Bayar v. Turkey
Hasan Bayar and Ali Gürbüz, the owner and the editor-in-chief of a Turkish newspaper, alleged before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that the…
Hasan Bayar and Ali Gürbüz, the owner and the editor-in-chief of a Turkish newspaper, alleged before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that the…
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…
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,…
The Freedom of Expression Association (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği – IFÖD), led by Global Freedom of Expression expert Yaman Akdeniz, has submitted two communications to the…
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.
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.
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.
Highest Court in Tunisia overturned a ban on X-rated websites.
Update: the deadline has been extended until August 15, 2023. The CYRILLA Collaborative has announced a call for proposals. Through the Centre for Intellectual Property…
Commemorating the fifth anniversary of the Rabat Plan of Action, Dr. Agnès S. Callamard sent the video address below for the Rabat+5 Symposium organized by the Government of…