How Freedom of Expression Defines the Parody Exception

2019 ◽  
pp. 134-166
Author(s):  
Sabine Jacques
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Proportionality Test

This chapter examines the relevance of freedom of expression to the parody exception. It first considers the debate on the interaction between intellectual property rights and fundamental rights before discussing the ways in which freedom of expression may address the excessive expansion of exclusive rights as well as the outer limits of the parody exception. The chapter explains how human rights are embodied in the parody exception and how factors established in the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence may legitimately restrict freedom of expression. It also explores how national legislators and courts in France, Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom strike a balance between freedom of expression values and copyright values. It shows that the outer limits of the parody exception in each jurisdiction are determined by the influence of freedom of expression on copyright, the margin of appreciation, and the proportionality test.

Conclusion The American and Westminster Models

2021 ◽  
pp. 391-396
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court

This concluding chapter identifies the four major causes of the growth and origin of judicial review in the G-20 common law countries and in Israel. First, the need for a federalism umpire, and occasionally a separation of powers umpire, played a major role in the development of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, in India, and most recently in the United Kingdom. Second, there is a rights from wrongs phenomenon at work in the growth of judicial review in the United States, after the Civil War; in Canada, with the 1982 adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; in India, after the Indira Gandhi State of Emergency led to a massive trampling on human rights; in Israel, after the Holocaust; in South Africa, after racist apartheid misrule; and in the United Kingdom, after that country accumulated an embarrassing record before the European Court of Human Rights prior to 1998. This proves that judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation often occurs in response to a deprivation of human rights. Third, the seven common law countries all borrowed a lot from one another, and from civil law countries, in writing their constitutions. Fourth, and finally, the common law countries all create multiple democratic institutions or political parties, which renders any political attempt to strike back at the Supreme Court impossible to maintain.

scholarly journals Expanded Liability for Psychiatrists: Tarasoff Gone Crazy?

2014 ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Michael Thomas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Final Part ◽  
Conservative Approach ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Treatment

<p>This paper is intended to serve as an update for psychiatrists on notable developments of the<em> Tarasoff</em> doctrine in the United States and United Kingdom. Most clinicians will be familiar with the basic <em>Tarasoff</em> doctrine. However, the author suspects that many clinicians will be troubled to learn the extent to which <em>Tarasoff</em> liability has extended in some jurisdictions.</p><p>Accordingly, the first part of this paper addresses notable judicial treatment of <em>Tarasoff</em> in several state jurisdictions within the United States. The second part discusses the more conservative approach of the United Kingdom, which affords clinicians discretion to warn potential victims in certain circumstances. The United Kingdom has struggled with, and so far rejected, the imposition of a <em>Tarasoff</em>-duty. However, a recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights opens the door for something comparable to <em>Tarasoff</em> in the United Kingdom. The final part offers a critique of the<em> Tarasoff</em> doctrine and suggests that other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, may be wise to avoid this problematic doctrine.</p>

Ahmad and Others v. The United Kingdom (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 440-495
Author(s):  
John T. Parry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Life Sentences

In Ahmad and Others v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) upheld the extradition of several suspected terrorists to the United States, despite the possibility that if convicted, the suspects could face life sentences and imprisonment or both, in a “supermax” prison. This decision marks another important step in the development of the Court’s Article 3 extradition jurisprudence. It also illustrates the uneasy tension between that jurisprudence and the efforts of European states to cooperate with U.S. anti-terror initiatives.

Insult of Public Officials

2021 ◽  
pp. 388-409
Author(s):  
Christoph Bezemek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Structural Differences

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.

Short v. Kingdom of the Netherlands

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 698-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Parkerson ◽  
Steven J. Lepper
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
United States Military ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Significant Addition

In the Notes and Comments section of the January 1991 issue of the Journal, Professor Richard Lillich presented a thorough and timely analysis of the Soering decision of the European Court of Human Rights, a significant addition to international human rights law. His evaluation of the Soering judgment and his reflections on several of its wider ramifications are especially relevant to the United States military, for the decision constitutes a serious threat to the administration of U.S. military justice overseas and to the treaty relationships between the United States and its NATO allies. A recent European case, Short v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, demonstrates that this threat is far from hypothetical.

scholarly journals Religion, Constitution, and Human Rights: An Overview of Muslim Life and Religious Freedom in the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 137
Author(s):  
Suci Ramadhan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Social

<p class="abstrak">The United States Constitution affirms that religious freedom is a fundamental human right regardless of religion. It is upheld by every citizen and the country. However, the political policies in a particular country are often considered to paralyze fundamental rights in religion, causing various problems in Muslim life at the social and political levels. This research aims to analyze the intersectional dynamic of religion, constitution, and Muslim human rights towards life and religious freedom in the United States. This qualitative research uses the lens of political approach. Primary data are taken from the United States Constitution and policies, and supported by secondary data from various books, scientific articles, and news. The results suggest that religious sentiment (Islam) is found in the political policies of the United States. Currently, unconstitutional and discriminative policies are gradually removed because it triggers the social and political chaos. The United States constitution strives towards a pluralist and multi-religious country rebuilding that is safe and peaceful for religion as guaranteed by the constitution. In fact, the public and political spaces have been occupied by many Muslims in an effort to resolve the problems of state and human rights, including the religious sentiment issues.</p>

scholarly journals McGoliath v. David: The European Court of Human Rights Recent “Equality of Arms” Decision

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 895-907
Author(s):  
Monique C. Lillard
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Small Step ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Private Citizens ◽  
Fair Hearing

The European Court of Human Rights has issued a judgment which adds to the developing law of Article 6, Section 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or “the Convention”) and which sheds light on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and its interaction with the law of defamation. Practically, the decision in Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as Steel) is likely to prompt a review of the availability of legal aid for defendants in civil cases in the United Kingdom (“UK”), and may be a small step towards balancing the arms in ad terrorem suits brought by large corporations against private citizens in order to silence public debate.

The Janus face of imprisonment: Contrasting judicial conceptions of imprisonment purposes in the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of the United States

2020 ◽  
pp. 174889582091196
Author(s):  
Netanel Dagan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Management Tool ◽  
Moral Concept ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court

This article considers how the Supreme Court of the United States and the European Court of Human Rights apply, interpret and frame abstract imprisonment purposes, and how they view their relevance to prison conditions, while discussing the constitutionality of prison conditions. The article argues that the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights view, conceptualise and interpret the purposes of imprisonment differently. Regarding the purposes of retribution and rehabilitation specifically, the analysis presented in the article exposes a ‘Janus face’, meaning that each purpose can, and is, interpreted in two different, and almost contrasting ways. The article offers three themes regarding the conceptualisation of imprisonment purposes by the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights: First, the relationship between the purposes of sentencing and imprisonment along the penal continuum, and the role of rehabilitation in a prison regime: should sentencing purposes be relatively static during their implementation in prison, meaning that retributive-oriented sentencing purposes should be pursued (Supreme Court), or should they conversely progress with the passage of time, from retribution to resocialisation as the primary purpose of imprisonment (European Court of Human Rights). Second, the meaning of retributivism in regard to prison conditions: should prisoners pay a debt to society by suffering in restrictive prison conditions (Supreme Court), or is retributivism achieved by atonement and by finding ways to compensate or repair harms caused by crime (European Court of Human Rights). Third, the way in which prison rehabilitation is framed and understood: should prison rehabilitation be seen as a risk management tool aimed purely at lowering recidivism (Supreme Court), or as a moral concept grounded in a prisoner’s ability to change his life and belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions (European Court of Human Rights). Possible theoretical implications and general policy implications are considered in the article.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document