Freedom of Expression versus Privacy and the Right to Reputation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Voorhoof
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Investigative Journalism ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The One ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The normative perspective of this chapter is how to guarantee respect for the fundamental values of freedom of expression and journalistic reporting on matters of public interest in cases where a (public) person claims protection of his or her right to reputation. First it explains why there is an increasing number and expanding potential of conflicts between the right to freedom of expression and media freedom (Article 10 ECHR), on the one hand, and the right of privacy and the right to protection of reputation (Article 8 ECHR), on the other. In addressing and analysing the European Court’s balancing approach in this domain, the characteristics and the impact of the seminal 2012 Grand Chamber judgment in Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no. 1) are identified and explained. On the basis of the analysis of the Court’s subsequent jurisprudence in defamation cases it evaluates whether this case law preserves the public watchdog-function of media, investigative journalism and NGOs reporting on matters of public interest, but tarnishing the reputation of public figures.

Conditions of the Right to Erasure

2020 ◽  
pp. 196-274
Author(s):  
Jef Ausloos
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Historical Research ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
The Right ◽  
Data Subject

This chapter zooms in on Article 17 GDPR, on the right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’). It meticulously dissects the three paragraphs of this provision. The first paragraph lists six rights-to-erasure triggers which can be summarized as: (a) purpose expiration; (b) withdrawal of consent; (c) right to object; (d) unlawful processing; (e) legal obligation; and (f) withdrawal of consent by minors in the online environment. The second paragraph comprises an odd extension of the right to erasure, enabling data subjects to request that controllers who have made the personal data public, communicate potential erasure to anyone else processing that same personal data. The third paragraph lists five exemptions to the right to erasure, summarized as: (a) freedom of expression and information; (b) legal obligation or task carried out in the public interest or official authority; (c) public interest in the area of public health; (d) public interest archiving, scientific and historical research, or statistical purposes; and (e) legal claims. What becomes clear right away is how both the right-to-erasure’s triggers and exemptions all refer to other legal provisions in and outside the GDPR. As such, the right to erasure can be seen as a central hub in the GDPR, bringing together key data protection principles from the perspective of data subject empowerment.

scholarly journals Freedom of Expression in the UK and Protection of Privacy in Human Rights: Princess Diana’s Case as an Example

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 192-203
Author(s):  
Araz Ramazan Ahmad ◽  
Nazakat Hussein Hamasaeed ◽  
Muhammad Saud
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Fundamental Aspect ◽  
Media Law ◽  
Content Analysis Method ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

This paper mainly aims to argue the research questions “what is the right of privacy?, how the article 8 protected privacy in Act 1998 and to deliberate the case of princes Diana Between the freedom of expression and protect the privacy?. Hence, to discourse the impact of the media Law in dealing  with freedom of expression and the right of privacy.  This paper will argues the concept of the Freedom of expression which is one of the most fundamental aspect of the individuals rights that enjoy in everyday life. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity in the community. On the other hand, the paper will explore the impact on media law and some examples of rich figure, media celebrity and famous, which they complaining of the media invasion of privacy will be explained, and then how the Court treated with Princess Diana’s case in the viewpoint of privacy and freedom of excretion concepts. The paper mainly depends on the content analysis method for analysing legal documentation of the articles related to the freedom of expression, also it depends on the case-study method for its sample which is Princess Diana’s case.

Reconstructing the European Court of Human Rights’ Article 8 Jurisprudence in Deportation Cases: The Family’s Right and the Public Interest

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 333-360
Author(s):  
Jonathan Collinson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

Abstract This article rationalises the case law of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in deportation cases involving children. The Court engages in a balancing exercise between the right to family life of the deportee’s family on the one side, and the public interest in deportation on the other. This article expands on existing case law analysis by suggesting that in deportation cases, the Court considers Article 8 as a form of commonly held right, rather than an individual right held by one member of the family. Furthermore, the balance is argued to be constructed as a relationship between two factors on both sides, rather than of a sole factor on either side as being determinative. This article concludes that the best interests of the child (one of the ‘Üner criteria’) is not adequately reflected in the Court’s deportation decision-making practice.

Un péage à l'orée du bois? (Essai) | A tollbooth at the forest edge? (Essay)

2009 ◽  
Vol 160 (8) ◽  
pp. 244-246
Author(s):  
Olivier Guex
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Supply And Demand ◽  
Forest Edge ◽  
Comparative Assessment ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Public ◽  
Du Bois ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

Does the principle of multifunctionality mean that the forest must fulfill every requirement put forward? Does the modern notion of “commodity”, drawn from the laws of supply and demand, give forest owners the right to expect payment for every service provided? In view of the current difficult economic situation and the increase and diversification of these requirements, the questions are justified. This article does not have the pretension to provide all the answers. However, by means of further questions and through the introduction of various examples, the reader is invited to consider the subtly differentiated proportions of the importance of the public interest on the one hand as opposed to that of private interests on the other, and thus to be able to draw conclusions. Thanks to this comparative assessment, possibilities concerning the magnitude and the source of these payments should become clear.

Il est interdit d'interdire!, Il n'est pas interdit d'imposer!, Il est recommandé de promouvoir

1993 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-36
Author(s):  
Paul Pupier
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Common Language ◽  
Official Language ◽  
Linguistic Identity ◽  
The Public ◽  
Official Languages ◽  
The One ◽  
Rule System ◽  
Public Message ◽  
The Right

SUMMARY Il est interdit d'interdire! Il n'est pas interdit d'imposer! Il est recommandé de promouvoir Reflecting on the situation in Quebec, this paper attempts to offer a fair solution to the problem of the language(s) of signage. It takes as self-evident that individuals and groups have the right to show their (linguistic) identity as well as to express themselves in the language(s) of their choice, provided that the rights of the (potential) addressees are also met. One way of reconciling the demands of the "sender" and those of the "receiver" is the use of a common language. An official language has as one of its functions that of being an intended common language. On the one hand, it is proposed that any language can be used on non-official public signs. This ensures that no linguistic identity is hidden, and allows for freedom of expression. On the other hand, a three-rule system is specified which requires that a sign in the official language will be present in every visual field that contains a public message in another language, and that the contents of the non-official message will never be more complete than the corresponding one in the official language. This guarantees, visually and linguistically, that a reading knowledge of the official language is sufficient to understand all there is to understand in the public signs. This guarantees, additionally, the ubiquitous presence of the official language, as well as its global preponderance. It does not guarantee that it is preponderant everywhere. The systems which aim at this latter kind of preponderance (universal preponderance) are doomed to failure, unless they prohibit the use of non-official languages in public signage (an unfair policy, in the view of the author). Too much emphasis on the preponderance question is, at any rate, misguided, and can even lead to counterproductive policies. RESUMO Estas malpermesite malpermesi... Rigardante la situacion en Kebekio, la atitoro celas proponi justan solvon a0 l la problemo de la lingvo(j) de afisado. Oni akceptas kiel memevidente, ke individuoj kaj homgrupoj rajtas montri sian (lingvan) identecon kaj sin esprimi en la lingvo(j) de la propra elekto, kondice ke oni ankaù observas la rajtojn de la (potencialaj) adresatoj. Unu vojo por kongruigi la postulojn de la "sendanto" kun tiuj de la "ricevanto" estas utiligo de komuna lingvo. Oficiala lingvo havas kiel unu el siaj funkcioj la celon roli kiel komuna lingvo. Unuflanke, la atitoro proponas, ke iu ajn lingvo estu uzebla sur neoficialaj publikaj afisoj kaj sildoj. Tio certigas, ke neniu lingva identeco restas kasita, kaj permesas liberecon de esprimigo. Aliflanke, li specifigas triregulan sistemon, kiu postulas, ke afiso en la oficiala lingvo ceestu en ciu vida kampo, kiu enhavas publikan mesagon en alia lingvo, kaj ke la enhavo de la neoficiala mesago neniam estu pli kompleta ol la enhavo de tiu en la oficiala lingvo. Tio garantias, vide kaj lingve, ke lega scipovo de la oficiala lingvo suficas por kompreni cion kompreneblan en la publikaj afisoj kaj sildoj. Krome tio garantias la ciean ceeston de la oficiala lingvo kaj gian generalan superregon. Sed gi ne garantias gian ciean superregon. La sistemoj, kiuj celas ci-lastan specon de superrego (universalan superregon) estas kondamnitaj al malsukceso, krom se ili malpermesas la utiligon de neoficialaj lingvoj en publika afisado (maljusta politiko lau la opinio de la atitoro). Troa emfazo je la demando de superrego estas ciuokaze erara, kaj povas ec konduki al kontraù-produktivaj politikoj.

Proposed Changes in British Parliamentary Procedure

1946 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 740-748
Author(s):  
Henry Bunbury
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Major Change ◽  
Parliamentary Democracy ◽  
The Public ◽  
General Plan ◽  
Full Discussion ◽  
Parliamentary Procedure ◽  
To Come ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

Parliamentary democracy in Britain has once again to face and solve a problem which in itself is by no means new. It has to find the means of preserving, under the conditions of today and tomorrow, two principles, each of which is fundamental to democratic government, but which tend in times of major change to come into conflict. The one is that Parliament, as the supreme power in the state, shall retain its full and unchallenged control over public policy, both in legislation and in administration; the other, that the public business shall be efficiently conducted—that the right things shall be done at the right time. For in so far as the system fails on the former count, it ceases to be democratic; and to the extent that it fails on the latter count, its repute, and even its very existence, may be endangered.It is commonly admitted that the British parliamentary machine has at times—and in recent years with increasing frequency—been overworked. Changes in the law called for by new situations, by public demand, or by administrative expediency are liable to be postponed from session to session for lack of parliamentary time, until the right moment for decision has passed. Matters which deserved full discussion are liable to be decided in haste under some form of closure of debate. The choice of subjects for legislative projects in any particular session tends, at times, to be determined as much by sectional pressures of one kind or another, public or departmental, as by a considered weighing of the public interest or a general plan of policy.

scholarly journals Reclaim the right to know toki and locate it online

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 10-14
Author(s):  
Lisa Williams-Lahari
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
The Public ◽  
Talking Heads ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Governance Process ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

Commentary: A Cook Islands proverb goes like this: Taraia to toki, ei toki tarai enua – ‘Sharpen your adze, the adze to carve nations.’ Applying the proverb in this context, the toki/adze can be seen as the media. The right to know is the tool which keeps the adze strong and effective. When the toki is well prepared for its work, the impact on public debate and protection of media freedoms is strongest. The diversity of news outlets and ‘talking heads’ in the public domain helps foster a sense of public participation; and ownership of the governance process. When the adze is blunted by lack of Freedom of Information legislation, or by the failure of media workers to pressure for the public interest and the right to know, we see the deadening impacts that many of us can attest to in our countries.

scholarly journals TV Ombudsman: an argument against Pandora’s Box

Comunicar ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (25) ◽  
Author(s):  
María-Magdalena da-Costa-Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
Public Space ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Press ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

To transform an individual pain into a collective feeling of suffering is a capacity of all mass media. However, television has, in this point, a tremendous power. The capacity to join millions of TV viewers in front of itself is its most admirable merit, but it’s also its most dreadful danger. Principally when the point are the human rights, as the right of privacy or the right of not suffer in the public space, the demand of quality appears not only as an obligation of the Government but also as a duty of citizenship of all TV viewers. Although it is not properly a novelty in some European countries, the existence of a TV Ombudsman2 will be a reality in Portugal only this year. The Government has approved a legal diploma to create this figure, which will evaluate the programming and information of the public channel RTP. As the ombudsmen of press that we already know, the TV Ombudsman will be the person who receives the critics and observations of TV viewers, evaluates them and writes about them an impression to the administration of the channel. Being a self-regulatory proceeding, the TV Ombudsman is fundamentally a mechanism that implicates citizens. It is not only an entity of vigilance on ethics of Television. It is essentially a platform of dialogue between journalists, programmers and TV viewers. As in the press, the Ombudsman is a mediator. Although it is probably not an absolute guarantee of quality, TV Ombudsman is surely an argument of citizens against the bad things diffused by the box that we believe is the one by which the most important of our lives goes trough. Transformar uma dor individual num sentimento colectivo de sofrimento é uma capacidade de todos os meios de massa. Todavia, a televisão tem a este título um poder tremendamente grande. A capacidade de reunir milhões de telespectadores à sua frente é o seu mais admirável mérito, mas também o seu mais temível perigo. Sobretudo quando estão em causa direitos humanos, como o direito à privacidade ou a não sofrer no espaço público, a procura de qualidade surge não somente como uma obrigação do governo como também como um dever de cidadania de todos os espectadores. Não sendo propriamente novidade em alguns países europeus, a existência do Provedor do Telespectador1 só será uma realidade em Portugal este ano. O governo aprovou um diploma para a criação desta figura que deverá avaliar a programação e a informação do canal público RTP. Como os provedores dos leitores que conhecemos, também o Provedor do Telespectador será a pessoa que receberá as críticas e as observações dos telespectadores, as avaliará e emitirá sobre elas um parecer para a administração do canal. Sendo um procedimento de auto-regulação, o Provedor do Telespectador é fundamentalmente uma entidade de vigilância da ética da televisão. Essencialmente é uma plataforma de diálogo entre jornalistas, programadores e telespectadores. Tal como na imprensa, o Provedor é um mediador. Ainda que não seja provavelmente uma garantia absoluta de qualidade, o Provedor do Telespectador é seguramente um argumento dos cidadãos contra os males difundidos pela caixa que se crê ser aquela por onde passa o mais importante das nossas vidas.

scholarly journals UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN DEVELOPMENT NYIA (New Yogyakarta International Airport): AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND LEGAL APPROACH

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 477
Author(s):  
Muhammad Fikri Alan
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Development Policy ◽  
Development Process ◽  
The State ◽  
The Public ◽  
International Airport ◽  
The People ◽  
Approach Method ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

<em>This paper seeks to use economic and law approaches in looking at the problems that occur over the construction of New Yogyakarta International Airport (NYIA). According to the legal approach that is often done, it has not given a clear meaning of what the phrase "public interest" is. In fact, the meaning of this phrase becomes very important, considering that this is used as the basis by the state in seizing the right to land owned by people, which is then used for the construction of the airport. For the economic approach method, it is expected to be able to complete the approach, by analyzing whether the current development process can benefit the country economically or not. Thus, the use of economic approaches, in this case is the NYIA's development policy, in fact, can be ambiguous. On the one hand it can be a justification for the state to continue the development process. On the other hand, it can be a justification for the people who until now continue to expect the development of the NYIA to be halted.</em>

scholarly journals Comparison between the U.S. and Another Country’s Law of Privacy: Taking China and Britain for Example

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shi Hu ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Basic Belief ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Individual Personality ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

The right of privacy is a basic personal right, which refers to the right that the interests of individual personality are not infringed, private affairs unrelated to the public interest are not allowed to be released to the public, and private territory belonging to individuals is not illegally invaded. The protection of the right to privacy stems from a basic belief: everyone has the right not to be disturbed, and has the right to decide how to appear in front of the public, unless they have taken the initiative to put themselves in the public view, or their privacy involves the public interest[1].

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document