This book mounts a criticism of the Millian defense of freedom of expression and the underlying harm principle and provides for an alternate paradigm in the “offense principle”. Discussions are based around US First Amendment precedent.

Discusses the doctrine of prior restraint, its nature and development as well as the speech and speech acts in respect of which it has been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This article discusses the importance of the freedom of expression and the freedom of press in the Indian context, and in the specific context of the constitution and the restrictions it allows to be placed on it. It then discusses censorship as an inevitable result of this, focusing on prior restraint and traces the history of legislation and cases on these principles, from the perspective of both civil and criminal law, and concludes with recommendations on changes which are needed, mentioning the law of contempt specifically.

This article is a comment on the EMS Namboodiripad v. T N Nambiar case (ref. ), which also discusses the evolution of the Indian law of Contempt, the influence of the English law on it, and suggests that the power of the courts under ‘contempt’ should be redefined in the context of ‘reasonableness’, and says that the dicta of the chief justice insofar as it restricts the restriction on freedom of expression only to cases where contempt is ‘manifest’ or ‘substantial’ is a definite improvement. It notes that the law of contempt is necessary, but should be redefined and limited to cases where it actually interferes with the administration of justice.

The article discusses Sedition Law in the American context. It examines the historical interplay between Sedition laws and the Freedom of Speech.

This Article argues that the law on seditious libel is essentially anti-democratic. It seeks to demonstrate that authoritarianism, political insecurity, diabolization of dissenters, and a hysterical fear of opposition have traditionally accompanied waves of prosecution for seditious libel. In conclusion, it proposes a theory of how courts should decide these cases under an enlightened view of freedom of speech and suggest the outlines of a first amendment theory that would spell the death of seditious libel.

This article advances a new understanding of the original guarantee of freedom of speech under the American Constitution, before the First Amendment. It is also about the modern implications of the original guarantee about speech-how it provides tougher and more juridical standards for limiting discretionary government power over speech and how it avoids costs to speech that America presently tolerates under a wholly rights-oriented and litigation-intensive mode of protecting speech.

The author analyses the Alien and Sedition Laws in America in the backdrop of Freedom of Press and the Alien and Sedition Laws.

This article examines the constitutionality of Sedition Laws in the United States and its relation with the freedom of speech and expression. The author also provides an account of the historical underpinnings of Sedition Laws.

The author provides an account of the historical evolution of the doctrine of sedition which is important for analyzing the basis of modern Sedition Laws.

In many common law liberal democracies today, news gatherers are resisting efforts to use the powers of the courts to compel them to identify their confidential sources. Often the struggles are epic. Often the public interest in effective news gathering fuelling the vitality of a modern liberal democracy is insufficiently recognised. The article uses recent cases to spotlight the shortfalls in the approach and legacy of the common law in dealing with news gatherer/ confidential source relationships. Post Human Rights Act English decisions, especially that of Tugendhat J in Ackroyd, combining European style commitment to the public interest in vigorous newsgathering with common law style analysis of evidence, point the way to a more effective approach. US and Hong Kong cases remind news gatherers of their public interest responsibilities.

This article provides a detailed overview about the considerations that need to be kept in mind while drafting a whistleblower protection law. It explains the pre-requisites for whistleblower laws and analyses the laws across various jurisdictions. Further it explains the different consideration that need to be put in place for public and private sector employees and the channels of disclosure that need to be implemented. The article concludes that effective whistleblower protections must include access to the normal legal process including trial by jury, protection for the whistleblower and protection of lawful disclosure. There must be no retaliation and there must be effective resolution of the wrongdoing disclosed by the whistleblower. It thus concludes that an effective legislation is the backbone of any proposed whistleblower protection.

This article constitutes a basic reading to understand the concept of whistleblowing and the need to afford protection to them in a modern democratic age. It also analyses the laws relating to whistleblower protection in various countries, including USA and Australia.

The chapter on Legal Principles in Whistleblower Laws provides the basic legal principles surrounding protection of whistleblowers in USA.

Gillwald examines the public sphere, contextualising it in terms of the debate between the liberalist school of thought and the Marxist school of thought. While the traditional liberalist position that locates the media “at the interface between the governors and governed”, the Marxist school characterises the media as bourgeoisie. Gillwald in elucidating on the shortcomings of both these notions, seeks to understand the public sphere in the sense of Habermas’ critical sphere. Through the debunking of certain misplaced assumptions with regard to the public sphere, she seeks to reconstruct the public sphere, thereby redefining the role of the media in a democracy.

Rawls’ discussion of the first principle of justice, which he terms the “liberty principle”, particularly when it would be justified to limit basic liberties such as that of speech.

Bennett in examining the scholarship on the different theories of media seeks to understand the assumptions at play in the various schools of thought, which have gone on to shape our understanding of media. Through this exercise he also aims to comprehend the implications of the terminology “mass, media and communications”, so as to discern the nature of the media as perceived.

"The press, long enshrined among our most highly cherished institutions, was thought a cornerstone of democracy when its name was boldly inscribed in the Bill of Rights. Freed from governmental restraint, initially by the first amendment and later by the fourteenth, the press was to stand majestically as the champion of new ideas and the watch dog against governmental abuse. Professor Barron finds this conception of the first amendment, perhaps realistic in the eighteenth century heyday of political pamphleteering, essentially romantic in an era marked by extraordinary technological developments in the communications industry. To make viable the time-honored "marketplace" theory, he argues for a twentieth century interpretation of the first amendment which will impose an affirmative responsibility on the monopoly newspaper to act as sounding board for new ideas and old grievances."

Originally intended as the preface to Animal Farm, discusses the motivations to self-censorship in literary endeavours.

Bentham’s statement of press freedom argues to permit political associations/assemblies in public and resistance to governmental authority as a check to abuse of power. Special mention of permitting criticism, including of state officials, and a discussion of how sedition and defamation of public officials should be addressed.

Mill argues for limited governmental intervention in silencing or compelling speech, emphasizes the value of contrary and minority opinions and presents a principle on which any governmental action in respect of speech should be based.

Bagehot argues for toleration by the state and under law of a diversity of opinions, and argues that discussions and exchange of opinions must be in pursuit of uncovering truths.

Blasi provides, in the context of the US First Amendment, the canonical iteration the notion that free speech performs the function of checking governmental abuse of power, and discusses its utility as a consideration in adjudication on free speech issues.

“The normal treatment of governmental regulation of markets makes a sharp distinction between the ordinary market for goods and services and the activities covered by the First Amendment-speech, writing, and the exercise of religious beliefs -which [. H. Coase] call[s], for brevity, "the market for ideas." […] What is the general view that [R. H. Coase] will be examining? It is that, in the market for goods, government regulation is desirable whereas, in the market for ideas, government regulation is undesirable and should be strictly limited. In the market for goods, the government is commonly regarded as competent to regulate and properly motivated. Consumers lack the ability to make the appropriate choices. Producers often exercise monopolistic power and, in any case, without some form of government intervention, would not act in a way which promotes the public interest. In the market for ideas, the position is very different. The government, if it attempted to regulate, would be inefficient and its motives would, in general, be bad, so that, even if it were successful in achieving what it wanted to accomplish, the results would be undesirable.” 

Nimmer argues that the existence of both a speech and a press clause suggests that a speech-press duality was intended under the First Amendment. He discusses precedent at the US Supreme Court which make apparent and engage with the distinction.

The report (A/72/135) is divided in seven sections. In section III, the Special Rapporteur “outlines the factors that shape her vision.” This section includes subsections on ‘freedom of peaceful assembly and of association as fundamental rights; ‘Democracy and freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; ‘Development and freedom of peaceful assembly and of association’. 

First Joint Declaration of OAS and ACHPR Special Rapportuers on Freedom of Expression

This article unpacks and explains the chilling effect and discusses how uncertainty generally and the chilling effect will affect how various classes of speech are treated.

The report (A/69/335)“focuses on the right of the child to freedom of expression. [The Special Rapporteur] calls for a greater focus by the international community and States on children’s right to freedom of expression and access to information, while noting with concern the adoption of various restrictive measures allegedly aimed at protecting children from harmful information.” 

The report (A/HRC/26/30) “focuses on the realization of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts, paying particular attention to the establishment and enforcement of legal instruments regulating political communications. [The Special Rapporteur] details the human rights framework applicable to the question of freedom of opinion and expression in political communications and electoral processes. [T]hen describes common violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral periods. Finally, [p]rovides recommendations on the alignment of national legal frameworks to the most relevant international human rights standards, emphasizing the importance of promoting pluralism, transparency and accountability.” 

“In the present report [A/68/362], the Special Rapporteur focuses on the right to access information. He describes how the right is established through international human rights law, emphasizing its interrelationships with the right to truth. Taking into account that framework, he discusses the permissible limitations to access to information, in particular the exceptions justified by national security concerns. He describes principles that may guide the design and implementation of laws on access to information and examines common obstacles noted in existing experience. He makes recommendations for the better translation of international human rights standards into national laws and practices that promote access to information.”

The report (A/HRC/23/40) “analyses the implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. While considering the impact of significant technological advances in communications, the report underlines the urgent need to further study new modalities of surveillance and to revise national laws regulating these practices in line with human rights standards.”

The report “presents an overview of the [hate speech and incitement to hatred] phenomenon, the relevant international norms and standards, including distinctions between types of hate speech, and examples of domestic legislation that contravene international norms and standards. While noting the importance of clear laws that conform to international norms and principles to combat hate speech, the Special Rapporteur underscores the importance of non-legal measures to tackle the root causes of hatred and intolerance. The report concludes with a set of recommendations to combat hate speech effectively without unduly curtailing the right to freedom of opinion and expression.” 

The report “expands upon the last report submitted to the Council […] (A/HRC/17/27), and addresses the issue through two equally important dimensions of Internet access: access to online content (sect. III), and access to Internet connection (sect. IV). In section III, the Special Rapporteur outlines the types of expression that States are exceptionally required to prohibit under international law (III.A) and also discusses impermissible restrictions (III.B), given the ongoing debate regarding regulation of content on the Internet. The report also addresses the importance of digital literacy and training in information and communications technology skills for individuals to enable them to access online content in an effective and meaningful manner. […] (sect. IV). The report concludes with recommendations to ensure full access to online content that is free of censorship and access to Internet connection, particularly for marginalized and disadvantaged groups.” 

The report (A/HRC/17/27) “underscores the unique and transformative nature of the Internet not only to enable individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, but also a range of other human rights, and to promote the progress of society as a whole. Chapter III of the report underlines the applicability of international human rights norms and standards on the right to freedom of opinion and expression to the Internet as a communication medium, and sets out the exceptional circumstances under which the dissemination of certain types of information may be restricted. Chapters IV and V address two dimensions of Internet access respectively: (a) access to content; and (b) access to the physical and technical infrastructure required to access the Internet in the first place.” 

Human right to freedom of opinion and expression: Frank La Rue speaks about the role of social media and human rights.

Chapter III OF THE REPORT (A/HRC/14/23) "expands on four main themes: (a) general considerations on the freedom of opinion and expression; (b) freedom of expression for groups in need of particular attention and the role of freedom of expression in combating discrimination; (c) permissable restrictions and limitations on freedom of the expression; and (d) protection of journalists and freedom of the press. Chapter IV presents the Special Rapporteur’s conclusions and general recommendations concerning these main subjects.” 

The report  (A/HRC/20/17) “builds on the previous work of the Special Rapporteur regarding the issue of the protection of journalists and media freedom, and focuses particularly on situations outside of armed conflict.” 

The report (A/HRC/11/4) focuses on the Special Rapporteur’s "vision and priorities for the mandate." Among others, the Rapporteur makes "preliminary reflections on the issue of limitations to the right to freedom of opinion and expression", he included a section on the "right to access to information in situations of extreme poverty", and a section on "safety and protection of media professionals, including the protection of journalists working in conflict zones." 

The report (A/HRC/31/66) presents a “compilation of practical recommendations for the proper management of assemblies. In each section of the compilation the special rapporteurs provide a summary of applicable international legal standards, followed by practical recommendations on how those principles might be implemented, with the aim of ensuring better protection of the various rights of those engaged in assemblies.” 

Resolution 68/167 on the right to privacy in the digital age.

The report (A/HRC/32/36) is divided into five sections. In section III, the Special Rapporteur “addresses the phenomenon of fundamentalism and its impact on the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. In section IV, he examines the positive role that assembly and association rights can play in preventing the spread of extremism and radicalization. The Special Rapporteur outlines his conclusions and his recommendations to various stakeholders in section V.” 

The report (A/71/385) “report examines the exercise and enjoyment of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the workplace, with a focus on the most marginalized portions of the world’s labour force, including global supply chain workers, informal workers, migrant workers, domestic workers and others.”

The report (A/HRC/29/25) is divided in four sections. In section III, the Special Rapporteur “addresses legislation and practices concerning natural resource exploitation that present challenges to the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.” 

 The report (A/68/299) “addresses concerns about the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the context of elections. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned about increasing human rights violations and abuses, which are being committed in several parts of the world against those who exercise or seek to exercise such rights in the context of elections and which indelibly mar such elections.” 

The report (A/HRC/23/39) is divided into five chapters. In “chapters III and IV, the Special Rapporteur addresses two issues he considers to be among the most significant ones of his mandate, namely funding of associations and holding of peaceful assemblies.” 

The report (A/HRC/20/27) is divided into four chapters. In “chapter III, the Special Rapporteur highlights best practices that promote and protect the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. [The Special Rapporteur also addresses the ‘Common Principles’ which include the legal framework and the environment in which these rights are exercised […] This chapter ends with an emphasis on the right to an effective remedy and accountability for human rights violations and abuses.”

Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and "Fake News", Disinformation and Propaganda

Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Countering Violent Extremism.

"This Joint Declaration addresses systematic or targeted attacks on freedom of expression which are aimed at silencing certain perspectives or voices, whether internationally, nationally or locally, and State responses to such attacks. Such attacks are perpetrated in different contexts, including of international and non-international armed conflicts, terrorist attacks and widespread organized crime."

Joint Declaration on the General Principles on Crimes against Freedom of Expression, Obligations to Prevent and Prohibit, Obligations to Protect, Independent, Speedy and Effective Investigations, Redress for Victims and the Role of other stakeholders

Joint Declaration about Censorship by Killing and Defamation

Joint Declaration about Countering Terror, Broadcasting and the Internet

Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Administration of Justice, Commercialisation and Freedom of Expression, and Criminal Defamation

 Joint Declaration on the Internet and on Anti-Terrorist Measures

Joint Declaration on Diversity of Outlet, Source and Content in Broadcasting

Joint Declaration on Defamation of Religions, and Anti-Terrorism and Anti-Extremism Legislation.

Joint Declaration on the Overall Environment for Media and Elections and on Public Media.

The Special Rapporteurs identify the ten key challenges to freedom of expression in the next decade: Mechanisms of Government Control over the Media, Criminal Defamation, Violence Against Journalists, Limits on the Right to Information, Discrimination in the Enjoyment of the Right to Freedom of Expression, Commercial Pressures, Support for Public Service and Community Broadcasters, Security and Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Expression on the Internet, Access to Information and Communications Technologies.

Joint Declaration on the Regulation of the Media, Restrictions on Journalists, and on Investigating Corruption.

Joint Declaration On Publishing Confidential Information, Openness of National and International Public Bodies, Freedom of Expression and Cultural/Religious Tensions, and Impunity in Cases of Attacks Against Journalists.

This document is a " step-by-step checklist for monitoring implementation of the practical recommendations on the management of assemblies report by United Nations Special Rapporteurs Maina Kiai and Christof Heyns (A/HRC/31/66)"

First Joint Declaration of the International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of Expression

The report “examines the crucial challenges of balancing the fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of expression, and the related value of transparency, in an online context. Through an exploration of their boundaries and of the various modalities of reconciling and aligning these rights and values, the study analyzes the legal frameworks at play, specific cases, and interactions between multiple players. Built on the findings, it provides policy recommendations for key stakeholders.”

“The initial part of the Study consists of a review of literature relevant to the principle of multistakeholder participation in Internet governance […]. In addition, the Study investigates how the principle of multistakeholder participation has been applied in practice in four case studies. Due to the primary focus of UNESCO’s work, the Study focuses on cases of multistakeholder participation in Internet governance and related topics that are or were conducted with the aim of supporting Internet Universality. In no specific order, the Study’s case studies move from Kenya to Brazil, South Korea, and an initiative under the auspices of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).”

“This study encompasses both quantitative and qualitative assessments of more than 50 declarations, guidelines, and frameworks. The issues contained in these documents are assessed in the context of UNESCO’s  interested areas such as access, freedom of expression, privacy, ethics, Priority Gender Equality, and Priority Africa, and sustainable development, etc.”

"This book explores the legal and regulatory systems governing public service broadcasters in eight different countries around the world, looking at the services they provide, the way in which their mandates are defined, their internal governance systems, mechanisms of oversight or accountability and funding. In selecting the various countries, an attempt has been made to ensure wide geographic representation, while including only countries that have a strong commitment to public service broadcasting. Special emphasis has been placed on the strategies that have evolved over the years to ensure that public service broadcasters are not undermined by two critical phenomena: external control (political or other), particularly over editorial output, and inadequate public funding. The book outlines tested approaches to resolving these key problems, but it also highlights innovative systems that are being piloted in different countries to address some of the new challenges that face public service broadcasters."

“The articles in this book, several by journalists with personal experience of harassment or violence, explore the problem from many angles. Although all agree that violence against journalists for doing their job is morally and legally unacceptable under any circumstances, there are differing points of view about whether journalists should be afforded extra legal protection under international humanitarian law.”

“While the rapidly emerging digital environment offers great opportunities for journalists to investigate and report information in the public interest, it also poses particular challenges regarding the privacy and safety of journalistic sources. These challenges include: mass surveillance as well as targeted surveillance, data retention, expanded and broad antiterrorism measures, and national security laws and over-reach in the application of these.”

In the report (A/73/348), the Special Rapporteur "explores the implications of artificial intelligence technologies for human rights in the information environment, focusing in particular on rights to freedom of opinion and expression, privacy and non-discrimination."

The report (A/HRC/38/35) examines "the regulation of user-general online content, the Special Rapporteur examines the role of States and social media companies in providing an enabling environment for freedom of expression and access to information online. In the face of contemporary threats such as “fake news” and disinformation and online extremism, the Special Rapporteur urges States to reconsider speech-based restrictions and adopt smart regulation targeted at enabling the public to make choices about how and whether to engage in online fora. The Special Rapporteur also conducts an in-depth investigation of how Internet companies moderate content on major social media platforms, and argues that human rights law gives companies the tools to articulate their positions in ways that respect democratic norms and counter authoritarian demands. The report is the culmination of a year-long series of consultations, visits to major internet companies and a wide range of State and civil society input."

The report (A/HRC/35/22) “addresses the roles played by private actors engaged in the provision of Internet and telecommunications access. [The Special Rapporteur] begins by examining State obligations to protect and promote freedom of expression online, then evaluates the digital access industry’s roles, to conclude with a set of principles that could guide the private sector’s steps to respect human rights.” 

The report (A/71/373) “addresses contemporary challenges to freedom of expression. He assesses trends relating to the permissible restrictions laid out in article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and concludes with recommendations that the United Nations, States and civil society may take to promote and protect freedom of opinion and expression.”

The report (A/HRC/29/32) “addresses the use of encryption and anonymity in digital communications. Drawing from research on international and national norms and jurisprudence, and the input of States and civil society, the report concludes that encryption and anonymity enable individuals to exercise their rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age and, as such, deserve strong protection.” 

The report (A/HRC/32/38) addresses “the intersection of State regulation, the private sector and freedom of expression in a digital age. In it, the Special Rapporteur examines the legal framework that pertains to freedom of expression and principles applicable to the private sector, identifies key participants in the information and communications technology sector that implicate freedom of expression, and introduces legal and policy issues that he will explore over the course of his mandate.”

“Drawing on international and national law and practice, the Special Rapporteur highlights [in his report (A/70/361)] the key elements of a framework for the protection of sources and whistle-blowers.”

Section III of the report (E/CN.4/2005/64) "contains a discussion of issues relevant to the mandate, including the right to access to information, the right to access to information for the purposes of education on, and prevention of, HIV/AIDS, and the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the context of counter-terrorism measures.”

 Chapter II of the report  (A/HRC/7/14) "presents an overall review of the main issues addressed by the Special Rapporteur throughout his mandate, specifically in the realms of the right of access to information, safety and protection of media professionals, legal restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression as well as the impact of freedom of expression on the realization of other human rights."

The report (A/HRC/4/27) is divided in three chapters. Chapter III addresses, among others, "future establishment of an intergovernmental body dealing with Internet governance and its role in limiting commercial pressure on, inter alia, a human rights approach to Internet freedom. The Special Rapporteur also addresses the necessity of swift action from Governments and Parliaments in order to decriminalize defamation and related offences. Finally, the Special Rapporteur examines the most recent initiatives with regard to security and protection of journalists and media professionals, and their repercussion on the availability of independent information and opinion-making. In addition to the proposed study on this matter, the Special Rapporteur also launches the idea of a voluntary fund to provide financial relief to the families of journalists killed while performing their duties or because of their activities, especially in developing countries” 

 Resolution A/HRC/32/L.20 on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet. Adopted at the 32nd session. 

Resolution A/HRC/20/L.13 on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet. Adopted at the 20th session. 

Resolution A/HRC/RES/12/16 on Freedom of opinion and expression. Adopted at the 12th Session.

Joint declaration on violence against journalists and media workers in the context of protests.

The Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression "called on the United States to be vigorous in protecting freedom of speech on the Internet. The Special Rapporteurs recalled that legislation regulating the Internet should take into account the special characteristics of the Internet as a unique and transformative tool that enables billions of individuals to exercise their right to freedom of thought and expression as well as a range of other human rights."

"In light of ongoing developments related to the release of diplomatic cables by the organization Wikileaks, and the publication of information contained in those cables by mainstream news organizations, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression see fit to recall a number of international legal principles. The rapporteurs call upon States and other relevant actors to keep these principles in mind when responding to the aforementioned developments."

"In response to the release of information on secret surveillance programs used in the fight against terrorism and the defense of national security that could severely affect the right to freedom of thought and expression and the right to privacy, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights consider it necessary to highlight a series of international legal principles on the issue."

“This guide was designed as a basic and synthetic input to help judges and legal practitioners across the Americas who must apply international (especially inter-American) standards that enshrine and protect the fundamental right to freedom of expression.” Available only in Spanish.

“The murder of journalists for doing their jobs constitutes a grave violation of the right to freedom of expression, both on an individual and collective level. This study seeks to analyze the situation surrounding the violent deaths of reporters and other members of the media throughout the region.” 

The report  “describes the jurisprudence of various systems for protection of human rights regarding public protests and their possible limitations. The objective was to contribute to interpretation of public protests as an exercise of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly in the framework of the Inter-American System.”

“The phenomenon [of silenced zones] occurs in several regions of the Americas whose communities are being misinformed and silenced by the violence unleashed by organized crime to ensure their illicit ends, in some cases acting in complicity with local or regional authorities infiltrated by these groups. This report also seeks to deepen the dialogue with state institutions, civil society and the media through the development of recommendations focused on prevention, protection and criminal prosecution of those responsible.”

“Over the past decade, a significant number of countries in the region have enacted access to public information laws and created bodies to oversight this right. In this report, the Office of the Special Rapporteur outlines the regulatory framework and institutional structure of some of these bodies established to supervise and promote the implementation of laws on access to public information and the resolution of disputes related to the disclosure of information.” 

“This publication presents a revision of the evolution that the transition from analog to digital free-to-air television has had in the hemisphere, given that several countries are in full transition and others have not even begun this process which involves a deep technological change and decision-making can affect the right to freedom of expression. The role of media in a democratic society implies that any decision on the transition to digital television must observe the guarantees related to the exercise of freedom of expression, legal certainty and the promotion of diversity principles and pluralism in all platforms.” 

The report “reviews current principles and summarizes the Inter-American case law and the advances made throughout the world, with the understanding that the right to freedom of expression is instrumental to the exercise of human rights on the Internet.”

“This report presents a review of international standards in the field of prevention, protection and the fight against impunity in crimes against journalists. In this report, among other things, the progress and challenges of programs and mechanisms in the field of protection and prevention of violence against journalists that certain countries in the region have developed are studied, and specific recommendations are presented to improve protection for journalists and the fight against impunity of these crimes.” 

 “In this follow-up report, the Office of the Special Rapporteur lays out the most important aspects of the laws in some of the Member States in which access laws have been approved or legal frameworks for access are reflected in administrative provisions of a general nature. Thus, this report presents an overview of the normative framework surrounding the right to access to information provided by specialized laws on the subject in Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, the United States, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay.”

“This book explains the principles that should be followed in designing and implementing a legal framework that guarantees the right of access to information. Likewise, it presents the minimum requirements of the right according to regional doctrine and jurisprudence, and, finally, it presents a series of domestic rulings from countries in the region that, in the Office of the Special Rapporteur’s opinion, constitute best practices on the subject of access to information and should therefore be distributed and discussed.” 

“This book explains the principles that should be followed in designing and implementing a legal framework that guarantees the right of access to information. Likewise, it presents the minimum requirements of the right according to regional doctrine and jurisprudence. The second part of the book includes a series of domestic rulings from countries in the region that, in the Office of the Special Rapporteur’s opinion, constitute best practices on the subject of access to information and should therefore be distributed and discussed.”

PowerPoint Presentation created by the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights. This presentation is used by the Office in their training sessions. It addresses the Inter-American human rights system, explains the mandate of the Office of the Special Rapporteur, and refers to the jurisprudence and standards on: prohibition of prior censorship, prohibition of desacato laws, proportionality of subsequent liability, prohibition of indirect restrictions on speech, access to information and violence against media workers. .

“This paper attempts to take stock of the recent and past experiences of advocating for the right to freedom of information, and particularly for access to government-held information […] Introduced by a short reflection on the right itself, this paper reviews some of the key characteristics of the success of the last 20 years as far as the right to freedom of information and freedom of information laws are concerned and it then moves to analyse some of the current trends (the what’s new part of the above quote). In the last section, the paper draws on the various findings and lessons, potential or real, to propose to initiate a new generation of right to freedom of information activism.”

Interactive map showing countries with no right to information law or initiative/No information available; countries with a pending right to information bill or initiative; countries with a right to information regulation; and Countries with a right to information law