Response to “Does Julian Assange Merit Support and Solidarity?”
This is a letter sent to Columbia Global Freedom of Expression from an attendee of the”Press Freedom, National Security and Whistleblowers: From Julian Assange to…
Queens World Film Festival: Seven Films Celebrate Freedom of Expression. March 15-25, 2018
Queens World Film Festival (QWFF) celebrates 70 years of the signage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its Article 19 that guarantees freedom…
Brazil: New Law on the Right of Reply Puts News Entities at Risk
In 2009, the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) struck-down the Federal Press Act, a law enacted during the country’s military dictatorship period. Since the STF decision,…
Submission on the Prevention and Combatting of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill
Abstract The following brief was submitted in response to The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development of South Africa’s Prevention and Combatting of Hate Crimes…
The Protection of Journalistic Sources in Italian Criminal Proceedings: The “Iuventa Case”
The so-called “Iuventa case” (aka “Trapani case”) provides insights into the conventional frameworks that protect journalistic sources in Italy. In March 2021, after a nearly…
Kazakhstan: Recent Freedom of Expression and Information Cases
Case 1 – Suspension of publications based on mistakes in imprint information Facts Alia Ismagulova, 22, is the editor and publisher of Pravdivaya gazeta (Newspaper…
Call for Papers: Hate Speech vs. Free Speech
Hate Speech vs. Free Speech International Journal for the Semiotics of Law Guest Editors: Jacob Mchangama, Executive Director, Justitia (Denmark), Executive Director of the Future…
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.
Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission
The Constitution requires government agencies to to provide information upon request; if they do not want to disclose information, they carry the burden of proving that the information is not of public concern or, if it is of public concern, that the information has been specifically exempted by law. Moreover, a citizen does not need to show any legal or special interest in order to establish his or her right to information.
Freedom of Expression in Thailand During 2014
Executive Summary 1. What were the most important developments in 2014 as far as courts decisions on FoE are concerned? In your opinion, was it…