ECtHR decides Delfi AS v. Estonia in Estonia’s Favor
On June 16, 2015, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered judgement on Delfi AS v. Estonia. Delfi AS, one of Estonia’s largest online news…
The prevention of atrocity crimes and social media: challenges and opportunities
Dr. Agnès Callamard gave the speech below at the UN event titled the “70th Anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the…
Turkey: İFÖD Report On The Right (Not) To Be Forgotten
The Freedom of Expression Association (“İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği – IFÖD”), based in Istanbul, published Right NOT to Be Forgotten on the Internet: Freedom of Expression…
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…
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.…
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…
Oversight Board Case of Dehumanizing Speech against a Woman
Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner
“On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
1. Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted pursuant to that provision, such as Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce, by which the European Commission finds that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection, does not prevent a supervisory authority of a Member State, within the meaning of Article 28 of that directive as amended, from examining the claim of a person concerning the protection of his rights and freedoms in regard to the processing of personal data relating to him which has been transferred from a Member State to that third country when that person contends that the law and practices in force in the third country do not ensure an adequate level of protection.
2. Decision 2000/520 is invalid.”