Article 10 ECHR and Expressive Conduct
This paper was originally published in Communications Law, The Journal of Computer, Media and Telecommunications Law 2019/2, Vol 24, 62-73 (Bloomsburry Professional, Oxford) and is…
This paper was originally published in Communications Law, The Journal of Computer, Media and Telecommunications Law 2019/2, Vol 24, 62-73 (Bloomsburry Professional, Oxford) and is…
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)
The Freedom of Expression Association (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği – IFÖD), led by Global Freedom of Expression expert Yaman Akdeniz, has submitted two communications to the…
This post was originally published by Strasbourg Observers and Inforrm and is reproduced with permission and thanks. Introduction On 18 June 2015, Strasbourg Observers published…
Austl., Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Ltd v City of Sydney [2013] NSWCA 2
In partnership with UNESCO Columbia Global Freedom of Expression has published the following collection of case law from around the world that upheld international standards…
The Delhi High Court, in a petition filed by Flipkart seeking quashing of the first information report/FIR (information on the basis of which criminal proceedings are initiated), held that the ‘Safe Harbour Protection’ guaranteed to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is applicable to criminal cases as well. It further opined that it is not required for the intermediaries to take down content prohibited under the Indian Copyright Act or the Trademark Act only upon receipt of ‘actual knowledge’ pursuant to complaints received. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015 (5) SCC 1, the Court propounded that it is imperative for a court order pursuant to which intermediaries will comply with take down requests in relation to any complaint.
This decision of the Madras High is binding on the lower courts in the State of Madras. However, it needs to be noted that this decision was taken at a pre-trial stage while determination of the request to quash criminal proceedings under various hate speech enactments. Thus, the arguments relying on the observations of the Court for advancing arguments on merits would have limited persuasive value.
The main issues for the Third Section of the ECtHR to analyze in this case were two. On the one hand, whether the Police report…