International Press Institute highlights European defamation laws
The International Press Institute’s (IPI) work on legal reform is now being hosted by the Media Laws Database. IPI is a global network of publishers, editors,…
The International Press Institute’s (IPI) work on legal reform is now being hosted by the Media Laws Database. IPI is a global network of publishers, editors,…
IFEX-SPP: Paraguay UPR, Third Cycle Executive Summary: The following is a joint report submitted by the IFEX-SPP Coalition. The objective of the report is to…
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…
Fighting Through Cartoons Charged with nine counts of sedition, Zunar, Malaysia’s famous political cartoonist once vowed, “How can I be neutral, even my pen has…
The Argentinian National Court of Appeals in Criminal and Correctional Matters decided to close the investigation that was being held against P. Moyano, since the…
Following are the issues discussed in Vidar Stromme’s presentation from the annual Justice for Free Expression Conference held on April 4-5, 2016. Please see the…
Summary The Digital Platform for the Safety of Journalists, announced by President Ramaphosa of South Africa on January 2021, was conceptualized over the last five…
This publication aims to provide an overview of the case law on freedom of expression in the Inter-American System of Human Rights by creating…
The UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Irene Khan, is looking for a Legal Adviser to join her team. The key priority…
The Delhi High Court, in a petition filed by Flipkart seeking quashing of the first information report/FIR (information on the basis of which criminal proceedings are initiated), held that the ‘Safe Harbour Protection’ guaranteed to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is applicable to criminal cases as well. It further opined that it is not required for the intermediaries to take down content prohibited under the Indian Copyright Act or the Trademark Act only upon receipt of ‘actual knowledge’ pursuant to complaints received. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015 (5) SCC 1, the Court propounded that it is imperative for a court order pursuant to which intermediaries will comply with take down requests in relation to any complaint.