X v. Twitter, Inc.
Austl., Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Ltd v City of Sydney [2013] NSWCA 2
Austl., Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Ltd v City of Sydney [2013] NSWCA 2
On June 21, 1989, the Supreme Court of the United States held that imposing damages on a newspaper for publishing an article detailing the facts…
Over the last year, GFoE has worked to expand its case law database with coordinated research related to violence against journalists, seeking to capture and…
The Freedom of Expression Association (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği – IFÖD), led by Global Freedom of Expression expert Yaman Akdeniz, has submitted two communications to the…
Following is a re-post of an analysis from 4 New Square Chambers. Introduction The European Court of Human Rights’ recent decision in Big Brother Watch…
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.
Brief View on General Context Throughout 2015 Tunisia continued to mark progress in the area of human rights, rule of law and transitional justice. Promotion…
Below is the introduction of Catherine Anite’s presentation written for the 2016 Justice for Free Expression Conference. Download below the full pdf version with footnotes.…
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.