Third Time Lucky?: Section 66A and the Afterlife of Strategic Litigation
On March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as unconstitutional, in Shreya Singhal v.…
On March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as unconstitutional, in Shreya Singhal v.…
This article was first published by the European Journalist Observatory and Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa, and is reposted here with permission and thanks. The…
This article was written and published on 14 February 2022 by Tow Fellow Patricia Campos Mello for Folha De S.Paulo and was translated from Portuguese to English for…
The Jakarta Recommendations are the outcome of discussions at a regional consultation on “Expression, Opinion and Religious Freedoms in Asia”, held in Jakarta, Indonesia on…
On April 25, 2024, dozens of global free speech advocates joined us for the all-day event at the Italian Academy, Columbia University, New York City,…
Though the judgment of the majority in the present matter does expand expression on merits, the extent to which it does so could have been enlarged had the reasons offered by Judge Power-Forde’s in her partly Dissenting Opinion – on the applicant’s entitlement to more than a mere moral victory due to the anxiety suffered by him on being convicted for exercising his freedom of expression and on the need for the affirmation of the principles established in Colombani and Others v. France [ECHR] (2002) 51279/99 – formed part of the reasoning and decision put forth by the majority.