Report: Kashmir’s Internet Seige
This report was originally published by the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society and is reproduced here with permission and thanks. Summary Kashmir’s Internet Siege provides…
Levy Virgo v. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock
In April 2021, Mr. Marcos Levy Virgo submitted a request requiring environmental information to the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock of Costa Rica. Through this…
Applying International Human Rights Law for Use by Facebook
Published in Yale Journal on Regulation, September 14, 2020 Abstract: In recent years, social media platforms have been beset with hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, incitement…
İ.A. v. Turkey
It was not disputed that the interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting morals and the rights…
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2)
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2): Prosecution of An Opposition Leader in Turkey
International Press Institute highlights European defamation laws
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,…
Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner
“On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
1. Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted pursuant to that provision, such as Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce, by which the European Commission finds that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection, does not prevent a supervisory authority of a Member State, within the meaning of Article 28 of that directive as amended, from examining the claim of a person concerning the protection of his rights and freedoms in regard to the processing of personal data relating to him which has been transferred from a Member State to that third country when that person contends that the law and practices in force in the third country do not ensure an adequate level of protection.
2. Decision 2000/520 is invalid.”
From Constitutional Freedoms to the Power of the Platforms: Protecting Fundamental Rights Online in the Algorithmic Society
This paper was originally published by the European journal of legal studies, 2019, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 65-103. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3365106 Abstract The…
The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom
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.