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,…
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…
Humor and the Meaning of ‘Context’: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on ECtHR Jurisprudence
This post originally appeared on Strasbourg Observers and is reproduced here with permission and thanks. I. Introduction As famously stated in Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, ‘satire…
Eon v. France
Though the judgment of the majority in the present matter does expand expression on merits, the extent to which it does so could have been enlarged had the reasons offered by Judge Power-Forde’s in her partly Dissenting Opinion – on the applicant’s entitlement to more than a mere moral victory due to the anxiety suffered by him on being convicted for exercising his freedom of expression and on the need for the affirmation of the principles established in Colombani and Others v. France [ECHR] (2002) 51279/99 – formed part of the reasoning and decision put forth by the majority.
Italy: a case endangering journalists’ rights to report and protect their sources
The on-going case involving Italian journalists Davide Vecchi and Augusto Mattioli poses fundamental questions for investigative journalism in Italy. In particular, the case highlights issues…
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.
Insulting Accusation of Domestic Violence
This post originally appeared on Strasbourg Observers and is reproduced here with permission and thanks. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), delivered an interesting…
Court case strengthens workers’ right to keep correspondence private
By Emil Weber The case of a Romanian who was sacked from his office job in Bucharest has created stronger privacy protection standards, thanks to…
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…