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…
The Freedom of Expression Association (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği – IFÖD), led by Global Freedom of Expression expert Yaman Akdeniz, has submitted two communications to the…
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…
Austl., Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Ltd v City of Sydney [2013] NSWCA 2
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,…
Isr., MApp 2065/13 A. v. State of Israel, (March 22,2013) HCJ 442/71 Lansky v. Minister of the Interior, IsrSC 26(2) 337 (1972)
In February 2017, the Colombian Constitutional Court issued a ruling that could have serious consequences for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression…
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…
Factsheet on Content Moderation and Freedom of Expression Prepared by Erik Tuchtfeld, Head of the humanet3 research group, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law…
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.
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…