IFÖD Communications to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
The Freedom of Expression Association (İfade Özgürlüğü Derneği – IFÖD), led by Global Freedom of Expression expert Yaman Akdeniz, has submitted two communications to the…
X v. Twitter, Inc.
Austl., Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Ltd v City of Sydney [2013] NSWCA 2
Department of Health v. Information Commissioner and Rt Hon John Healey MP and Nicholas Cecil
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.
Jamal Khashoggi: The latest act in a parody of justice but not the final act for justice
May 22 2020 – while shocking, today’s announcement that the family of murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi has forgiven his killers, was anticipated. All of…
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr
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.
RS Bharathi v. State
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.
Maytham Al Salman’s participation at the 2016 Columbia University Global Freedom of Expression Conference
M.D. and Others v. Spain
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…
U.S. First Amendment: Opportunities and Challenges
The First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) was ratified in 1791, but largely ignored by the U.S. Supreme Court for 128…
PEN American Center v. Trump
U.S., Bano v. Union Carbide Corp., 361 F.3d 696 (2d Cir. 2004)