scholarly journals Our Right to Share, Their Right to Know: An Analysis of Public Interest Defense to Defamation

Lentera Hukum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 241
Author(s):  
Kezia Ezekiel
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Doctor Who ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Public ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Internet Users ◽  
Defamation Law

The defamation reports have increased and shifted under online-based technology through social media. This study considered the defamation issue in Indonesia that alleged Richard Lee, a doctor who shared a beneficial publication through social media about the dangerous skincare product. Richard's audience believed that his content helped them know the hidden truth behind skincare products available in the market. Consequently, the public questioned whether he was liable because he was regarded to share helpful information under the public interest. This study aimed to analyze Indonesia’s defamation laws, especially in public interest defense under Article 310(3) of the Indonesian Criminal Code. However, the interpretation for public interest as a crime abolition is unclear, resulting in various courts' decisions that lead to criminalizing internet users. This study used legal research with statutory and comparative approaches. It examined legal norms and practices in Indonesia and compared those in the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand. These three countries adapted defamation law to develop cases, including those alleged defamations for the public interest. While the freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitution, its practice has contradicted defamation provisions outlined in derivative regulations. By comparison, these three countries have precise boundaries and public interest defense is explicit. Those countries have specific rules and lists that needed to be fulfilled for those who use public interest defense. The lists based on previous precedents show how they learn and adapt to the development of public interest defense in many cases. This study concluded that Indonesia does not have specific standards or rules to determine cases categorized as the public interest. KEYWORDS: Public Interest Defense, Online Defamation, Freedom of Expression.

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 Charlie Hebdo: Testing the Limits of Freedom of Expression

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Niaz A. Shah
Keyword(s):  
Public Space ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Muslim Community ◽  
The Public ◽  
Shared Space ◽  
The Right ◽  
Charlie Hebdo

AbstractThe right to freedom of expression is a qualified right: it allows expression that might ‘offend, shock or disturb’ but prohibits ‘insults’, ‘abusive attacks’ and ‘hate speech’. Applying the Convention test I argue that all cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, which although might offend Muslims, are an acceptable form of expression in Western democracies except cartoon number two implying the Prophet Muhammad as a ‘terrorist’ which is ‘insulting’ and ‘an abusive attack’ on the Muslim community and Islam. In the post-9/11 circumstances, it may be viewed as a vehicle for instigating hatred against the Muslim community. By critiquing the inaction of Denmark and France, I argue that failure to prosecute Jyllands-Posten and Charlie Hebdo violates Articles 9(1) of the European Convention and the Danish Criminal Code and the French Freedom of Press Act 1881. Relying on ECtHR’s jurisprudence, I argue that the values of the Convention and democracy aim to nurture a society based on tolerance, social peace, non-discrimination and broad-mindedness. The public space is a shared space and no single group – religious and non-religious – can monopolise nor intimidate it.

The Emerging Field of Internet Governance

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura DeNardis
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
Internet Governance ◽  
The Public ◽  
The World ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Policy Arenas

This chapter demonstrates the significance of the emerging field of Internet governance, highlighting issues over standards, names and numbers, and net neutrality, which are unfolding in a variety of contexts around the world, including the Internet Governance Forum. It describes how technology could bias outcomes across policy arenas, such as privacy or freedom of expression. Internet governance generally refers to policy and technical coordination issues related to the exchange of information over the Internet. Governance has had immediate implications for freedom of expression online. Despite the significant public interest implications, Internet governance is largely hidden from public view. A crucial role of Internet governance research is to evaluate the implications of the tension between forces of openness and forces of enclosure, examine the implications of the privatisation of governance, and bring to public light the key issues at stake at the intersection of technical expediency and the public interest.

Paradox of Globalization: New Arab Publics? New Social Contract?

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 114-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leila DeVriese
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
Information And Communication Technologies ◽  
Arab Spring ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Contentious Politics ◽  
Political Strategy ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Arab Spring

AbstractBecause social media is playing an irrefutable role in the Arab Spring uprisings the central question in this article is to what extent Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in general, and social media in specific, are contributing to the democratization of the public sphere and shifting the monopoly on agenda setting in the Arab Gulf, particularly in the case of Bahrain? How will these technologies continue to shape contentious politics in the Middle East and will their utility for democratizing and expanding the public sphere persist in the aftermath of the Arab Spring? Or will the increasing liberalization of media and freedom of expression that had preceded the Arab Spring experience a repressive backlash as authoritarian states attempt to clamp down on social and traditional media—or even harness them for their own purposes as seen by Facebook intimidation campaigns against activists in Bahrain last Spring. Finally—using the lens of social movement theory—what repertoires of contention and political opportunity structures will pro-democracy activists use to keep their campaigns alive? Activists in the Gulf have not only incorporated the ICTs into their repertoire, but have also changed substantially what counts as activism, what counts as community, collective identity, democratic space, public sphere, and political strategy. Ironically this new technology has succeeded in reviving and expanding the practice of discursive dialog that had once characterized traditional tribal politics in the Arabian Peninsula.

scholarly journals NBOMe Compounds: Systematic Review and Data Crunching of the Surface Web

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Al-Imam ◽  
Ban A. AbdulMajeed
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Warning System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Statistical Information ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Past ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Surface Web ◽  
India And China

BACKGROUND: NBOMe compounds, some of which commercially known as “N-Bomb” or “Smiles” signifying their potency, represent a uniquely potent group of phenethylamine derivatives. These have been recently used in the past decade for their powerful hallucinogenic properties to induce a “psychedelic trip”.METHODS: This study is an analytics of the surface web incorporating data from; the published literature, grey literature, drug fora, and trends’ databases. The study aims to review the pharmacodynamic effects of three most popular N-Bombs (25b, 25c, and 25i), analyse reported cases of intoxications and fatalities, and correlate these incidents with data retrieved from Google Trends.RESULTS: The potency and popularity of NBOMe compounds are tallied worldwide, 25b-NBOMe (least potent and least popular), 25i-NBOMe (most potent and most popular), while the 25c-NBOMe is in the middle. The popularity of each has been on the rise since 2011-2012, these compounds are most popular in the United States and the United Kingdom, while data from the developing world and the densely-populated India and China are either lacking or inadequate. The reported cases of intoxications and deaths were statistically proven to be correlated with the trends’ dataCONCLUSION: Inferential statistical information has associated cases of NBOMe(s)’ morbidities-mortalities with the public interest of surface web users in these hallucinogens. This study can serve a blueprint for an early warning system to be activated based on changes in trends’ data.

scholarly journals FEATURES OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL IN CRIMINAL LAW OF UKRAINE

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-120
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Tsyvinskyi ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Code ◽  
Regulatory Function ◽  
Public Official ◽  
Self Administration ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Regulatory Functions

Introduction. In spite of definitude of the concept of public official directly in Criminal Code of Ukraine, its definition makes many difficulties. As the result there is an absence of the only approach concerning interpretation of context and amount of the concept in theory as well as ambiguous applying of relevant criminal and legal norms in enforcement practice. Purpose. The purpose of the article is to find out the subject matter of public official, as well as preparation of improvement of definition of the public official notion in criminal legislation. Results. Persons, that implement functions of a representative of authority or local self-administration, should also be referred as persons empowering the rights from state and its bodies; municipalities, bodies of local self-government make demands and solve problems, which are necessary for implementation by external respondents (entities, that are not subordinate by position and legal entities) and also implement from state, its bodies, bodies of local self-government enforcement measures in case of violations of legal norms. Organizational and regulatory functions should be exclusively considered as functions of administration working with employees that are implemented by person’s availability to make orders, instructions, commands, take encouragement and penalty measures referring to them. Administrative and economic functions should be perceived as functions of administration or disposal of other people’s property. Conclusion. Based on the research the author suggests to apply the defined term of public official instead of terms "an individual fulfilling functions of representative of authority or local self-government" "organizational and regulatory function" and "administrative and economic functions", terms "an individual empowered fulfilling state functions or local self-government", "functions concerning administration of work with employees" and "functions of administration and disposal of other people’s property" accordingly.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document