regarding the implementation of the State of Emergency Declaration 3/2020, which went into effect on April…
On 24th March, 2015, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as unconstitutional, in Shreya Singhal v.…
The so-called “Iuventa case” (aka “Trapani case”) provides insights into the conventional frameworks that protect journalistic sources in Italy. In March 2021, after a nearly…
Commemorating the fifth anniversary of the Rabat Plan of Action, Dr. Agnès S. Callamard sent the video address below for the Rabat+5 Symposium organized by the Government of…
On May 22, 2014 a group of military officers under the name, “National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO)” deposed the interim government of Yingluck…
2016 Columbia Global Freedom of Expression Prizes Recognize Legal Advocates in Turkey and Supreme Court in Norway NEW YORK, N.Y. (Mar. 14, 2016) — The…
Press Release 14 August, 2020 İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği (İFÖD – Freedom of Expression Association) has been set up formally in August 2017 protect and foster…
The Delhi High Court, in a petition filed by Flipkart seeking quashing of the first information report/FIR (information on the basis of which criminal proceedings are initiated), held that the ‘Safe Harbour Protection’ guaranteed to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is applicable to criminal cases as well. It further opined that it is not required for the intermediaries to take down content prohibited under the Indian Copyright Act or the Trademark Act only upon receipt of ‘actual knowledge’ pursuant to complaints received. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015 (5) SCC 1, the Court propounded that it is imperative for a court order pursuant to which intermediaries will comply with take down requests in relation to any complaint.