United States
Pennsylvania State Police v. American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania
Decision Date: August 22, 2023
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has ruled that the Commonwealth Court committed an abuse of discretion when it ordered a remand to the Office of Open Records. In the case, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania via the Right to Know Law  (RTKL) sought an unredacted copy of a Social Media Monitoring Policy (AR 6-9) from the Pennsylvania State Police. Pennsylvania State Police heavily redacted the policy, citing public safety concerns. The Office of Open Records ordered the release of an unredacted copy, but the Commonwealth Court reversed this decision, emphasizing that the agency's redactions were justified based on the affidavit alone. The Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth Court's remand was an abuse of discretion, as it had no basis in the RTKL or the record, and it risked undermining the law's objective of expeditious determination of requests. The Court criticized the shift in the burden of proof and sua sponte intervention by the Commonwealth Court and emphasized the importance of adherence to the RTKL's principles. Consequently, the Court vacated the Commonwealth Court's order, directing the Pennsylvania State Police to provide the ACLU with an unredacted copy of AR 6-9, concluding a protracted legal battle for transparency and adherence to the RTKL.
 
India
A Lakshminarayanan v. Assistant General Manager HRM
Decision Date: August 8, 2023
The Madras High Court quashed the misconduct charges framed against an employee for posting a message in a private WhatsApp Group, as it was protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression. The case concerns an employee and active trade union member who formed a WhatsApp Group to discuss union activities and subsequently shared some messages against the Management. The Management suspended the employee and issued a Charge memo. The High Court analyzing the bank's circular and regulations, emphasized the employee's right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The Court interpreted the circular in a manner consistent with legal boundaries, safeguarding the petitioner's right to criticize management within the limits of the law. Stressing the importance of privacy, the Court protected private discussions within encrypted platforms, cautioning against thought-policing. Referring to precedent cases, the Court upheld the petitioner's right to vent grievances and quashed the charge memo, asserting that the petitioner's actions did not constitute misconduct, reinforcing the significance of privacy and freedom of expression in the digital age.
 
Republic of Georgia
Kuprava v. Parliament of Georgia
Decision Date: July 23, 2023
The First Collegium of the Constitutional Court of Georgia held that the criminalization of offensive expressions targeting judges was constitutional. An activist, facing separate charges, was convicted of contempt of court for having used obscene language about a judge outside the courtroom of his initial trial. The Court stressed the significance of preserving the judiciary's authority and reputation, maintaining judicial independence and impartiality, and upholding public trust in the justice system. While acknowledging the importance of freedom of speech, it underlined that this freedom is not absolute and may be subject to limitations, particularly when they align with the principle of proportionality. The Court recognized the unique status of the judges and emphasized the restriction’s necessity to prevent harm to judges and the justice system. A dissenting opinion expressed concerns about the precedence of public interests over freedom of expression and the potential chilling effect of the restriction.