Moot Court Memorial Note, Study notes of Mock Trial and Moot Court

Download Moot Court Memorial Note and more Study notes Mock Trial and Moot Court in PDF only on Docsity!

32R

THE UNIVERSAL FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION COURT

IN

THE UNIVERSAL COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

THE 2012 OXFORD PRICE MEDIA LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

OPENBEMIDIA & ORS.

(APPLICANTS)

V.

REPUBLIC OF BEMIDIA

(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

4996 WORDS

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ______________________________________________ IV

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES _______________________________________________ VI

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS _____________________________________ XX

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION _______________________________________XXIV

QUESTIONS PRESENTED _____________________________________________ XXV

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ___________________________________________XXVI

ARGUMENTS ____________________________________________________________ 1

A. THE REQUIREMENT TO COLLECT AND VERIFY USER INFORMATION IS CONSISTENT WITH

THE PROVISIONS OF THE UDHR_______________________________________________ 1

I. The requirement is not a restriction on Article 19, UDHR ______________________ 1 II. The requirement does not restrict Article 20, UDHR _________________________ 6 III. The requirement does not infringe Article 12, UDHR ________________________ 7 IV. In any event , the restriction is permissible under Article 29(2), UDHR __________ 8 B. THE REQUIREMENT TO DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY, FOLLOWING AND HISTORICAL LOCATION INFORMATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF UDHR _____________________ 15 I. The requirement is not a restriction on Articles 19 and 20, UDHR ______________ 15 II. The requirement is not a restriction on Article 12, UDHR ____________________ 15 III. The requirement does not violate Article 8, UDHR _________________________ 17 IV. In any event , the restriction is permissible under Article 29(2), UDHR _________ 17 C. THE REQUIREMENT TO DISCLOSE REAL-TIME LOCATION INFORMATION IS CONSISTENT WITH PROVISIONS OF UDHR ________________________________________________ 19

III

IV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Paragraph AfCHR African Convention on Human and Peoples’ Rights ACtHPR African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights ACHR American Convention on Human Rights AIR All India Reporter App no Application Number art Article cl Clause CA California EC European Council EU European Union ECHR European Convention on Human Rights ECtHR European Court of Human Rights ECmHr European Commission of Human Rights EHRR European Human Rights Reports FFPA First Family Privacy Act HRC Human Rights Committee

V

IACHR Inter American Court of Human Rights ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights IRA Internet Responsibility Act prin Principle s Section UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights UK United Kingdom UN United Nations US United States of America

VI

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES OF THE AFRICAN COURT OF HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS

Referred to in: Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 200 (ACtHPR 1998) 5, 9 CASES OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Referred to in: Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series A No 5 (13 November 2003)

Herrera-Ulloa v Costa Rica Petition No 12367 (IACtHR, 2 July 2004) 8 CASES OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Referred to in: A and Others v United Kingdom App no 3455/05 (ECtHR, 19 February

Aksoy v Turkey App no 21987/93 (ECtHR, 18 December 1996) 24 Association X v Sweden App no 6094/73 (ECtHR, 6 July 1977) 6 Brannigan & McBride v United Kingdom (1993) 17 EHRR 539 24 Burghartz v Switzerland (1994) 18 EHRR 101 26

VII

Campmany y Diez de Revenga and Lopez Galiacho Perona v Spain App no 54224/00 (ECtHR, 12 December 2000)

Ceylan v Turkey App no 23556/94 (ECtHR, 8 July 1999) 10 Chorherr v Austria (1994) 17 EHRR 358 18 Evans v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 21 13 Friedl v Austria (1995) Series A no 305 B 29 Funke v France (1993) Series A no 256 A 30 Gaweda v Poland App no 26229/95 (ECtHR, 14 March 2002) 5, 8 Gerger v Turkey App no 24919/94 (ECtHR, 8 July 1999) 12 Greece v United Kingdom App no 176/56 (ECtHR, 14 December 1959) 24 Hachette Filipacchi Associés v France App no 71111/01 (ECtHR, 23 July 2009 )

Handyside v United Kingdom (1986) Series A no 24 13, 14 Herczegfalvy v Austria (1993) 15 EHRR 437 18 Hinczewski v Poland App no 34907/05 (ECtHR, 5 October 2010) 8 HRH Princess of Wales v MGN Newspapers App no 39069/97 (ECtHR, 11 December 2003)

Huvig v France (1990) Series A no 176 B 9, 18 Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25 24 Julio BouGibert and El Hogar Y La Moda J.A. v Spain App no 14929/ (ECtHR, 13 May 2003)

VIII

Mirror Group Newspapers v United Kingdom App no 39401/04 (ECtHR, PG and JH v United Kingdom App no 44787/98 (ECtHR, 25 September

IX

SH and Others v Austria App no 57813/00 (ECtHR, 1 April 2010) 13 Silver and Others v United Kingdom (1983) Series A no 61 8 Socialist Party of Turkey and Others v Turkey App no 26482/95 (ECtHR, 12 November 2003)

12, 13

Surek v Turkey App no 24122/94 (ECtHR, 8 July 1999) 8 Surek v Turkey (No 1) App no 26682/95 (ECtHR, 8 July 1999) 12 The Greek Case (1969) 12 Yearbook ECHR 1, [153] 24 The Observer and The Guardian v United Kingdom (1991) Series A no 216

9, 13

The Sunday Times v United Kingdom App no 13166/87 (ECtHR, 26 November 1991)

8, 9, 13

Uzun v Germany App no 35623/05 (ECtHR, 2 September 2010) 20, 22 , 23 Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1 26, 27, 28, 29 Worm v Austria (1997) 25 EHRR 454 8 X and Y v Netherlands (1985) Series A no 91 29 Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom (1981) 4 EHRR 38 6 Zana v Turkey (1997) 27 EHRR 667 10, 13

X

AMERICAN CASES

Referred to in: Acrara v Cloud Books Inc 478 US 697 (1986) 5 Alexander v US 509 US 544 (1993) 5 American Communications Association v Douds 339 U.S. 382 (1950) 6 Aptheker v Secretary of State 378 US 500 (1964) 21 Bartnicki v Vopper 532 US 514 (2001) 6, 27 Bryant v Zimmerman 278 US 63 (1928) 6 Buckley v Valeo 424 US 1 (1976) 3, 3 California v Ciraolo 476 US 207 (1986) 19 Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 567 (1941) 8 Chelmsford Trailer Park Inc v Town of Chelmsford and Others 393 Mass 186 (1984)

City of Dallas v Staglin 490 US 19 (1989) 6 Clark v Community for Creative Non-Violence 468 US 288 (1984) 5 Commonwealth v Copenhefer 526 Pa 555, 587 A 2d 1353 (Penn 1991). 20 Couch v United States 409 US 322 (1973) 15, 16 Dresbach v Double Day & Co 518 F Supp 1285 (DDC 1981) 27 Ex parte Endo 323 US 283 (1944) 21

XI

In the Matter of the §2703(d) Order relating to Twitter Accounts: wikileaks, rop_g; ioerror; and birgittaj Misc No 10GJ3793 (Eastern District

(Iowa 1987)

 - I. The requirement is not a restriction on Article 12, UDHR _____________________ - II. The requirement is not a restriction on Article 13, UDHR ____________________ - III. The Requirement is Consistent with Article 8, UDHR_______________________ - IV. In any event , the restriction is permissible under Article 29(2), UDHR _________ - V. In any event , Bemidia may invoke its right of derogation _____________________ 

• AND DARIA TRACKER FORUMS DOES NOT CONTRAVENE ARTICLE 19 , UDHR _________ D. THE REQUIREMENT TO DELETE THE CONTENTS OF THE CARLA TRACKER, TALIA TRACKER
• PRAYER ________________________________________________________________
• Karatas v Turkey App no 23168/94 (ECtHR, 17 June 2008)
• Keegan v Ireland (1994) 18 EHRR
• Klass v Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 214 10,
• Kruslin v France (1990) Series A no 176 A 9,
• KU v Finland (2009) 48 EHRR 52 3,
• Labita v Italy App no 26772/95 (ECtHR, 6 April 2000)
• Lawless v Ireland (1961) 1 EHRR 15 23,
• Leander v Sweden (1987) 9 EHRR 433 13,
• Leempoel v Belgium App no 64772/01 (ECtHR, 9 November 2006)
• Lingens v Austria App no 9815/82 (ECtHR, 8 July 1986)
  • 28, 18 January 2011)
• Mosley v United Kingdom App no 48009/08 (ECtHR, 10 May 2011) 29,
• Okcuoglu v Turkey App no 24246 /94 (ECtHR, 8 July 1999)
• Ollinger v Austria App no 76900/0 (ECtHR, 29 June 2006)
• Peck v United Kingdom (2003) 36 EHRR 41 27, 29,
  • 27, 2001)
• Rekvényi v Hungary App no 25390/94 (ECtHR, 20 May 1999) 8,
• Schüssel v Austria App no 42409/98 (ECtHR, 21 February 2002)
• Florida v Riley 488 US 445 (1989)
• Freedman v Maryland 380 US 51 (1965)
• Frisby v Schultz 487 US 474 (1988)
• Gertz v Welch 418 U.S 323 (1974)
• Green v Chicago Tribune Co 675 NE 2d 249 (App Ct 1997)
• Holder v Humanitarian Law Project 561 US ___ (2010)
• Hutchinson v Proxmire 443 US 111 (1979)
  • 15, of Virginia)
• Jacobsen v Rochester Communications 410 NW 2d 830 (Minn 1987)
• Johnson v Stuart 702 F 2d 193 ( 9 th Cir 1983) 4,
• Katz v United States 389 US 347 (1967) 7,
• Kent v Dulles 357 US 116 (1957)
• Laird v Tatum 408 US 1 (1972)
• Los Angeles v Lyons 461 US 95 (1983)
• Madsen v Women’s Health Center Inc et al 512 US 753 (1994) 5,
• McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission 514 US 334 (1995)
• Meese v Keene 481 US 465 (1987)
• Near v Minnesota 283 US 697 (1931) 9 ,
• Nebraska Press Association v Stuart 427 US 539 (1976) XII
• New York Times Co v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964) 9,
• Niemotko v Maryland 340 US 268 (1951)
• Oliver v United States 466 US 170 (1984) 19,
• O'Shea v Littleton 414 US 488 (1974) 4,
• Pearce v State 45 P 3d 679 (Alaska App. 2002)
• Playboy Enterprises v Frena 839 F Supp 1552 (MD Fla 1993)
• Renton v Playtime Theatres Inc 475 US 41 (1986)
• Rotary International v Rotary Club of Duarte 481 US 537 (1987)
• Shelton v Tucker 364 US 479 (1960)
• Shuttleworth v Birmingham 394 US 147 (1969)
• Smith v California 361 US 147 (1959)
• Smith v Maryland 442 US 735 (1979) 15, 17,
• Stressman v American Black Hawk Broadcasting Co 416 NW 2d
• Time Inc v Firestone 424 US 448 (1976)
• Turner Broadcasting System Inc v FCC 512 US 622 (1994)
• United States v D‘Andrea 497 F Supp 2d 117 (D Mass 2007)
• United States v Forrester 512 F 3d 500 (2007) 17,

XIII

United States v Garcia 474 F 3d 994 (2007) 19, 20 United States v Hambrick 299 F 3d 911 (8th Cir 2002) 16 United States v Kennedy 81 F Supp 2d 1103 (D Kan 2000) 16 United States v Knotts 460 US 276 (1983) 19, 20 United States v Miller 425 US 435 (1976) 15, 16 United States v O’Brien 391 US 367 (1968) 5, 6 United States v Payner 447 US 727 (1980) 15, 16 Viacom International Inc v YouTube Inc 718 F Supp 2d 514 (SDNY 2010) 2 Ward v Rock Against Racism 491 US 781 (1989) 5, 6 Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc et al v Village of Stratton 536 US 150 (2002)

Wolston v Reader’s Digest Association Inc 443 US 157 (1979) 27 ENGLISH CASES Referred to in: A v B and Anr [2002] EWCA Civ 337 (UK) 27 D v L [2004] EMLR 1 (UK) 28 Douglas v Hello! (No 1) [2001] QB 967 (UK) 28 Douglas v Hello! (No 3) [2005] EWCA Civ 595 (UK) 28

XIV

ETK v News Group Newspapers [2011] EWCA Civ 439 (UK) 29 McKennitt v Ash [2007] 3 WLR 194 (UK) 29 Murray v Express Newspapers [2007] EWHC 1908 (Ch) (UK) 28, 29 R v Broadcasting Standards Commission, ex parte British Broadcasting Corporation (Liberty intervening) [2000] 3 All ER 989 (UK)

R v Loveridge [2001] EWCA Crim 973 (UK) 28 Theakston v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd. [2002] EWHC 137(QB) (UK) 28, 30 HUNGARIAN CASES Referred to in: Decision 60/1994 (XII. 24) AB (Hungary) 27 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Referred to in: Albert Womah Mukong v Cameroon Communication No 458/1991, UN Doc CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991 (1994) (HRC)

Toonen v Australia Communication No 488/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (1994) (HRC)

Zeljko Bodrozic v Serbia and Montenegro Communication No 1180/2003, UN Doc CCPR/C/85/D/1180/2003 (2006) (HRC)

XV

STATUTES

Referred to in: Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (UK) 18, Data Protection Act 1998 (UK) 14, Electronic Communications Law (Latvia) 2 Information Privacy Principles under the Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) 18 Information Technology (Guidelines for Cyber Cafe) Final Rules 2011 (India)

Information Technology Act 2000 (India) 14, 18, 21, 23 Italian Decree Law on Anti-Terror Measures 2005 (Italy) 7 Italian Personal Data Protection Code 2003 (Italy) 14, 21, 23 Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information (Canada) 19 Processing of Personal Data (Electronic Communications Sector) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 (Malta)

4, 7

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (UK) 18, 19 Telecommunication Act 2006 (Liechtenstein) 2 Telecommunications Information Privacy Code 2003 (New Zealand) 14, 18, 21 US Code Title 15, s 5409 2 US Code Title 7, s 2140 2 USA PATRIOT Act 2001 (US) 1, 18

XVI

REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

Referred to in: African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986) (1982) 21 ILM 58

1, 3, 8 , 21

American Convention on Human Rights (adopted 22 November 1969, entered into force 18 July 1978)

1, 3, 8, 9, 23,

25, 26

Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989 UNGA Res 44/25)

European Convention on Human Rights (adopted 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953)

1, 3, 8, 9, 11,

12, 16 , 23, 24,

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171

1, 3, 8, 9, 21,

23, 25, 26

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A(III)

1 , 8, 11, 16 , 21

ARTICLES

Referred to in: A McClurg, ‘Bringing Privacy Law out of the closet: A tort theory of liability for intrusions in public places’ (1995) 73 North Carolina Law Rev 989

Allegra Knopf, ‘Privacy and the Internet: Welcome to the Orwellian World’ (1999-2000) 11 U Fla JL & Pub Pol’y 79

Camrin L Crisci, ‘All the World is Not a Stage: Finding a right to privacy in existing and proposed legislation’ (2002) 6(1) J Leg Pub Policy 230

XVII

Catherine Crump, ‘Data Retention: Privacy, Anonymity and Accountability Online’ (2003) 56 Stanford Law Review 191

Christopher S Yoo, ‘Free Speech and the Myth of the Internet as an Unintermediated Experience’ (2009) Scholarship at Penn Law Paper 697 http://lsr.nellco.org/upenn_wps/289 accessed 9 November 2011

John Tobin, ‘The United States Public Figure Test: Should it be introduced into Australia?’ (1994) 17 UNSW Law Journal 383

Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde, ‘Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement’ (2005) WIPO Workshop Keynote Paper 19 <http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/2305/1/wipo- onlineintermediaries.pdf> accessed 9 November 2011

M Kim, ‘The Right to Anonymous Association in Cyberspace: US Legal Protection for Anonymity in Name, in Face, and in Action’ (2010) 7(1) SCRIPTed 51 http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol7-1/kim.asp accessed 20 January 2012

Matthew Mazzotta ‘Balancing Act: Finding Consensus on Standards for Unmasking Anonymous Internet Speakers’ (2010) 51 BCL Rev 833

NA Moreham, ‘Privacy in Public Places’ (2006) 65(3) Cambridge Law Journal 606

Noah Levine, ‘Establishing Legal Accountability for Anonymous Communication in Cyberspace’ (1996) 96(6) Columbia Law Review 1526

Sarah Jameson, ‘Cyberharassment: Striking a Balance Between Free Speech and Privacy’ (2008-09) 17 Comm Law Conspectus 231

Seth F Kreimer, ‘Censorship by Proxy: The First Amendment, Internet Intermediaries and the Problem of the Weakest Link’ (200 6 - 07) 155 (11) U Pa L Rev 11

SJ Edgett, ‘Double-Clicking on Fourth Amendment Protection: Encryption Creates Reasonable Expectation of Privacy’ (2002) 30 Pepp L Rev 339

XVIII

Susan M Giles, ‘Public Plaintiffs and Private Facts: Should the “Public Figure” Doctrine be transplanted into Privacy Law?’ (2004-05) 83 Neb Law Rev 1204

W Wat Hopkins, ‘The Involuntary Public Figure: Not So Dead After All’ (2003) 21 Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 1

BOOKS AND TREATISES

Referred to in: Clare Ovey and Robin CA White, The European Convention on Human Rights (4th^ edn, OUP 2006)

6, 23, 24, 25

Sarah Joseph, Jenny Schultz, Melissa Castan and Elizabeth Evatt, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials and Commentary ( nd edn, OUP 2005)

6, 14, 25

CONSTITUTIONS

Referred to in: Constitution of Brazil 1988 (Brazil) 26 Constitution of India 1950 (India) 11 MISCELLANEOUS Referred to in: Brief of Amicus Curiae Center on the Administration of Criminal Law in Support of Petitioner in United States v Antoine Jones No 10 - 1259 (US)

XIX

Committee of Ministers Declaration on Freedom of Political Debate in the Media, 12 February 2004 CM/Del/OJ(2004)872E

Council Directive 2002/58/EC of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector [2002] OJ L201/

Council Directive 2006/24/EC of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC [2006] OJ L105/

4, 7, 14, 18

Council Directive 95/46/EC 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data [1995] OJ L281/

14, 17, 18

First Amendment, United States Constitution 1788 21 Giles Tremlett, ‘Pictures of Spanish PM’s daughters get thumbs up from goths’ The Guardian (London, 25 September 2009) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/25/spain-zapatero-daughters- obama> accessed 20 January 2012

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, ‘Fourth Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala’ (1993)

Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc E/CN 4/1985/

11, 13, 14

UNCHR ‘General Comment 10’ in ‘Article 19 (Freedom of Opinion)’ (1983) UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/

UNCHR ‘General Comment 34’ in ‘Article 19 (Freedom of Opinion and Expression)’ (2011) UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/

XX

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

POLITICAL SCENARIO IN BEMIDIA

1. The Republic of Bemidia, is populated by two territorially-divided ethnic groups – the Diryens of the North (70% of the population) and the Mondahis of the South (about 25% of the population). While the Diryens enjoy significant political power, the lack of it was source of disgruntlement for the Mondahis. However, the Mondahis are affluent by focussing on economic development and commerce. In contrast, the Diryens remain underdeveloped and envied the Mondahis for their prosperity. 2. The modifications brought to the national taxation system two years ago brought about redistribution of resources from the more prosperous south to the languishing north. Dissatisfaction erupted in the form of protests from Mondahis and their leaders, culminating in discussions about seeking complete independence for the south from Bemidia. 3. These events led to the formation of a militant Mondahi group, called the Mondahi Liberation Movement (“MLM”). In the months that followed, the MLM carried out a series of bombings in Arctoun, the capital of Bemidia. Their targets were offices of the Diryen- based Nationalist Party and crowded public markets that were known to be frequented by Diryens. These bombings have caused multiple deaths, including that of a Member of the Parliament. 4. In light of the separatist tendencies and serial bombings, the government mobilized the military forces and increased public security. Unfortunately, these attempts proved to be largely ineffective. There were allegations against the government of mistreating Mondahis, which the government has denied. In order to make its security efforts more effective,

XXI

Bemidia’s military secrets law was amended to clarify that location information of military personnel on duty is protected, and cannot be published. OPENBEMIDIA AND THE TRACKER FORUMS

5. In the midst of this civil strife, a website called OpenBemidia was created on the Ushahidi platform. The website requires registration of users to post to Tracker forums which are designed to collect specific posts on a topic of interest. Such posts, which may include images as well as text, may be made via SMS, email or the web. 6. Each post in OpenBemidia is tagged with a geographic location by way of GPS tracking or similar technologies. The time and location information of each post is displayed along with the post. Users of these forums may ‘follow’ other users or forums, and thereby receive real time notifications of new posts from those they follow. OpenBemidia gives users an option to restrict visibility of posts to their followers. 7. One such Tracker forum was Military Tracker started by a user named FreeBemidia. This Tracker forum gave real time information about the location of the troops that were deployed to deter attacks and increase security. With the passage of time, Military Tracker developed into a very good source of information about the real time location of these military forces. In fact, recently two instances of bombings took place in areas from where military forces deployed for public security had just exited. This led to a strong suspicion that the MLM may be using Military Tracker to track the troops and to facilitate bombings. 8. Another forum named in the website is named ‘MLM’ which appears to be empty. The government suspected that this was used by the members of Mondahi Liberation Movement who had kept their posts private.

XXII

INTERNET RESPONSIBILITY ACT & DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

9. The Bemidian government recently enacted the Internet Responsibility Act (‘IRA’) that imposes the following regulations on websites: a. Name and contact information of users of a website should be collected and verified prior to allowing such user to register for an account and/or post to a forum. b. At any time, the website may be called upon to disclose such name and contact information, geographic location information, and any other information about any user of the website. c. The existence of any request and/or fulfilment thereof may be kept secret for upto 180 days. d. Any knowing violation of any provision of this law will invite criminal sanctions. 10. Under the authority of the IRA, the Bemidian government has requested OpenBemidia to obtain and report the identities as well as following information of several users whose names figure on a secret state watch list – including FreeBemidia and other regular participants on Military Tracker. Similar requests were made for the MLM forum as well. FIRST FAMILY PRIVACY ACT 11. The Prime Minister of Bemidia, Vislio Luscon and his family – wife Carla and minor children Talia and Daria – attract significant media attention. In OpenBemidia, each member of the First Family, including the Prime Minister himself, has a separate Tracker forum dedicated to them. These Tracker Forums document their every movement and action. For instance, Talia Tracker forum had posts like “Talia Has Fish, But No Dessert!” and “Talia

XXIII

Going to School”. Further posts contained a photograph of the subject along with a geolocation tag and details about the subject’s activities at that time.

12. Keeping in mind the security of the First Family, the Bemidian government recently enacted the First Family Privacy Act (‘FFPA’), which prohibits violation of the privacy of any member of the First Family – by posting photographs and location information – without prior written consent. Under the authority of this Act, the Bemidian government has demanded that OpenBemidia to take down every post in the Carla, Talia and Daria Tracker forums as they contain prohibited information. 13. OpenBemidia, on behalf of itself and its users, has challenged all of the above requirements under, but not limited to, Articles 12, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (‘UDHR’). So far, the Applicants’ claims have been rejected on merits, and all domestic legal remedies have been exhausted. Further, OpenBemidia’s standing to bring the claims in the instant suit is not barred by any law.

XXIV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

OpenBemidia, on its own behalf and on behalf of its users have approached the Universal Freedom of Expression Court, the special chamber of the Universal Court of Human Rights hearing issues relating to the right of freedom of expression under Article 19, under the enabling Preamble of the UN Charter. The Republic of Bemidia submits to the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

XXV

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

A. Whether the requirement to collect and verify name and contact information before allowing a user to register for an account and post to a forum is consistent with the provisions of the UDHR? B. Whether the requirement to disclose to the government identity information, following information, and historical location information about OpenBemidia’s users is consistent with the provisions of the UDHR? C. Whether the requirement to report location information about the users of the MLM forum in real time is consistent with the provisions of the UDHR? D. Whether the requirement to delete the contents of the Carla Tracker, Talia Tracker, and Daria Tracker forums justified under the UDHR?