SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION trends; they show the complexity of the tensions to be resolved; or, given their degree of arbitrariness, it is important to highlight them by way of contrast. Following the format used in the Special Collection of the Case Law of Freedom of Expression, most of the cases in the paper do not include or explain the criteria that judges used to come to their decisions. The paper presents each case’s summary as it appears in the analysis in our database – the analyses which our network of researchers and experts contribute to. These summaries briefly explain the relevant facts of the case and the legal resolution. Nevertheless, each case includes a link to its more comprehensive analysis found in our database, which includes a more detailed description of the facts of the case; the arguments of the court, tribunal, or judge; a list of references of international standards —or other decisions— cited by the ruling; an evaluation of the decision in terms of its impact and relevance regarding freedom of expression; and a link to the original document, among other resources. For this paper, our internal team reviewed more than 240 decisions from different courts and selected those they considered to be most significant, taking into account the importance of having a diverse sample. Space restrictions limited this difficult selection process and meant that rulings of great impact had to be left out. Nevertheless, readers will find some of the most emblematic cases from regional human rights courts, in addition to relevant cases from national courts in the Global North and South. Once the final selections were made, we defined our criteria for systematizing the cases and assigned them to their appropriate section. This will allow readers to quickly identify and locate any particular decision of their interest. In any case, on the Columbia Global Freedom of Expression website, users can use our thematic search engine to locate other decisions on their topic of interest and find a more extensive list of cases. As mentioned previously, this paper is an introduction to the significant resources found on our website. The body of the paper is divided into two main categories: those cases where privacy and freedom of expression mutually reinforce one another, and those cases where privacy and freedom of expression are in conflict. Subsequently, each of the two main categories is divided into thematic subsections, highlighting the broad scope of issues discussed under the privacy/freedom of expression paradigm. As mentioned above, each judgment will have the name of the case (as titled by Columbia Global Freedom of Expression), a summary of the decision, and a direct link to its complete analysis in the Global Freedom of Expression case law database. We hope this helps readers easily access some of the more relevant cases within specific themes, while also showing a small sample of the jurisdictional diversity of the case law. It is important to note that certain cases could be classified under more than one category. For the purpose of the paper, we categorized them in such a way as to present the broadest scope of themes reasonably possible. To see what other themes a particular judgment might address, we invite readers to visit our case law database. Case analyses can be accessed by clicking the link at the end of each case summary. 8