Are Courts Re-inventing Internet Regulation?
Discussion Paper May 2015 The debate on Internet governance, and freedom of expression on-line in particular, has largely focused on the place of Internet …
Discussion Paper May 2015 The debate on Internet governance, and freedom of expression on-line in particular, has largely focused on the place of Internet …
INTRODUCTION In the lead-up of March 4, 2018 Italian elections and resting upon the experience of the last elections in the UK, France, Germany and…
The elusive rule of law to protect journalists Dr. Agnes Callamard, Director, Global Freedom of Expression at Columbia University [1] Speech for “Ending Impunity: Upholding…
Summary The Freedom of Expression Association (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği – IFÖD), led by Global Freedom of Expression expert Yaman Akdeniz, submitted a report in November…
Keynote Address by Aryeh Neier at the Opening Session of CGFoE’s 10th Anniversary April 25, 2024 Italian Academy, Columbia University, New York City Watch Aryeh…
Global Internet freedom is in decline. Authoritarian states manipulate the Internet to serve their own illiberal ends. But liberal democracies have also limited Internet freedom to…
UNESCO and the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights at the Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, are launching a new multilingual version of their Massive…
Queens World Film Festival (QWFF) celebrates 70 years of the signage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its Article 19 that guarantees freedom…
Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill 2015, first proposed by the National Assembly Standing Committee on Information Technology last April in an effort to update…
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.