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…
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…
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.
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.…
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…
“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.”
CGFoE filed written observations on freedom of expression and unprotected speech to the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human…
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…
Press Release 14 August, 2020 İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği (İFÖD – Freedom of Expression Association) has been set up formally in August 2017 protect and foster…
NEW YORK, WASHINGTON D.C. – A group of fifty civil society organizations and experts are joining calls by Members of Congress and United States nominees…
Introduction Conflicts over artistic expression frequently stem from tensions within societies, which are based on opposing political, social or religious views and traditions. Some of these…