Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
11
11
CYRILLA Applied Research and Advocacy Grants Contact Grant Baker, CYRILLA Project Director (grant@smex.org) Background The CYRILLA Collaborative will be awarding 5 grants of $5,000 to…
This paper was originally published in Communications Law, The Journal of Computer, Media and Telecommunications Law 2019/2, Vol 24, 62-73 (Bloomsburry Professional, Oxford) and is…
In partnership with UNESCO Columbia Global Freedom of Expression has published the following collection of case law from around the world that upheld international standards…
This report was originally published by SMEX and is re-posted here with permission and thanks. On September 23, Zoom cancelled a virtual event featuring the…
“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.”
This is a letter sent to Columbia Global Freedom of Expression from an attendee of the”Press Freedom, National Security and Whistleblowers: From Julian Assange to…
Vivir Quintana, a Mexican singer, songwriter, and activist, is one of the most influential voices in Latin America today. Her songs demand freedom and justice…
Download Full Statement in English or Arabic On January 6, 2016, Bahrain’s authorities charged Sheikh Maytham Al Salman, a human rights defender and cleric,…
After a tense legislative proceeding, the Brazilian State of Alagoas passed a statute forbidding professors at public universities from giving their political, religious or ideological…