Big Brother Watch and ors v The United Kingdom
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…
CGFoE Submits Observations on Hate Speech to the IACHR’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
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…
Catherine Anite: Free Speech in Uganda, Progressive or Retrogressive?
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.…
Arts. Protecting and Promoting Artistic Freedom
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…
The smartphone versus the baton
Summary Reflecting on events from the first half of 2021, IFEX’s Europe and Central Asia Editor explains how the Lukashenka regime’s crackdown on Belarus’s independent…
Department of Health v. Information Commissioner and Rt Hon John Healey MP and Nicholas Cecil
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.
Ethiopia – Zone 9 Bloggers
Today, for the 28th time, the Ethiopian High Court adjourned the trial of Zone 9 Bloggers or the Zone9ers. On April 24, 2014, ten Zone9ers…
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2)
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2): Prosecution of An Opposition Leader in Turkey
Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. State Attorney’s Office
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)