Prosecutor v. Chiranuch Premchaiporn
Google Inc. v. AEPD
This decision widens the scope of freedom of expression by considering that blocking or filtering internet search results by name is less acceptable in cases where the contested information refers to professional life of an individual and is in the public interest. When balancing freedom of expression against the right to be forgotten, the Court gave prevalence to the former by highlighting the fact that web users and potential patients have a right to access information in a free manner about persons of public interest in the private sector. Right to access information thus, gives way to the right to be forgotten when dissemination of such information is in the public interest.
Promusicae v. Telefónica de España SAU, Case C‑275/06
India Takes a Dig at Chinese Apps- A threat to Free Speech?
by Atmaja Tripathy[1] In an era where expression via the internet is recognised as a quintessential part of freedom of speech and expression[2], sovereigns are…
Government of India to Regulate OTT Platforms
The Government of India has drawn flak this year for its aggressive campaign to intensify the regulation of digital service providers, its latest target being…
The Contribution of Media and Information to an Effective Strategy of Prevention to Atrocity Crimes
A speech delivered for the side event to launch the Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes [1] Organised by the Permanent Mission of Italy and the…
Oversight Board Case of Dehumanizing Speech against a Woman
OSCE Perspective: Important Freedom of Expression and Information Cases and Relevant Legal Trends
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…
U.S. First Amendment: Limits and Opportunities of the U.S. Information Regime
1. Most important first amendment case law in recent years, and why? (Explain how you would define important.) Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S.…