Call for Papers: Hate Speech vs. Free Speech
Hate Speech vs. Free Speech International Journal for the Semiotics of Law Guest Editors: Jacob Mchangama, Executive Director, Justitia (Denmark), Executive Director of the Future…
Hate Speech vs. Free Speech International Journal for the Semiotics of Law Guest Editors: Jacob Mchangama, Executive Director, Justitia (Denmark), Executive Director of the Future…
Relaunch: Catalysts for Collaboration, a resource to advance digital rights through collaborative strategic litigation The website offers best practices and new case studies in English,…
Hate Speech vs. Free Speech Special Issue International Journal for the Semiotics of Law Guest Editors: Jacob Mchangama, Executive Director, Justitia (Denmark), Executive Director of…
This report was originally published by The Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) and is re-posted here with permission and thanks. Freedom of expression remains…
Global pandemic response falters as clients of worlds’ biggest banks silence medical workers, journalists and activists with impunity. By Lorena Cotza, Silvia Chocarro, Matthew Redding…
New York Law Violates Farmworkers’ Human Rights, says Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic Amicus brief urges NY court to ensure farmworkers receive the same…
The First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) was ratified in 1791, but largely ignored by the U.S. Supreme Court for 128…
On March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as unconstitutional, in Shreya Singhal v.…
The U.K. First-Tier Tribunal of the General Regulatory Chamber for Information Rights held that a Transitional Risk Register (“TRR”), relating to sweeping changes to the country’s National Health System (“NHS”), should be disclosed under The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) but that a Strategic Risk Register, relating to the changes, was exempt from disclosure. The court found that a public authority must release risk registers evaluating health policy if the request is made when policy consultation and formulation has been largely completed, but not during a period of consultation and when the register includes more sensitive policy information. In the present case, the Court ruled in favor of the public interest in transparency because at the time of the TRR request, the Report largely covered operational and implementation risks being faced by the Department of Health (“DOH”), rather than direct policy considerations. On the other hand, the Court found that the public interest in the Government having safe space to formulate policy took precedence at the time of the SRR request because the request was made at a time when the government was engaged in ongoing policy deliberations.
This article published on 15 February 2022 was written by Tow Fellow Patricia Campos Mello for Folha De S.Paulo and was translated from Portuguese to English for the…