SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION representatives that was recorded by a third party. The two union representatives sued a radio commentator who played a tape of a recorded conversation they had in the midst of collective bargaining negotiations. The radio station claimed that the disclosure of the conversation over the radio was protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech. The Court reasoned that the First Amendment protects a rebroadcast on the radio because the conversation was a matter of public concern and the radio station did nothing illegal to obtain the tape. More info here. vi. Publication of health-related information about public officials ECtHR: In the case of Éditions Plon v. France (2014), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that France violated Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights when its domestic courts banned indefinitely the book Le Grand Secret published by Éditions Plon. The book was co-authored by Dr. Gubler, a private physician to then President François Mitterrand, and gave a detailed account of the President’s illness, and subsequent treatment. The book was published shortly after the death of Mitterrand. Upon request from Mitterrand’s heirs, national French Courts banned the book indefinitely arguing that it breached medical confidentiality. For the ECtHR, an indefinite ban on the book was a disproportionate measure not necessary in a democratic society. More info here. In the case of Fürst-Pfeifer v. Austria (2016), the Fourth Section of the ECtHR held that a psychiatrist’s privacy rights had not been violated when her mental health information was published in an article online and in print. The article mentioned that she had suffered from mental problems while working as a court-appointed expert. The European Court of Human Rights declared that the health status of a physiological expert is a debate of general interest. Further, the Court held that court-appointed civil servants are subject to wider criticism than ordinary citizens. Dissenting judges argued that the majority failed to balance competing privacy and freedom of expression rights, as their analysis focuses solely on freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. More info here. Argentina: In the case of Ponzetti de Balbín v. Editorial Atlantida S.A. (1984), the Supreme Court of Argentina held that the publication of photographs by a magazine of a renowned political figure violated his right to private life. Renowned politician Ricardo Balbín’s son brought a lawsuit against the publisher and owner of the magazine, Gente y la actualidad, after it published an issue featuring on its cover a photograph of Balbín that was taken while he lay on his deathbed in a hospital. The Court explained that even public figures have the right to keep certain aspects of their lives private, and that publishing these photographs did not serve the public, because the news of Balbín’s death could have been provided to the public without them. More info here. vii. Publications about people with HIV ECtHR: In the case of Armoniene v. Lithuania (2008), the Second Section of the ECtHR held that protection of the right to privacy as entrenched in Article 8 of the ECHR extended beyond the private family circle to include a social dimension. In 2002, a major Lithuanian newspaper disclosed that Ms. Armonienė’s husband was HIV positive and that he had two children with another woman who also had the disease. Lithuanian courts awarded him the maximum sum for non-pe30