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…
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…
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…
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) launched the Guide for Judicial sustainable development with an emphasis on the SDG 16. Available online, this…
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.
The International Press Institute’s (IPI) work on legal reform is now being hosted by the Media Laws Database. IPI is a global network of publishers, editors,…
Summary Reflecting on events from the first half of 2021, IFEX’s Middle East and North Africa Editor explains how increasingly sophisticated digital surveillance tools are…
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.
A presentation prepared by Agnes Callamard and Bach Avezdjanov for the annual Justice for Free Expression conference being held on 4-5 April, 2016.
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.…