Rabat + Five: Responding Effectively to the Challenges of 2017 and Beyond
Commemorating the fifth anniversary of the Rabat Plan of Action, Dr. Agnès S. Callamard sent the video address below for the Rabat+5 Symposium organized by the Government of…
Bedoya Lima v. Colombia
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights declared the Colombian State responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity, personal liberty, honor and dignity, and freedom of thought and expression of Colombian journalist, Jineth Bedoya. On May 25, 2000, the reporter visited “La Modelo” prison in Bogota, Colombia to conduct an interview, but before entering the prison she was abducted, kidnapped and taken to a warehouse where she was sexually abused and assaulted by several men. The IACtHR considered that the State violated its obligation to guarantee Bedoya’s safety because it did not implement effective protection measures for the victim, even when it was aware of the risk she faced because of the issues she covered and because she was a female journalist.
A.B. v. Bragg Communications
C
Amicus Brief Filed in a Case Before the Colombian Constitutional Court
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…
Dirk Voorhoof: Freedom of Expression in 2015 and the European Court of Human Rights
A presentation given by Professor Dirk Voorhoof on April 5 at the annual Justice for Free Expression Conference on Columbia University. The presentation discusses 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.
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.
Americans only figured out free speech 50 years ago. Here’s how the world can follow our lead.
Read Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger’s op-ed article published by The Washington Post February 12th, 2015.
Guide for Judicial Operators on Agenda 2030 for sustainable development with emphasis on ODS 16
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) launched the Guide for Judicial sustainable development with an emphasis on the SDG 16. Available online, this…
The smartphone versus the baton
Summary Reflecting on events from the first half of 2021, IFEX’s Europe and Central Asia Editor explains how the Lukashenka regime’s crackdown on Belarus’s independent…