T
EAM
24R
T HE 2012 M ONROE E.
P RICE
I
NTERNATIONAL
M
EDIA
L
AW
M
OOT
C
OURT
C
OMPETITION
C
ASE
C
ONCERNING
I
NTERNET
P
RIVACY RIGHTS OF
O
PEN
B
EMIDIA
U
SERS AND THE
P
RIVACY OF THE
B
EMIDIAN
F
IRST
F
AMILY
OpenBemidia
Applicant v
The Republic of Bemidia
Respondent
M
EMORIAL OF RESPONDENT
W
ORD
C
OUNT
: 4,941

i
T
ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ iii
LIST OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................................. iv
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ....................................................................................... v
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................................................................. xi
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......................................................................................................... xii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... xiii
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 1
I. The Requirement to collect and verify name and contact information before allowing a
“user” to register for an account and to post to a forum is a reasonable measure taken to protect national security and it does not violate the right to freedom of speech.
..................  1
A.
National security concerns outweigh the freedom of expression.
........................................  1
B. Any restriction on the freedom of speech must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate purpose, and be necessary for a democratic society.
............................................................  2
II. The Republic of Bemidia, in accordance with national security interests, asks the court to uphold the law requiring OpenBemidia to disclose to the government identity information, “following” information, and historical location information about its users.
............................................................................................................................................5
A. National security and public safety concerns can trump an individual’s fundamental right to privacy according to the ECHR and the ACHPR.
...............................................  6
B. The requirement that OpenBemidia to disclose identity information is valid as it serves an important government interest  ............................................................................  7
C. Bemidia meets the test to impose restrictions on an individual’s freedoms as laid out by the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and
Access to Information.
...............................................................................................................  9
D. Bemidia meets the standard the court has laid out to restrict individual freedoms as laid out in the two-part Hutchenson test.
.....................................................................................  10
III. The Republic of Bemidia, in accordance with national security, asks the Court to uphold the requirement that OpenBemidia report to the government location information about the users of the MLM forum in real time. ……………………………12
A. National security concerns can trump an individual’s right to privacy according to
Article 8 of the ECHR . ........................................................................................................  13

ii
B. Incitement to illegal activates is sufficient for the government to impose restrictions on the freedoms of expression and privacy.
..............................................................................  14
IV. The First Family Protection Act does not violate the right to freedom of expression because the information posted was a breach of the right to privacy and, furthermore, the information created a security problem . ..............................................................................  15
A.   When the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy conflict, the decisive factor is whether or not the expression contributes to debates of public interest…………………………………………………………………………………………… 15
PRAYER FOR RELIEF  ........................................................................................................................  19

ACHPR
Bemidia
ECHR
ECtHR
FFPA
ICCPR
IRA
MLM
PM
UK
UNDR iii
L
IST OF
A
BBREVIATIONS
African Charter on Human and People’s Rights
Republic of Bemidia
European Convention on Human Rights
European Court of Human Rights
First Family Privacy Act
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Internet Responsibility Act
Mondahi Liberation Movement
Prime Minister
United Kingdom
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

iv
L
IST OF
A
UTHORITIES
Treatises and Declarations
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 27 July 1981, entered into force 21
October 1986) 1520 UNTS 217 (ACHPR)………………………………………...…...………5, 6
European Convention on Human Rights (adopted 4 November 1950, entered into force 3
September 1953) 213 UNTS 1932 (ECHR)……………………………...….1, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, 18
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR)…………………………………..………2, 15, 18
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A(III)
(UNDR)……………………………………………………………………………………1, 15, 18
European Court of Human Rights
Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v Bulgaria App no
62549.00 (ECtHR, 28 June 2007)…………………………………………………….………….11
Countryside Alliance v UK (2010) 50 EHRR SE6………………………………………………..8
Ergin v Turkey (2008) 47 EHRR 36………………………………………………………3, 4, 6, 8
Gül v Turkey (2011) 52 EHRR 38……………………………………………………..………….4
Lingens v Austria (1985) 7 EHRR CD 446……………………………………………………….3
MGN Ltd v UK (2011) 53 EHRR 5………………………………………………………………..8
Pinto Coelho v Portugal (2011) App no 28439/08 (EctHR, 28 June 2011)……………..…..…..7
Sadak v Turkey (2003) 36 EHRR 23……………………………………………………………6, 7
Sürek v Turkey (1999) ECHR……………………………………………………………….…….7
Tonsbergs Blad As and Haukom v. Norway (App. No 510/04) 1 March 2007……………..….5
Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1………………………………………..…15, 16, 17
United States Case Law
Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969)………………………………………………………..14

v
California v Ciarolo, 476 US 207 (1986)…………………………………………………….……8
Galella v Onassis, 487 F 2d 986 (1973)………………………………………………….….16, 17
Herlog v Hustler Magazine Inc., 814 F 2d 1017 (1987)………………………………………....14
NAACP v Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958)……………………………………………………….7, 8
US v Fullmer, 584 F 3d 132 (2009)…………………………………………...…………………14
Whitney v California, 274 US 357 (1927)………………………………...…………………13, 14
African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
Nigeria Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 262 (ACHPR 2000)…………………..5
Constitutions
C
ONST of I
NDIA
, art 19……………………………………………………………………...……..7
C ONST of P EOPLE ’ S R EPUBLIC O F C HINA , art 40……………………………………………...…..7
US C ONST amend I………………………………….……………………………………………16
Miscellaneous Sources
“The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to
Information” (1996) Article 19 <http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/standards/ joburgprinciples.pdf> accessed 1 Nov 2011……………………………………..……………..6, 9
Hutchenson v. News Group Newspapers Ltd & Ors (A2/2010/2863) HCJCA 7 September
2011……………………………………………………………...………………………… 6, 9, 10
Munim Abdul and Others v. Director of Public Prosecutions (2011) EWHC 247……………….5
Ferdinand v. MGN Ltd , (2011) EWHC 2454………………………………………….…….12, 13

vi
S
TATEMENT OF
R
ELEVANT
F
ACTS
A movement named the Mondahi Liberation Movement (MLM) has recently emerged within the Republic of Bemidia (Bemidia) and, in the last few months, this terrorist group has turned deadly.
1 The MLM has carried out several bombings targeting government offices and public markets in which dozens have lost their lives, including a prominent Nationalist member of Parliament.
2
Bemidia’s population is comprised of two major ethnic groups.
3 The Diryen comprise
70% of the population and are primarily located in the northern region of the country.
4 The
Mondahi comprise 25% of the population and are primarily located in the south.
5 In the last few years, Bemidia has experienced rapid economic growth thanks in large part to oil and mineral resources.
6 Because Bemidia has a parliamentary form of government predominantly divided along ethnic lines, the Mondahi –Federalists – lack significant political influence.
7 Yet, they have focused their energy into mercantile pursuits and a wealthy merchant class of Mondahi has emerged.
8
1 Compromis, para 6.
2 ibid.
3
Compromis, para 2.
4 ibid.
5
ibid.
6 Compromis, para 1.
7 Compromis, para 3.
8 Compromis, para 4.

vii
The Diryen of the north have always had political power, but they were economically stagnant.
9 Due to the disparity of economic power between north and south, two years ago, the government passed a tax reform which would more evenly distribute Bemidia’s wealth.
10 The
Mondahi, felt slighted by the reform and when their protests went unheard they openly expressed the possibility of secession.
11 The MLM then emerged and did more than protest. The MLM has claimed the lives of dozens of people and continues to threaten the lives of Bemidians and the stability of the government.
12 Responding to these terrorist actions, Bemidia has mobilized the military to increase public security.
13 Yet, due to a military small in numbers and which has little experience with guerilla tactics, the bombings have continued and more have lost their lives.
14
The MLM’s actions have endangered the entire population, directly and indirectly. Bemidian citizens are in danger of further terrorist acts by the MLM and, indirectly, they are in danger as a result of increased ethnic tensions.
15 Ethnic Mondahi living in the north, for example, are in danger of being kidnapped, tortured, or even killed, as has happened in recent weeks.
16
During this time of terrorist acts and ethnic division, a group of Mondahis started a website called OpenBemidia which allows any registered user to start a “Tracker” forum - in
9 Compromis, para 4.
10 Compromis, para 5.
11
ibid.
12 Compromis, para 6.
13
Compromis, para 7.
14 ibid.
15 ibid.
16 ibid.

viii
which there would be posts focusing on a specific subject.
17 Registered users are able to post text and pictures via SMS, email, or the web.
18 OpenBemidia’s ‘geolocation’ uses mobile towers and other technology to accurately pinpoint users’ location at the time the post was made.
19 One of these registered forums is called ‘Military Tracker,’ started by a user named FreeBemidia.
20
Bemidia is primarily concerned with its national security, as the Military Tracker forum has accused the military of improprieties and has used the forum to misdirect the military.
21 The
Military Tracker forum has been following the military and has provided accurate information on where the military is at any given time.
22 On two separate occasions, the information posted on
OpenBemidia has allowed terrorists to detonate bombs in places just moments after the military had departed.
23
Bemidia already had a longstanding law prohibiting the dissemination of military secrets.
However, as Bemidia’s national security is at risk, it has further enacted the Internet
Responsibility Act (IRA) which regulates entities operating on the web.
24 The IRA is tailored specifically to address the dissemination of sensitive information and to hold those found in violation accountable.
25 The IRA requires entities operating a website to collect and verify
17 Compromis, para 8.
18 ibid.
19 Compromis, para 9.
20
Compromis, para 11.
21 Compromis, para 12.
22
ibid.
23 ibid.
24 Compromis, paras 13, 14.
25 Compromis, para 14.

ix
identifying information of new subscribers prior their using the website.
26 The law also permits the government to request contact information of account holders, have the requested information kept secret for 180 days, and to impose criminal sanctions for violations.
27
OpenBemidia is structured so that some of the forums or posts can appear private; only the users who ‘follow’ the forum are able to read the posts.
28 Another forum, the MLM forum, appears to be empty, but Bemidia suspects that the posts are private and only the MLM forum’s followers can read them. Bemidia also suspects that the MLM is using OpenBemidia forums to pursue its terrorist activities. It has requested the identity of FreeBemidia and the identity specific individuals who are on a watch list.
29 Bemidia has also requested the complete list of the
MLM forum users.
30
Another concern for the government has been the tracker forums following Prime
Minister Vislio Luscon (PM), and his wife and daughters, Carla, Talia, and Daria, respectively.
31
These forums pinpoint their location and almost everything they do in public.
32 For example, the
Talia Tracker forum has informed the world when Talia was leaving for school, when she left
26 Compromis, para 14.
27
ibid.
28 Compromis, para 10.
29
Compromis, para 15.
30 Compromis, para 16.
31 Compromis, para 17.
32 ibid.

x
school early, when she visited the doctor, and when she went out for dinner with the family.
33
Each of these posts included an accurate geographical location and a photograph.
34
Knowing where the PM’s family is at any giving time places their safety at risk. Bemidia has, thus, enacted the First Family Privacy Act (FFPA), which prohibits the publication of private information of the PM’s family without prior consent.
35 Relevant information which is of public interest and that which relates to the Prime Minister himself is, of course, not prohibited by the law.
36 Private information of the kind prohibited by the FFPA includes photographs and the specific locations of the individual.
37 The FFPA does not prohibit the use of information which only provides a general location, or photographs or location information more than 90 days old.
38 In accordance with this law, the government has requested OpenBemidia to delete every post made about the Prime Minister’s family as each post a photograph or geographic location prohibited by the FFPA.
39
33 Compromis, para 18.
34
ibid.
35 Compromis, para 20.
36
ibid.
37 ibid.
38 ibid.
39 Compromis, para 21.

xi
S
TATEMENT OF
J
URISDICTION
OpenBemidia (the Applicant) and the Republic of Bemidia (the Respondent), have submitted their differences to the Universal Freedom of Expression Court special chamber of the
Universal Court of Human Rights. These differences concern the rights of freedom of expression and privacy in accordance with Articles 19 and 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. The Universal Freedom of Expression Court has jurisdiction in place of all other regional courts and is the final adjudicator when all national remedies have been exhausted. Due to the failure to resolve the matter with all available Bemidian means, the Universal Freedom of
Expression Court has jurisdiction in this matter.
OpenBemidia and the Republic of Bemidia hereby request this Honorable Court to issue a judgment in accordance with all relevant international law including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, conventions, jurisprudence developed by relevant courts, and principles of international law.

xii
Q
UESTIONS
P
RESENTED
The Respondents, the Republic of Bemidia, submit that the issues to be resolved do not violate the freedoms of privacy and expression guaranteed under Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights as such laws were enacted to prevent threats to national security and should, therefore, be upheld. The questions presented are as follows:
I.
Does Bemidia’s requirement to collect and verify name and contact information before allowing a user to register for an account or to post to a forum violate the freedom of expression under international law?
II.
Does Bemidia’s requirement that OpenBemidia disclose identity information, ‘following’ information, and historical information about its users violate the freedoms of expression and privacy under international law?
III.
Does Bemidia’s requirement that OpenBemidia report to the government location information about the users of the MLM forum in real time violate the right to privacy under international law despite the mounting necessity for such requirements due to the growing national security concerns?
IV.
Does Bemidia’s requirement to delete the contents of the Carla Tracker, Talia Tracker, and Daria Tracker issued under the First Family Privacy Act violate the freedom of expression despite the need to protect the first family in times of civil turmoil?

xiii
S
UMMARY OF
A
RGUMENT
I.
Bemidia’s Internet Responsibility Act (IRA) is lawful under international law and it does not represent a violation of the right to freedom of expression. The requirement to collect and verify name and contact information before allowing a user to register for an account and use OpenBemidia is a reasonable measure taken to protect national security and
Bemidian citizens. One’s right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by leading international documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
European Convention of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. Yet, these same documents also state that this right may subjected to reasonable measures in the interest of national security, territorial integrity or public safety. Bemidia enacted the IRA as a specific and proportionate measure to address terrorist activities which place its citizens in danger and threatens its national security.
The IRA is, therefore, not a violation of the right to freedom of expression.
II.
Bemidia’s IRA is lawful under international law and it does not represent a violation of the right to freedom of expression, speech or privacy. The requirement to disclose to the government identity information, ‘following’ information, and historical location information about its users does not violate these freedoms as the imposition of these laws was duly enacted into law for national security purposes. The ECHR and the
ACHRPR both quantify that these laws are duly enacted and lawful to combat the terrorism and national security threats which have emerged in Bemidia. Both the
Johannesburg Principles and the Hutchenson test which have been followed by the courts lay out what is required for the government to restrict these fundamental rights, and
Bemidia meets all these standards in their efforts to combat the terrorism that has claimed many lives throughout the country.

xiv
III.
Bemidia’s IRA is lawful under international law and does not violate an individual’s right to privacy as national security concerns are sufficient for the government to restrict these rights. According to Article of the ECHR, the right to freedom of expression is subordinate to the interests of national security and public safety. In this case, there are continuing terrorist threats and many Bemidians have already lost their lives. Also, as the court has held in Ferdinand, an individual’s right to privacy and expression may be limited when it applies to security concerns and public safety. Both of these issues have arisen with the MLM forum and their posts which are inhibiting the government’s goal of combating the terrorist activities.
IV.
The First Family Privacy Act (FFPA) does not violate the right to freedom of expression.
Just as one has a right to freedom of expression, Article 8 of the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR) dictates that ‘everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.’ Information may, of course, be publicized if it is in the public interest: such as the events of a Prime Minister acting in his official capacity. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) explained that ‘the decisive factor in balancing the protection of private life against freedom of expression should lie in the contribution that the published photos and articles make to a debate of general interest.’ The FFPA is lawful because it is a controlled measure aimed at protecting the
First Family without unduly burdening freedom of expression. The FFPA is aimed at preventing current photographs and information from being publicized which hold no public interest value and which place the First Family in danger because they disclose an accurate geographic location.

1
A
RGUMENT
I. The Requirement to collect and verify name and contact information before allowing a
“user” to register for an account and to post to a forum is a reasonable measure taken to protect national security and it does not violate the right to freedom of speech.
People possess a fundamental right to freedom of speech, yet certain circumstances can outweigh this right. Furthermore, measures which are prescribed by law, proportionate, and necessary, do not infringe speech.
A.
National security concerns outweigh the freedom of expression.
Several international documents recognize a person’s right to freedom of expression. Article
19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDR) states that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media.” 40 Article
10(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) also recognizes the right to freedom of expression.
41 In Section 2 of that same Article, however, the ECHR clarifies that those rights are not unlimited. Freedom of expression “may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety.” Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) reiterates that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and freedom of expression, and that they are free to express
40 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (GA res 217A (III), UN Doc A/810 adopted in 1948), art 19.
41 European Convention on Human Rights (adopted 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953), art
10,§ 1.

2
themselves through any medium they choose.
42 Yet, the ICCPR also recognizes that these freedoms are subject to certain measures for the protection of national security or the public order.
43
National security and public safety are precisely the reasons which allow Bemidia to enact the
IRA. Section (a) of the IRA requires any entity operating a website to collect and verify the contact information of any “users,” before allowing these individuals to post to a forum or use the site. The IRA is a realistic and precise means of regulating activity which places Bemidian citizens in danger. Bemidia is not abolishing freedom of expression but, rather, taking reasonable and proportionate measures to protect its national security and its citizens. Of particular concern to the Bemidian government is the Military Tracker forum which provides accurate and nearly real-time information about military movements. The information provided therein has already proven to be dangerous and a threat to national security. On two separate occasions, the government has attempted to prevent explosions and failed while, instead, bombs exploded at sites from which the military had recently left. These threats to national security call for the collection of information which can help prevent future terrorist attacks. Consequently, Section
(a) does not violate freedom of expression.
B.
Any restriction on the freedom of speech must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate purpose, and be necessary for a democratic society.
42 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March
1976) 999 UNTS 171, art 19, § § 1, 2.
43 ICCPR art 19, § 3.

3
National security is a paramount concern for Bemidia – and any state. On the other hand, the requirements in Section (a) of the IRA are not a disproportionate infringement of speech or an insurmountable burden to OpenBemidia. In Lingens v Austria , the ECtHR determined that to be in agreement with Art. 10(2) of the ECHR, any restriction on the freedom of expression must meet three criteria: it must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate purpose, and ‘be necessary in a democratic society.’ 44
The idea that a restriction of free speech must be ‘necessary in a democratic society’ has also more recently been upheld in Ergin v Turkey .
45 In Lingens , the applicant was a reporter who had published articles criticizing a political candidate and exposing his involvement in Nazi politics.
46 Lingens was subsequently charged with libel.
47 The ECtHR unanimously held that there had, indeed, been a violation of Lingens’ right to freedom of speech and press.
48 Lingens’ articles were of particular importance to the public because they dealt with political issues during election time.
49 The applicant in Ergin was the editor of a newspaper which published an article critical of Turkey’s military draft.
50 A military court then charged Ergin with incitement to avoid military service.
51 In its analysis, the ECtHR noticed that although the words in the article appeared ‘hostile to military service, they [did] not exhort violence or incite armed resistance or
44 Lingens v Austria (1985) 7 EHRR CD 446, [66].
45 Ergin v Turkey (2008) 47 EHRR 36, [35].
46
Lingens (n 44), [66].
47 ibid.
48
ibid [86].
49 ibid [73].
50 Ergin (n 45), [7].
51 ibid [8].

4
rebellion.’ 52 Because the words used in the article were not of a hostile or violent nature, the
ECtHR found ‘no pressing social need’ to restrict Ergin’s speech.
53 In other words, the restriction of Ergin’s speech was not ‘necessary in a democratic society.’ 54 The ECtHR held that the restriction was a violation of Article 10 of the ECHR.
55
Gül v Turkey concurs with the Elgin holding. In Gül , three applicants were arrested and charged by the government because they had ‘aided and abetted an illegal organization.’ 56 In fact, they were convicted because they possessed books and periodicals in favor of an illegal organization, had participated in lawful and peaceful demonstrations, and had shouted stereotypical leftist slogans during said demonstrations.
57 The ECtHR only analyzed the last of the three criteria mentioned in Lingens because the first two were clearly met. The only question was whether the measures taken were necessary.
58 The Court further asked whether the measures were ‘proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.’ 59 They found the answer to be no. The
ECtHR held the applicants’ right to expression had been violated.
60 Though the slogans were leftist, they could ‘not be interpreted as a call for violence or an uprising’ and, as such, the applicants’ conduct could not have affected national security.
61
52
Ergin (n 45), [34].
53 ibid [35].
54 ibid.
55 ibid .
56
Gül v Turkey (2011) 52 EHRR 38, [33].
57 ibid.
58
ibid [35].
59 ibid [37].
60 ibid [45].
61 ibid [41], [43].

5
In the case at hand, however, the speech being restricted is of a violent nature and is not in the public interest. What the bloggers write about actually harms society. OpenBemidia allows anyone to create a forum or post on forums and all that was required prior to the IRA was an email address. Now, the IRA is a reasonable, proportionate law which aims to prevent future attacks by identifying the individuals who post information on OpenBemidia which threatens national security. Bemidia already has a law in place prohibiting the publication of ‘military secrets’ – including the troops’ locations- yet, the Military Tracker forum provides almost realtime information of the military’s movements. This information has led to dozens of deaths. The
IRA requirements in Section (a) are not intended to restrict speech, but rather aimed at preventing future attacks and security breaches. The requirements in Section (a) are prescribed by law, are aimed at a legitimate purpose, and there is a pressing need for these measures. The requirements, thus, do not violate the freedoms of expression or opinion.
II. The Republic of Bemidia, in accordance with national security interests, asks the court to uphold the law requiring OpenBemidia to disclose to the government identity information, “following” information, and historical location information about its users.
Applicant is arguing that the IRA, which demands disclosure of identity information and historical location information about the users of OpenBemidia, is on its face against international law. However, according to both the ECHR and also the ACHPR, States have found the right to free speech along with privacy to be restricted when applied to national security purposes.
62 According to the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information , Bemidia’s law meets the three part test as laid out and
62 ECHR, art 10; African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21
October 1986) arts 9,11; Munim Abdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions (2011) EWHC 247 [24];
Nigeria Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 262 (ACHPR 2000) [56]; Tonsbergs Blad As and Haukom v Norway (App. No 510/04) 1 March 2007.

6
which has been followed by the court to limit individual rights for national security purposes.
63
According to the two prong test laid out in Hutchenson , Bemidia argues that the law passes the test as laid out for national security purposes for these restrictions.
64
A. National security and public safety concerns can trump an individual’s fundamental right to privacy according to the ECHR and the ACHPR.
National security is of the utmost importance for Bemidia and the requirement to disclose the information dealing with identity, “following” information, and historical location information deals with this objective. According to Article 10 of the ECHR, every person is granted the right to freedom of expression and the ability to express their ideas about their government in a safe way without repercussions.
65 However, these rights have limitations to them and this is seen in the second subsection of Article 10: ‘the exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime.’ 66 This has also been held in the ECtHR case Ergin v Turkey , which the court said sanctions which impose restrictions on a person’s right to freedom of expression can be limited when it deems the law necessary in a democratic society.
67 Freedom of expression is not
63
The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (November
1996) art 19, London; Hutcheson v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Ors (A2/2010/2863) HCJCA 7 September 2011,
[7].
64
Hutcheson [7].
65 ECHR art 10; ACHPR arts 9,11.
66 ECHR art 10.
67 Ergin (n 45) [2]; Sadak v Turkey , (2003) 36 EHRR 23 [41].

7
necessarily a universal right and may be subjected to restrictions.
68 The court in Ergin found there had been a violation to the freedom of expression as the expression did not incite violence or rebellion, which the court deemed was necessary to restrict individual’s rights.
69 Also, the court in Pinto Coelho v Portugal determined that the expression that was restricted needed to be
‘necessary in a democratic society’ for the right to trump the national security or public safety concerns.
70 Bemidia contends the public concern greatly outweighs the private interest in this situation.
Restrictions on fundamental rights have been imposed on an international level in many
State constitutions. According to the Constitution of India Article 19, the State may restrict fundamental rights when it specifically combats national security or public safety.
71 This is also seen in Article 40 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, which has a similar clause restricting fundamental rights for the betterment of society and public safety.
72
B. The requirement that OpenBemidia disclose identity information is valid as it serves an important government interest.
The requirement to report the identity of the users can be upheld as was seen in NAACP v
Alabama . This United States Supreme Court case held that there must be ‘an overriding valid interest of the State’ to compel the disclosure of individual membership.
73 The court found that
68
Sadak [41].
69 ibid; Surek v Turkey , (1999) 7 BHRC 339.
70 Pinto Coelho v Portugal , (2011) App. No. 28439/08 [40], [41].
71 C
ONST OF INDIA
, art 19.
72
C ONST .
OF P EOPLE ’ S R EPUBLIC OF C HINA , art 40.
73 NAACP v Alabama, 357 US 449, 460 (1958).

8
the unnecessary requirement to disclose identities could inhibit participation.
74 Bemidia contends the actions taken rise to the level of a valid state interest in that the disclosure goes directly to combat terrorism and stop the deaths of innocent civilians. The killing of dozens of innocent civilians and members of Parliament need to be fought and the disclosure of identity information would assist Bemidia in bringing terrorists to justice and preventing future attacks. Courts have also found that there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy for an individual to invoke this request, and Bemidia contends posting on website-based forum does not give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy as this is the ‘world wide web’ and information is open to all.
75
According to Article 10 of the ECHR, the right of freedom of expression can be limited when it comes to the protection and safety of the people in national security aspects. Bemidia is asking for the disclosure of identities tied to OpenBemidia due to the growth of violence that has occurred in Bemidia. For the security of others, Bemidia is asking for the disclosure of the identities of those who post on the forum. Bemidia has enacted these protocols for the gravely important purpose of protecting the citizens of Bemidia and for the protection of peace through the country. As with Ergin , the court stated that the expression, to be limited, must be necessary to a democratic society and also found the expression to not incite a rebellion or illegal activities.
76 Bemidia has enacted the protocols because there is currently a rebellion and dozens of innocent civilians along with members of Parliament have been killed.
74 NAACP at 460.
75 MGN Ltd v UK (2011) 53 EHRR 5 [87]; Countryside Alliance v UK (2010) 50 EHRR SE6 [42]; California v
Ciarolo, 476 US 207, 211 (1986).
76 Ergin (n 45) [H6].

9
C. Bemidia meets the test to impose restrictions on an individual’s freedoms as laid out by the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information.
According to the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information , there is a three part test laid out to describe the security measures a
State must take to impose restrictions on the freedom of expression for national security reasons.
77 The first part is that the expression or information imposes a serious threat to national security measures.
78 The second part is that any restrictions imposed be the least restrictive means necessary to achieve the governmental interest.
79 Last, is that the restriction follows the nature laws of a democratic society.
80 This test as laid out does not impose a balancing test but rather the government must meet each of these requirements to impose the restriction desired.
81
The information and expression being released on OpenBemidia imposes a serious threat to Bemidian national security. There have been several attacks throughout the northern portion of Bemidia and many lives have been lost. These attacks, through investigation, have been linked through the forums of OpenBemidia and the posts that are being made. For the security purposes, to obtain information about these individuals and cross check potential suspects, it is important to Bemidia that the identities of these individuals be revealed. The second portion of the test is met as these are the least restrictive ways to impose the national security measures.
77 Johannesburg; Hutchenson (n 62).
78
Johannesburg.
79 ibid.
80 ibid.
81 ibid.

10
The identification of these individuals is by no means a highly restrictive means or imposing obligations. Therefore, Bemidia believes these laws and requirements are the least restrictive means possible. Finally, Bemidia holds that these laws follow the democratic forms of government on a global scale. Bemidia believes that none of these laws goes outside the means of a democratic society.
D. Bemidia meets the standard the court has laid out to restrict individual freedoms as laid out in the two-part Hutchenson test.
In Hutchenson , the court lays out another two-prong test to determine if privacy can be compromised for the better of society.
82 In Hutchenson , the claimant had two families, one of which was secret and it was the wish of the claimant to keep this second family secret as he was a public figure.
83 The court laid out a two prong test to determine privacy and to restrain publication of personal information.
84 The first element was it was necessary to demonstrate that the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the subject-matter in question, having regard to Article 8 of the ECHR.
85 The second element was that the claimant must show there was no countervailing public interest to outweigh his right to protect that information.
86
Bemidia believes they have met the standard as set out in Hutchenson . Bemidia has met the first standard in that there was no reasonable expectation for the users to post online and yet
82 Hutcheson, [7].
83
ibid [5].
84 ibid [7].
85 ibid.
86 ibid.

11
remain anonymous. Citizens who post online are always confronted with the notion that once something is on the world-wide web, it is public for all to see. There was nothing set out in the process of signing up for an account that laid out the fact that users would remain anonymous.
Bemidia has met the standard for the second test in that the public interest greatly outweighs the privacy as requested by the users. There have been several terrorist attacks that can be attributed and connected to the users of these forums on OpenBemidia. These attacks and the safety of the public has become a great national security concern for Bemidia and therefore the necessity for the identification of these individuals outweighs their privacy interest.
According to Ekimdzhiev v Bulgaria , the court has set out safeguards that must be in place for the law to comport with Article 8 of the ECHR.
87
To ensure the effective implementation of the above principles, the Court has developed the following minimum safeguards that should be set out in statute law to avoid abuses: the nature of the offences which may give rise to an interception order; a definition of the categories of people liable to have their communications monitored; a limit on the duration of such monitoring; the procedure to be followed for examining, using and storing the data obtained; the precautions to be taken when communicating the data to other parties; and the circumstances in which data obtained may or must be erased or the records destroyed.
88
Bemidia has comported the law to follow these guidelines as set out in Ekimdzhiev .
Bemidia has first set out the nature of offense which gives rise to the order to mandate
87 Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v Bulgaria App no 62549.00 (ECtHR,
28 June 2007) [76].
88 ibid.

12
information from OpenBemidia. The nature of offenses is terrorism, as these are the offenses which have given rise to the necessity in the first place. The killing of innocent people for political means is the nature of the offenses which will give rise to the order for demanding information off the website about their users. The durational limit is implied in the law as when the conflict decreases and the terrorist attacks decrease, then there can be some digression with the information being asked. Next, for the procedures of storing the data, examining the data, transferring the data, and finally the end result of terminating the data, Bemidia has no previous history of corruption and thus contends these issues will not present problem. Although not laid out exactly within the language of the law, Bemidia would have securities in place to combat these issues and resolve them in an appropriate manner.
III. The Republic of Bemidia, in accordance with national security, asks the Court to uphold the requirement that OpenBemidia report to the government location information about the users of the MLM forum in real time.
Respondent holds that the court should uphold the law which requires OpenBemidia to report to the government the real-time location of users of the MLM forum. This is all for national security purposes. According to the ECHR, national security can trump individual rights such as expression, speech, and privacy.
89 Also, the court has furthered this theory in
Ferdinand as applied and thus shows how this has been used by governments in the past.
90
Finally, Respondent will show that according to United States Supreme Court, the Court has
89 ECHR, arts 8, 10.
90 Ferdinand v MGN Ltd , (2011) EWHC 2454.

13
found a suppression of speech or assembly to be unconstitutional unless there is an incitement to illegal activity, as there is currently in Bemidia.
91
A. National security concerns can trump an individual’s right to privacy according to Article 8 of the ECHR.
The freedom of privacy may be restricted when possible implications could be a risk to national security.
92 According to Ferdinand v MGN Ltd ., the court used Article 8 of the ECHR to extend the limitations of not only the freedom of expression, but also the freedom of privacy.
93
In Ferdinand , a local newspaper wrote and published an article that expressed a report of an illicit affair with Ferdinand, who at the time was a very well-known footballer and well known through the media.
94 The court furthers the idea of the right to a private life by investigating
Article 8 of the ECHR, and state that although individuals have the right to a private life from both the State and from media entities, these rights are not absolute.
95 The court furthered the notion that there is no right to privacy when it could conflict with national security issues, territorial integrity or public safety.
96
Bemidia is concerned and wants OpenBemidia to report location information when posting because, recently, the efforts to combat terrorism have been defeated because of posts showing where military support is located. By these posts, Bemidia believes their efforts to
91
Whitney v California, 274 US 357 (1927).
92 ECHR, art. 8.
93
Ferdinand (n 90) [39]; ECHR (n 41), art 8.
94 Ferdinand [2].
95 ibid [38].
96 ibid.

14
combat the terrorist attacks and save lives have been thwarted and, therefore, want the posts by members of the MLM forum to relay their location.
B. Incitement to illegal activities is sufficient for the government to impose restrictions on the freedoms of expression and privacy.
Bemidia asks for the location information in real time for safety measures and does not believe that this requirement infringes the rights of assembly and privacy of its citizens. In 1929, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a conviction for peaceful assembly as the group following the Communist Party at that time was said to go against the Criminal Syndicalism
Act.
97 The court held that the law was valid as it described the acts and prohibited assembly on the face of the law thus permitting citizens to understand the consequences of their actions.
98
However, this case was later overturned in 1969, in Brandenburg v Ohio .
99 The court looked at
Ohio’s Criminal Syndicalism Act and declared it unconstitutional as it was a denial of the right to assembly and also dealt with privacy issues.
100 The court declared the law unconstitutional because it didn’t hold a difference in that people could be prosecuted if their actions were distinguished by ‘incitement to imminent lawless action.’ 101
Bemidia holds that the IRA would pass the Court’s analysis, as the actions being taken are inciting others to commit unlawful acts. The requirement to report location information is for national security purposes and, therefore, goes to prevent unlawful acts. The real-time location
97
Whitney at 359.
98 ibid at 368.
99 Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 US 444, 448 (1969); US v Fullmer, 584 F 3d 132 (2009); Herlog v Hustler Magazine
Inc., 814 F 2d 1017 (1987).
100 Brandenburg at 448.
101 ibid.

15
information requirement for MLM users would go for national security purposes and would not violate the privacy or assembly of the individual as their actions have led to the incitement of illegal activity.
IV. The First Family Protection Act does not violate the right to freedom of expression because the information posted was a breach of the right to privacy and, furthermore, the
information created a security problem.
Just as there is a right to freedom of expression, everyone has a right to privacy.
102 When these two rights are in conflict, the court must balance the value of the expression against the intrusion into one’s privacy.
103 In addition, the blogs tracing the First Family’s daily lives presented a security threat to Bemidia.
A.
When the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy conflict, the decisive factor is whether or not the expression contributes to debates of public interest.
Leading international documents recognize that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life. Von Hannover v Germany exemplifies how, in certain circumstances, the right to privacy outweighs the right to freedom of expression .
104 In Von Hannover , the applicant was Princess Caroline, the eldest daughter of Prince Rainier III of Monaco. She herself is not a head of state, but she is part of the Prince’s family and she was also the president of humanitarian and cultural organizations.
105 ‘She does not, however, perform any function within or on behalf of the State of Monaco or one of its institutions.’ 106 In her suit, Princess Caroline
102 UNDR (n 40) art 12; ICCPR (n 41) art 17, § 1; ECHR (n45) art 8, § 1.
103
Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1.
104 ibid.
105 ibid [9].
106 ibid [8].

16
alleged that ‘she was constantly hounded by paparazzi who followed her every daily movement, be it crossing the road, fetching her children from school, doing her shopping, out walking, practicing sport or going on holiday.’ 107 The ECtHR in explained Von Hannover , that ‘the decisive factor in balancing the protection of private life against freedom of expression should lie in the contribution that the published photos and articles make to a debate of general interest.’ 108
The Court held that there had, indeed, been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR because the contribution to the public interest was minimal, but the intrusion into her life was great.
109
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis suffered through a similar intrusion and sued the paparazzo who was interfering with her life and that of her children.
110 The paparazzo so insinuated himself into the lives of the president’s widow and children, that he took pictures of John, Jr. riding his bike in Central Park and nearly caused an accident by jumping in front of his bike.
111 He also
‘interrupted Caroline’s tennis lessons and invaded the children’s private schools.’ 112 The court found the paparazzo guilty of harassment and invasion of privacy, inter alia, despite the fact that he argued his actions were protected by the US First Amendment.
113 The court in this case also performed a balancing test and held that the photographs provided a minor public interest as compared to the great invasion of privacy the Kennedy widow and children suffered.
114 The
107 Von Hannover (n 103) [44].
108 ibid [76].
109
ibid [80].
110 Galella v Onassis, 487 F 2d 986 (1973).
111
ibid at 992.
112 ibid.
113 US C
ONST amend I; Galella (n 110) at 994.
114 Galella (n 110) at 995.

17
court also held that the intrusion into one’s private life ‘may be no greater than that necessary to protect the overriding public interest.’ 115
The Compromis establishes that the Vislio Tracker, Carla Tracker, Talia Tracker and
Daria Tracker forums ‘pinpoint and document virtually every public activity undertaken by the
Prime Minister and the other members of his immediate family.’ 116 Nothing in the Compromis suggests that the information and photographs taken of the PM’s family were for the public interest. Quite the opposite, pinpointing the schedules and daily movements of the PM and the
First Family is a danger to national security. Bemidia is currently experiencing a period of terrorism and instability. The Mondahi are vocalizing their wish to secede and the MLM are creating panic by bombing public places. Announcing the everyday whereabouts of the PM and his family during a stable time would be a security problem; during a time of turmoil, it is nearly an invitation to attack the PM and his Family. For this reason, the injunction the FFPA is seeking against previously disseminated content is justified and lawful.
Furthermore, while the PM’s movements may, of course, be a matter of public interest, the private activities of his family members are not. It does not matter whether the activities take place in public places, they can still be regarded as part of one’s private life. In Von Hannover , the court found that there is a ‘zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of “private life.”’ 117 The Talia Tracker forum, for example, included information about the PM’s daughter going to school, leaving school, and what she had for lunch. None of this information is fodder for public debate. The fact that Talia
115 Galella (n 110) at 995.
116 Compromis, para 17.
117 Von Hannover (n 103) [50].

18
is the PM’s daughter does not warrant that her privacy be violated. As was the case with Princess
Caroline in the Von Hannover case, photographs of Talia’s private life are protected under the
UNDR, ICCPR, and ECHR 118 . The FFPA is lawful because it is a controlled measure aimed at protecting the First Family without unduly burdening the freedom of expression. The FFPA only prohibits ‘the publication of “private information” about the Prime Minister’s family without the person’s or guardians’ prior consent.’ 119 The FFPA also does not prohibit any information older than 90 days at the time it is published. The PM’s wife and children have a right to privacy which, in this case, outweighs the bloggers’ right to freedom of expression.
118 UNDR (n 40) art 12; ICCPR (n 42) art 17, § 1; ECHR (n 41) art 8, § 1.
119 Compromis, para 20.

19
P
RAYER FOR
R
ELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, the Republic of Bemidia respectfully requests this Honorable Court to adjudge and declare as follows:
1. Section (a) of the IRA requiring OpenBemidia to collect and verify name and contact information before allowing a ‘user’ to register for an account and post to a forum is a reasonable measure aimed at protecting Bemidia and its population from further terrorist attacks and, due to these national security concerns, it does not violate the right to freedom of expression.
2. The law requiring OpenBemidia to disclose to the government identity information,
‘following’ information, and historical location information about its users does not violate the freedom of privacy according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as national security concerns outweigh any restrictions.
3. The requirement that OpenBemidia report to the government real-time location information about the users of the MLM forum does not violate the freedom of expression, as national security concerns outweigh the personal freedoms in question and, therefore, the law should be upheld.
4. The FFPA is not a violation of the freedom of expression because, in this case, the First
Family’s right of privacy outweighs others’ freedom of expression.