M.D. and Others v. Spain
The main issues for the Third Section of the ECtHR to analyze in this case were two. On the one hand, whether the Police report…
The main issues for the Third Section of the ECtHR to analyze in this case were two. On the one hand, whether the Police report…
Judges and the court systems in the Arabian Gulf countries do little protect freedom of expression, ruling nearly always with government security forces and their…
Corresponding Law Reference – Sunday Times v UK 2 E.H.R.R 245 (1979), is a lower court reference. It may be unnecessary because it was of the higher ECtHR.
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…
The First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) was ratified in 1791, but largely ignored by the U.S. Supreme Court for 128…
Argentina has developed strong protections for the right to freedom of expression, especially through the Supreme Court’s rich and vast jurisprudence in this area. During…
Austl., Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Ltd v City of Sydney [2013] NSWCA 2
U.S., Bano v. Union Carbide Corp., 361 F.3d 696 (2d Cir. 2004)
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2): Prosecution of An Opposition Leader in Turkey
This decision of the Madras High is binding on the lower courts in the State of Madras. However, it needs to be noted that this decision was taken at a pre-trial stage while determination of the request to quash criminal proceedings under various hate speech enactments. Thus, the arguments relying on the observations of the Court for advancing arguments on merits would have limited persuasive value.