SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Further, the Court emphasized that the fact that the photographs portrayed the convict in distress and a reduced state of control meant that the need to protect her privacy outweighed the need for press freedom. More info here. United States: In the case of Florida Star v. B. J. F. (1989), the Supreme Court of the United States held that imposing damages on a newspaper for publishing an article detailing the facts of a sexual assault case, including the victim’s full name, violated the First Amendment. The case arose after the Appellee, B.J.F., reported a robbery and sexual assault to the Duval County, Florida, Sheriff’s Department. When the department placed a copy of B.J.F’s police report, it was obtained and later published by the Appellant, The Florida Star, a local newspaper. Subsequently, the Appellee filed a suit claiming that the newspaper had violated the state statute prohibiting the publication of the name of sexual assault victims. The Circuit Court of Duval County found that the Florida Star had violated the statute, and the jury awarded 100,000 dollars in damages to the Appellee. The Court of Appeals confirmed the decision, and the Florida Supreme Court declined to review the case; as a result, the Florida Star appealed to the Supreme Court. According to the Court, since the article contained accurate facts and the newspaper had lawfully obtained the victim’s name from the government, imposing liability on the newspaper did not serve a “need to further a state interest of the highest order.” The Court considered that although the interests in protecting the privacy and safety of sexual assault victims and in encouraging them to report offenses without fear of exposure were highly significant, imposing liability on the newspaper was too precipitous a means of advancing those interests. More info here. In the case of Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn (1975), the Supreme Court of the United States held the Georgia Statute unconstitutional for making the publication of a deceased rape victim’s name a misdemeanor offence. A reporter for the Cox Broadcasting Television Network broadcasted the name of a deceased rape victim while reporting the judicial trial of the incident. The father of the deceased, Cohn, brought damages action against the Cox Broadcasting Television Network claiming violation of his daughter’s right to privacy under the Georgia Statute that stipulated the publication or broadcasting of the name or identity of a rape victim as a misdemeanor offence. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Georgia Supreme Court decision and observed that the commission of a crime and judicial proceedings arising from the prosecutions were events of legitimate concern to the public and fell within the press’s responsibility to report the operations of government. It observed that the identity of the rape victim was lawfully obtained from publicly available judicial records. The Court further reasoned that restricting freedom of the press in this backdrop would be against the public interest and in violation of the Constitution. It observed that the interest in privacy faded as the published information had already appeared on the public record. More info here. Germany: In the Case of Lebach (1973), the First division of the German Federal Constitutional Court held that the Court of Appeals’ decision violated the fundamental rights of the complainant under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the German Constitution. The Constitutional Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision; granting an injunction on the 40