“Regulating the Online Public Sphere: From Decentralized Networks to Public Regulation”, a retrospect.
On October 3 & 4, 2022, Columbia Global Freedom of Expression hosted the conference titled: “REGULATING THE ONLINE PUBLIC SPHERE: From Decentralized Networks to Public…
Speech that Isn’t Mine: Obligations Under the European Court of Human Rights, by Natalie Alkiviadou
Published in International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, November 2023 Abstract In 2023, the Grand Chamber of the…
ReachLocal UK Limited v. Jamie Bennett and Others
Defamation Act 1952 Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269. Banco de Portugal v Waterlow [1932] AC 452 at 506 Clarke v Bain [2008] EWHC…
HIDE AND SEEK: Tracking NSO Group’s Pegasus Spyware to Operations in 45 Countries
This report was originally published by Citizen Lab and is republished here with permission and thanks. In this post, we develop new Internet scanning techniques…
But Facebook’s Not a Country: How to Interpret Human Rights Law for Social Media Companies
Published in Yale Journal on Regulation Bulletin 38 (86-111), 2020 Abstract: Private social media companies regulate much more speech than any government does, and their…
Vidar Stromme: Freedom of Expression and Information in Norway
Following are the issues discussed in Vidar Stromme’s presentation from the annual Justice for Free Expression Conference held on April 4-5, 2016. Please see the…
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr
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.
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…
Stalking the messenger: Ending impunity for illegal surveillance
This article was originally published by IFEX in recognition of the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists (IDEI) and is reposted here…