SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION District Court for the Northern District of California, confirming that Facebook’s facial-recognition technology affected users´ privacy and personal affairs, and noted the impact technological advances may have on privacy. In this decision the Court does not analyze the right to freedom of expression when considering the reasons for its ruling. Nonetheless, the scope of the protection of privacy in this particular case provides a material protection of the right to freedom of expression against the chilling effect of surveillance or overly broad data collection. More info here. xvi. Access to the internet, privacy, and freedom of expression India: In the case of Shirin R.K. v. State of Kerala (2019), the High Court of Kerala held that a restriction imposed on the use of mobile phones in a women’s hostel was an unreasonable infringement upon the right to access the internet, the right to privacy, and the right to education. Fareema Shirin, a student, brought the challenge after being ordered to vacate college housing for refusing to comply with a rule restricting mobile phone usage during designated hours. The Court relied on international conventions to find that the hostel had an obligation to ensure women’s online freedom of expression and that digital resources offer important opportunities for affordable and inclusive education necessary to advance students’ careers. The Court ordered the College to modernize the policies so they do not discriminate based on gender or undermine students’ access to educational resources. Finding the restriction to be “absolutely unwarranted,” the Court further ordered Shirin’s immediate re-admission to the hostel and declared that the right to access the Internet has become part of the right to education as well as the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. More info here. xvii. Personal correspondence ECtHR: In the case of Bosyy v. Ukraine (2018), the Fifth Section of the ECtHR found that a Ukrainian law allowing the automatic monitoring and censorship by the prison authorities of a prisoner’s correspondence was a violation of the prisoner’s right to privacy. Bosyy spent seven years in prison during which time he alleged his correspondence was regularly “intercepted, reviewed, blocked or delayed,” which negatively impacted his communications with the Court and other bodies regarding his case. Citing its previous case law, the Court concluded that the amended national laws did not provide appropriate protection against arbitrary interference, that they were “defective” and therefore, the existing monitoring regime was not in “accordance with the law.” As a result, there was a violation of privacy rights protected under article 8 of the ECHR. In this decision the Court does not analyze the right to freedom of expression when considering the reasons for its ruling. Nonetheless, the scope of the protection of privacy in this particular case provides protection to the right to freedom of expression against the chilling effect of surveillance or overly broad data collection. More info here. xviii. Protection of journalistic sources ECtHR: In the case of Nagla v. Latvia (2013), the Fourth Section of the European Court 24