Third Time Lucky?: Section 66A and the Afterlife of Strategic Litigation
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.…
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.…
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,…
On June 16, 2015, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered judgement on Delfi AS v. Estonia. Delfi AS, one of Estonia’s largest online news…
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 Argentinian National Court of Appeals in Criminal and Correctional Matters decided to close the investigation that was being held against P. Moyano, since the…
This article was first published by the European Journalist Observatory and Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa, and is reposted here with permission and thanks. The…
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 for the annual Justice for Free Expression conference being held on 4-5 April, 2016.
The Jakarta Recommendations are the outcome of discussions at a regional consultation on “Expression, Opinion and Religious Freedoms in Asia”, held in Jakarta, Indonesia on…
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.