SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION purpose where the person being observed or recorded has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court concluded that the teacher acted contrary to the reasonable expectations of privacy when he recorded the students’ breasts, faces and upper bodies with a pen camera while they engaged in school activities. The Court held that people do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces, such as school grounds, and that where a person “does not expect complete privacy [this] does not mean that she waives all reasonable expectations of privacy” [para. 61]. More info here. xi. Publications about a public official’s family life IACtHR: In the case of Fontevecchia and D’amico v. Argentina (2011), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights considered that a series of publications about the unrecognized son of the then president of Argentina Carlos Saul Menem with a congresswoman, Menem’s relationship with the congresswoman, and the relationship between the president with his son, were of public interest. As a result, the Inter-American Court considered that the subsequent imposition of liability on the editor and director of the paper that published the information did not meet the necessary requirements and infringed the right to freedom of expression. More info here. xii. Publications regarding accusations against public officials for sexual offenses Mexico: In the case Municipal President of Acambaro v. General Director of the Newspaper “La Antorcha” (2009), the Supreme Court of Mexico reversed a lower court decision that imposed a criminal conviction against the general director of a newspaper who published an interview that contained allegations made by a former public official regarding several acts of corruption carried out by the municipal president. Additionally, the interviewee mentioned a possible act of sexual harassment, attributable to the municipal president, in the following terms: “one day, at the hotel in the City of Mexico, he stretched out naked in the bed and ask me to rub his back” [p. 3]. The municipal president filed a criminal complaint against the newspaper director for the crime of “attacks on private life,” which concluded with a conviction of three years, one month and fifteen days of imprisonment for this crime. A determining element of the criminal conviction was that the press report concerned matters of a sexual nature that the authorities considered were an intangible part of the complainant’s private life; the ruling was affirmed on appeal. The First Chamber of the Supreme Court reversed this ruling and declared unconstitutional the law on which the criminal conviction was founded on. More info here. xiii. Publication of personal tax data without authorization of its owner ECtHR: In the case of Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland (2017), the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR found no violation of the right to freedom of expression after Finnish courts and authorities had prohibited two companies from processing personal tax data in the manner and to the extent that they had. The companies had collected and published information about the earned and unearned income and taxable net assets of 1.2. million natural persons in Finland, first through a newspaper and later through a text-messaging service by which people could text someone’s name to a service number and receive that person’s taxation information. In these circumstances, the Grand Chamber gave a wide margin of appreciation to the domestic authorities in balancing the right to freedom of expression against the right to respect for private life. The 34