Cox. v. Twitter
The main issue for the Court to analyze in this case was if Twitter’s decision to suspend Mr. Cox was protected under 230(c)(2)(A) of the…
The main issue for the Court to analyze in this case was if Twitter’s decision to suspend Mr. Cox was protected under 230(c)(2)(A) of the…
Following is a re-post of a blog published by the Strasbourg Observers The Human Rights Centre of Ghent University[1] has recently submitted a third party intervention in the…
This post was originally published by Strasbourg Observers and Inforrm and is reproduced with permission and thanks. Introduction On 18 June 2015, Strasbourg Observers published…
Published in Policy & Internet, 2022 Abstract: In what way can coregulation and regulation (like that included in the NetzDG and envisaged by the Digital…
This report was published by the Open Technology Fund and is republished here with permission and thanks. Since 2013, Egypt has seen the worst human…
Ch., The Council for Transparency, decisions ROL C518-09
Following are excerpts from H.R. Dipendra’s presentation for the 2016 Justice for Free Expression Conference discussing trends in freedom of expression in Malaysia and Singapore.…
The en banc review of the Sixth Circuit reversed its previous judgment and determined that the Bible Believers’ speech was protected by the First Amendment even if it could be considered offensive and loathsome. The court also concluded that the Wayne County officials effectuated a heckler’s veto which violated the First Amendment. Wayne County did not prove a legitimate interest in order to limit the right to freedom of expression of the Bible Believers.
C