Interview with Vivir Quintana
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…
The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism In Egypt: Digital Expression Arrests From 2011-2019
This report was published by the Open Technology Fund and is republished here with permission and thanks. Since 2013, Egypt has seen the worst human…
Catherine Anite: Free Speech in Uganda, Progressive or Retrogressive?
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.…
Global Workshops on the Protection of Journalists
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…
IFÖD Communications to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
The Freedom of Expression Association (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği – IFÖD), led by Global Freedom of Expression expert Yaman Akdeniz, has submitted two communications to the…
EngelliWeb 2019: An Iceberg of Unseen Internet Censorship in Turkey
Press Release 14 August, 2020 İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği (İFÖD – Freedom of Expression Association) has been set up formally in August 2017 protect and foster…
FAN v. Facebook
This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.
Folta v. New York Times
This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.
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.”