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.…
Loopholes in Election advertising on Facebook and Instagram in Brazil
This article was written and published on 14 February 2022 by Tow Fellow Patricia Campos Mello for Folha De S.Paulo and was translated from Portuguese to English for…
Freedom of Expression in Thailand During 2016
It is more than two years since the military seized control in Thailand and established a military junta called the National Council for Peace and…
The Digital Berlin Wall: How Germany (Accidentally) Created a Prototype for Global Online Censorship – Act Two
The following article was first published by EURACTIV. The German NetzDG law to counter illegal online speech has become a prototype for internet censorship in…
Revisiting Section 66A: An Afterword To A Concluded Tale
On 24th March, 2015, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as unconstitutional, in Shreya Singhal v.…
“Freedom of Expression in the Age of Globalization” – Columbia Global Freedom of Expression is to launch a MOOC on edX on October 12, 2016
NEW YORK, New York, September 26, 2016 — Columbia Global Freedom of Expression is proud to announce the upcoming launch of its first-ever MOOC (massive…
Introductory Videos on our Case Law Database Available Now!
When the Global Freedom of Expression (GFoE) initiative was launched in 2014, the leading concerns facing freedom of expression were violence against journalists, arbitrary imprisonment,…
“Freedom of Expression and Information in the Time of Globalization” MOOC Re-Launch
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines freedom of expression as the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and…
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.”