South Africa: Manuel v Economic Freedom Fighters – The Legal Consequences of Fake News
This post originally appeared on the Inforrm blog and is reproduced with permission of the author, Dario Milo. “Fake news” – a term ironically made popular…
This post originally appeared on the Inforrm blog and is reproduced with permission of the author, Dario Milo. “Fake news” – a term ironically made popular…
A presentation for JUSTICE FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION in 2014 Columbia University, March 10 -11, 2015 In 2014, Arab judges issued no exceptional rulings…
The Jakarta Recommendations are the outcome of discussions at a regional consultation on “Expression, Opinion and Religious Freedoms in Asia”, held in Jakarta, Indonesia on…
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…
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…
This article published on 15 February 2022 was written by Tow Fellow Patricia Campos Mello for Folha De S.Paulo and was translated from Portuguese to English for the…
This post originally appeared on the Musing on Media blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks. It can also be found on Inforrm. The…
On April 25, 2024, dozens of global free speech advocates joined us for the all-day event at the Italian Academy, Columbia University, New York City,…
The U.K. First-Tier Tribunal of the General Regulatory Chamber for Information Rights held that a Transitional Risk Register (“TRR”), relating to sweeping changes to the country’s National Health System (“NHS”), should be disclosed under The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) but that a Strategic Risk Register, relating to the changes, was exempt from disclosure. The court found that a public authority must release risk registers evaluating health policy if the request is made when policy consultation and formulation has been largely completed, but not during a period of consultation and when the register includes more sensitive policy information. In the present case, the Court ruled in favor of the public interest in transparency because at the time of the TRR request, the Report largely covered operational and implementation risks being faced by the Department of Health (“DOH”), rather than direct policy considerations. On the other hand, the Court found that the public interest in the Government having safe space to formulate policy took precedence at the time of the SRR request because the request was made at a time when the government was engaged in ongoing policy deliberations.
This post was originally published in Strasbourg Observers and is reproduced with permission and thanks. Introduction On 26 March 2020, the European Court of Human…