United States
U.S. v. Mohamud
Decision Date: December 5, 2016
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that the incidental collection of a U.S. citizen's activities online under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) did not violate the Appellant's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The Appeals Court also held that the District Court properly rejected the Appellant's entrapment defense. The monitoring of a foreign national's email account from inside the U.S. revealed emails between the foreign national and the Appellant, Mohamed Osman Mohamud which led the government to obtain a FISA warrant to monitor the defendant's account. The FBI subsequently carried out an undercover operation in which they arranged for Mohamud to believe he was to detonate a bomb at the Portland Christmas tree lighting ceremony. The Court reasoned that because the collection of Mohamud's communications occurred incidentally during lawful surveillance of a foreign national outside the U.S. under Section 702, there was no violation of Mohamud's Fourth Amendment rights either on the incidental collection of emails or on their use to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil Mohamud and his activities.
Doe v. Coleman
Decision Date: September 22, 2016
The Supreme Court of Kentucky refused to allow the disclosure of the identity of anonymous users of a website who allegedly defamed a public figure, Hickman, because he failed to provide sufficient evidence proving the falsity of the statements. The Court reasoned that because Hickman brought the case, he bore the burden of proof, but his bare denials failed to reach a sufficient standard to convince the court to pierce the anonymous protection that the John Does were afforded. Baring evidence for a prima facie showing, the Court was unable to move to the next step of balancing the First Amendment right to anonymous speech with the right of those harmed to seek redress. The Court also reiterated the importance of free speech especially when it is political in nature and aimed at public officials but, also, that this freedom is subject to limitations.
|
|
|
Cambodia
The Case of Tep Vanny
Decision Date: February 23, 2017
The Phnom Penh Municipal Court in Cambodia sentenced land rights activist Tep Vanny to two and a half years in prison for "intentional violence with aggravating circumstances." These charges were brought against Ms. Vanny on the basis that she had allegedly assaulted security guards while trying to deliver a petition to the Prime Minister calling for the release of fellow activist Yorm Bopha. The incident took place during a protest outside the house of Prime Minister Hun Sen in 2013. Her conviction was handed down despite the apparent lack of evidence supporting the charge. Ms. Vanny plans to appeal.
|
|
|
South Africa
President of the Republic of South Africa. v. M & G Media Ltd.
Decision Date: December 14, 2010
The Supreme Court held that under the South African Bill of Rights and the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2000, conclusory affidavits provided by the President to justify the secrecy of a report on the 2002 Zimbabwe elections prepared by two judges for President Mbeki were insufficient to justify non-disclosure. In a reference to suggested judicial discretion to review records that a public body asserts should not be disclosed, the Court warned that the public trust in a court, gleaned from the court’s openness and judicial reasoning, would be jeopardized should the court become party to the secrecy.
This case analysis was contributed by Right2Info.org.
Uganda
Charles Mwanguhya Mpagi and Izama Angelo v. Attorney General, Miscellaneous Cause No.751 of 200
Decision Date: February 3, 2010
The Ugandan Chief Magistrate’s Court of Nakawa held that in seeking disclosure of the contents of confidential oil contracts between the government and various companies, the applicants failed to meet the legal standard of the Access to Information Act because they did not show that the public benefit in disclosure outweighed the harm to the third parties. The Court found that applicants did not state how they would use information to make the government more transparent, accountable and efficient in the management of the oil resources and was therefore insufficient to prove the public interest. Furthermore, the Court disagreed that whatever a government holds in trust for its people (in this case oil), it must always disclose since the keeping of certain documents secret is necessary for the proper functioning of public services.
This case analysis was contributed by Right2Info.org.
|
|
|
|
|
|