Open Meeting Statutes: The Press Fights for the "Right to Know"

1962 ◽  
Vol 75 (6) ◽  
pp. 1199 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
Iman Mohamed Zahra ◽  
Hosni Mohamed Nasr

'The right to know' represents a fundamental and vital human right. Progress and development of nations fully require information freedom and knowledge sharing. Using a qualitative analysis of a sample of information and press laws in most of Arab states, this paper aims at discussing 'the right to know' from different perspectives while highlighting the surrounding aspects and their consequences on the right of freedom of expression in those states. The paper also tends to clarify the effects of new media on the vision and practices of governments regarding 'the right to know' and the freedom of the press in the digital age. Moreover, the paper analyzes the different types of censorship the Arab states use to control the new media. Findings shed light on different aspect of 'the right to know' within the different challenges of the digital age and clarify the strong bondage of this right with the other human rights, especially freedom of expression and freedom of the press.


Author(s):  
Himanshu Jha

This chapter traces the trajectory of ideas that emanated from the judiciary since the early 1950s. The ideational movement within the judiciary coincides with the first two phases. This chapter discusses significant judicial cases in which the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India as inherently containing the right to know. Initially ideas on openness from the judiciary emerged in a nascent form where the judicial verdicts established the linkage between the freedom of press and the importance of information flow and dissemination in a democracy. Later, the judiciary moved beyond the specifics of the press freedom and examined the question of openness in government affairs, challenging the nested norm of secrecy. This interpretation provides the link to the long-drawn process of emerging ideas on openness emanating from within the state.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 470-487
Author(s):  
Oyakemeagbegha Musah

The people’s right to know is a cardinal feature of democratic governance. In the judiciary, the right to know presupposes an open justice system where judges are expected to adjudicate without concealments. As authentic information purveyors in society, the press and the judiciary need collaboration to achieve openness in justice administration and satisfaction of the people’s right to know.Consequently, this paper explores the relationship between Nigerian judges and journalists vis a vis Nigeria’s Chief Judge’s recent directive to the bench to apply “contempt proceedings” in members’ interactions with “wanting” journalists, and the people’s right to know. The paper assessed judges’ professed preconditions for journalists’ presence in court and practical experiences of journalists in Nigerian courts. It identifies a depreciation of values in justice administration behind this morally repulsive relationship between the bench and the press and calls for urgent redress. Keywords: Journalism practice, Prejudice, Contempt of court, Justice administration, Judiciary


2000 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel S. Epstein

An interlocking legislative complex is proposed for the control of carcinogenic and other adverse impacts of established run-away petrochemical and radionuclear technologies, with particular reference to winning the losing war against cancer. These proposals are also applicable to the poorly recognized, potentially adverse public health and environmental hazards of emerging technologies, particularly genetically engineered food production. The proposals embody fundamental democratic rights—the right to know and balanced and transparent decision making—the “Precautionary Principle,” reduction in the use of toxics, incentives for the development of safe industrial technologies, and criminal sanctions for suppression or manipulation of information.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Simas ◽  
D Braga ◽  
A Setti ◽  
R Melamed ◽  
A Iaconell ◽  
...  

Abstract Study question Do couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatments (ART) have a different perception of anonymous vs identity-release gamete donation than a population interested in the subject? Summary answer Compared with a population interested in the subject, more couples undergoing ART believed the child shouldn’t be given information that would identify the gamete-donor. What is known already Recent research has investigated the psychological well-being of parents and children born through gamete donation, focusing on the possibility of having the donor’s identity revealed. Gamete donors have traditionally been anonymous to recipients and offspring; however, there is a global trend towards programs using donors that are identifiable to the resulting offspring at maturity. While some countries only allow the use of identity-release egg donation, others only allow anonymous-donation, and in some countries both types of donation are practiced. However, the attitudes concerning anonymous vs identity-release gamete donation, in a country where only anonymous donation is allowed, are still unknown. Study design, size, duration This cross-sectional study was performed from 01/Sep/2020 to 15/Dec/2020. For that, surveys through online-platforms were conducted, including either patients undergoing ART, (ART-group, n = 358) or those interested in the subject, who accessed the website of a university-affiliated IVF-center (interested-group, n = 122). Participants in the ART-group were invited via e-mail, with a cover-letter outlining the survey and a link to access it and participants in the interested-group accessed the questionnaire via website. Participants/materials, setting, methods The survey collected information on demographic characteristics and the participant’s attitudes towards anonymity of gamete donors. The questions were: (i) In the case of children conceived through ART, do you believe that revealing the method of conception may affect the relationship between children and their parents? (ii) Once the method of conception is revealed, do you believe that the child has the right to know the gamete donor? (iii) If yes, when? Main results and the role of chance Most of the participants answered that the relationship between children and parents wouldn’t be affected by the child’s knowledge of the origin of their conception, regardless of the group (83.6% vs 82.7%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively, p = 0.868). Most participants in the ART-group answered that the sperm donor identity shouldn’t be revealed to the child, while only half of the interested-group stated the same (65.4% vs 50.8%, p = 0.044). The same result was observed when participants were asked if the oocyte donor should be identifiable (64.8% vs 50.8%, p = 0.050). When asked when the donor’s identity should be revealed to the child, no significant differences were noted in the responses among the groups (p = 0.868). Most of the participants who believe that the child has the right of learning the donor’s identity, stated that “the donor’s identity should be revealed if the child questions its biological origin” (67.2% vs 67.5%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively). “Since birth” was the second most common response, (21.0% vs 19.7%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively), while “when the child turns 18 years-old” (9.2% vs 11.2%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively), and “sometime during teenage years” (2.5% vs 2.4%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively) were less common answers. Limitations, reasons for caution Lack of adequate opportunities to conduct face to face interview and lack of knowledge of the real state of the website participants, concerning infertility or being involved in ART. The retrospective nature of the study and the small sample size may also be reasons for caution, Wider implications of the findings: It has been discussed that, whether or not children or parents are harmed by knowing their biological origins, donor offspring have the right to know. However, when facing the situation, couples undergoing ART would argue that in case of gamete donation, there are reasons for not telling the child. Trial registration number Not applicable


1926 ◽  
Vol 104 (23) ◽  
pp. 595-596
Author(s):  
A. W. Burr

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document