Can Yeginsu: Additional Protections for Freedom of Expression
A presentation given by Can Yeginsu at the annual Justice for Free Expression Conference on 4-5 April, 2016. Download the pdf version below.
A presentation given by Can Yeginsu at the annual Justice for Free Expression Conference on 4-5 April, 2016. Download the pdf version below.
As reported by the International Press Institute, new draft legislation, recently introduced in Greece could pave the way for wider freedom of the press in…
This paper was originally published in Communications Law, The Journal of Computer, Media and Telecommunications Law 2019/2, Vol 24, 62-73 (Bloomsburry Professional, Oxford) and is…
In February 2017, the Colombian Constitutional Court issued a ruling that could have serious consequences for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression…
From as far back as when Montenegro gained independence in 2006, the country has had a reputation for being a place where family and other ties were stronger than the requirements of the law, and where…
This blog was originally published by Inforrm’s Blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks. Shortly after the Russian military invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022,…
Summary Reflecting on events from the first half of 2021, IFEX’s Middle East and North Africa Editor explains how increasingly sophisticated digital surveillance tools are…
This article was originally posted by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Amicus brief filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the…
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.
The main issue for the Court to analyze in this case was if Twitter’s decision to suspend Mr. Cox was protected under 230(c)(2)(A) of the…