Press Release: Catalysts for Collaboration Relaunch
Relaunch: Catalysts for Collaboration, a resource to advance digital rights through collaborative strategic litigation The website offers best practices and new case studies in English,…
Relaunch: Catalysts for Collaboration, a resource to advance digital rights through collaborative strategic litigation The website offers best practices and new case studies in English,…
Hate Speech vs. Free Speech Special Issue International Journal for the Semiotics of Law Guest Editors: Jacob Mchangama, Executive Director, Justitia (Denmark), Executive Director of…
This report was originally published by The Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) and is re-posted here with permission and thanks. Freedom of expression remains…
New York Law Violates Farmworkers’ Human Rights, says Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic Amicus brief urges NY court to ensure farmworkers receive the same…
The First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) was ratified in 1791, but largely ignored by the U.S. Supreme Court for 128…
RAIF BADAWI AWARD For Courageous Journalists 2020 The Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom Keynote Speech Agnes Callamard, Director, Columbia Global Freedom of Expression; UN Special…
On March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as unconstitutional, in Shreya Singhal v.…
This article was first published by the European Journalist Observatory and Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa, and is reposted here with permission and thanks. The…
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.
I have been asked to describe some of the most important cases and relevant legal trends from the OSCE perspective. I have decided to look…