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…
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…
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.
This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.
This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.
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…
Defamation Act 1952 Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269. Banco de Portugal v Waterlow [1932] AC 452 at 506 Clarke v Bain [2008] EWHC…
Summary The Digital Platform for the Safety of Journalists, announced by President Ramaphosa of South Africa on January 2021, was conceptualized over the last five…
Published in Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series No. 2022-47 Abstract: Responses to the new Oversight Board created by Facebook (now Meta)…
Factsheet on Internet Shutdowns in International Law Prepared by Joan Barata, Senior Legal Fellow at Future of Free Speech Project, Justitia This Factsheet is meant…