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…
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…
Corresponding Law Reference – Sunday Times v UK 2 E.H.R.R 245 (1979), is a lower court reference. It may be unnecessary because it was of the higher ECtHR.
Press Release 14 August, 2020 İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği (İFÖD – Freedom of Expression Association) has been set up formally in August 2017 protect and foster…
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…
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…
The Freedom of Expression Association (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği – IFÖD), led by Global Freedom of Expression expert Yaman Akdeniz, has submitted two communications to the…
This decision of the Madras High is binding on the lower courts in the State of Madras. However, it needs to be noted that this decision was taken at a pre-trial stage while determination of the request to quash criminal proceedings under various hate speech enactments. Thus, the arguments relying on the observations of the Court for advancing arguments on merits would have limited persuasive value.
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.