Privacy

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita L. Allen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Public Disclosure ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
State Statutes ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Thought

The idea of privacy has played a role in constitutional thought, formulations of human rights, and both common and civil law. The US Supreme Court has recognized that five of the original Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment protect privacy interests. In US tort law, interests against intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private fact, publications placing one in a false light, and misappropriation of a person's name, likeness, or identity are potentially protected through civil actions styled ‘invasions of privacy’. Federal and state statutes protect interests in the privacy of records relating to, inter alia, health, finances, consumer transactions, Internet use, and taxes.

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’.

1. Tort: law and system

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan ◽  
Vera Bermingham
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Related Area ◽  
System P ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Law

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. In civil law, tort provides remedy for a party who has suffered the breach of a protected interest. Tort law protects a wide range of interests. Currently, negligence is the greatest source of litigation with respect to tort. Torts of trespass to the person protect physical safety while trespass to property governs the ownership of property. The tort of defamation provides remedies for threats to one’s reputation. Another tort-related area deals with the protection of privacy from media intrusion. This chapter discusses the range of activity to which tort law applies and the types of harm for which it provides compensation. It also considers the main interests protected by the law of tort, how the law of tort differs from other branches of the law, and the role of policy and the human rights dimension in the law of tort.

scholarly journals Litigation Dilemmas: Lessons from the Marcos Human Rights Class Action

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (02) ◽  
pp. 479-508
Author(s):  
Nate Ela
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Movement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Legal Mobilization ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

How do activist plaintiffs experience the process of human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS)? Answering this question is key to understanding the impact on transnational legal mobilization of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., in which the US Supreme Court sharply limited the scope of the ATS. Yet sociolegal scholars know remarkably little about the experiences of ATS litigants, before or after Kiobel. This article describes how activist litigants in a landmark ATS class action against former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos faced a series of strategic dilemmas, and how disagreements over how to resolve those dilemmas played into divisions between activists and organizations on the Philippine left. The article develops an analytical framework focused on litigation dilemmas to explain how and why activists who pursue ATS litigation as an opportunity for legal mobilization may also encounter strategic dilemmas that contribute to dissension within a social movement.

scholarly journals Vėliava – Flag – Drapeau, arba Ir vėl apie žmogaus teises

Teisė ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 83 ◽  
pp. 18-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gediminas Mesonis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Liberal Conception ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Anglo American

Straipsnyje analizuojama, kokią reikšmę turi skirtingos koncepcijos atskleidžiant konkrečios žmogaus teisės turinį. Konstatuojama, kad net „Vakarų“ demokratinėse valstybėse sprendžiant dėl žmogaus teisių turinio nuolat konkuruoja individualistinis ir traibalistinis požiūris į žmogaus teises. Esama koncepcijų dichotomija šiame straipsnyje iliustruojama žodžio laisvės turinio raidos kontekste. Straipsnyje į šios teisės turinio raidą žvelgiama per valstybės vėliavos teisinį statusą, analizuojant Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų Aukščiausiojo Teismo jurisprudencijos ir kitų šalių teisinio reguliavimo patirtį. Konstatuojama, kad anglų–amerikiečių (liberalioji) žmogaus teisių ir laisvių koncepcija, spręsdama žmogaus teisės turinio problemą, prioritetą linkusi atiduoti konkretaus asmens, o ne grupės interesui.The article analyses the significance of different conceptions in disclosing the content of a concrete human right. It is stated that even in “western” democratic states, when one decides regarding the content of human rights, there is continuous competition between the individualistic and tribalistic approach to human rights. The existing dichotomy of these conceptions is illustrated in the context of the development of the content of freedom of speech. In the article the development of the content of this right is considered through the legal status of the flag, while analysing the experience of the jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court and that of legal regulation of other countries. It is stated that the Anglo-American (liberal) conception of human rights, while deciding the issue of the content of a human right, tends to give priority to the interest of a concrete person, but not that of a group.

Defamation: Dignity Lost?

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-285
Author(s):  
Eleni Micha
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Interesting Case ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Widespread Interest

Political libel cases always present a widespread interest due to the eventual conflict between freedom of expression and respect of personal reputation. Inasmuch as both principles are equally safeguarded in the area of the protection of human rights, one might ask how to achieve a balance of the different interests. What are the relevant criteria and what is the level of liability required for the award of damages? This article is an effort to review and analyse the solutions provided by the US Supreme Court, the European Commission and Court of Human Rights and Greek jurisprudence, since all three have already established an interesting case-law. The author examines the similarities and differences between the American and the European legal thought and presents her own argumentation on the subject. In addition, it is discussed if and how the Greek law is influenced by the Strasbourg case-law, since the Greek Constitution in itself recognises the supremacy of the ECHR.

scholarly journals CORPORATE HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE OBJECTIONS OF WESTERN GOVERNMENTS TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 665-697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uta Kohl
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Accountability ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

AbstractThe almost two decade-long bonanza of civil litigation concerning gross human rights violations committed by corporations under the US Alien Tort Statute 1789 was scaled back by the US Supreme Court in Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum in April 2013. The court restricted the territorial reach of human rights claims against transnational corporations by holding that the presumption against extra-territoriality applied to the Act. Thus Shell, the Dutch/British defendant, and the role it played in the brutal suppression by the Nigerian military of the Ogoni peoples' protest movement against the environmental devastation caused by oil exploration, lay outside the territorial scope of the Act. Legal accountability must lie in a State with a stronger connection with the dispute. While this article briefly engages with the Supreme Court decision, its main focus is on the attitude of Western governments to the corporate human rights litigation under the ATS as articulated in their amicus briefs. In these briefs they objected to the statute's excessive extraterritoriality and horizontal application of human rights to artificial non-State actors. In these two respects corporate ATS litigation created significant inroads into the conventional State-centric approach to human rights and thus provided an opportunity for more effective human rights enjoyment. This article tests the validity of the objections of Western governments to corporate human rights obligations under the ATS against the norms of public international law and against the substantive demands arising out of the shortfalls of the international human rights enforcement.

scholarly journals Litigation Dilemmas: Lessons From the Marcos Human Rights Class Action

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nate Ela
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Movement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Legal Mobilization ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Royal Dutch Shell ◽  
The Impact

How do activist plaintiffs experience the process of human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS)? Answering this question is key to understanding the impact on transnational legal mobilization of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell, in which the US Supreme Court sharply limited the scope of the ATS. Yet socio-legal scholars know remarkably little about the experiences of ATS litigants, before or after Kiobel. This article describes how activist litigants in a landmark ATS class action against former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos faced a series of strategic dilemmas, and how disagreements over how to resolve those dilemmas played into divisions between activists and organizations on the Philippine left. The article develops an analytical framework focused on litigation dilemmas, to explain how and why activists who pursue ATS litigation as an opportunity for legal mobilization may also encounter strategic dilemmas that contribute to dissension within a social movement.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Derrick M. Nault
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
South Africans ◽  
Us Congress ◽  
Nelson Mandela ◽  
The Us ◽  
Black South Africans ◽  
Democratic Constitution ◽  
White Minority

Shortly before the end of apartheid, Nelson Mandela, on 26 June, 1990, delivered an address before the US Congress in Washington, DC in which he discussed the aspirations of black South Africans. Seeking American support in ending white minority rule, he spoke of his movement’s struggle to ‘ensure that the rights of every individual’, regardless of ‘race, colour, creed or sex’, were protected under a new democratic constitution and bill of rights. ‘To deny people their human rights’, he asserted, ‘is to challenge their very humanity.’...

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document