scholarly journals Conflicts between the Public Broadcaster's Freedom of Expression and the Freedom of Information Act - With Special Reference to the Case of KBS In-Depth 60 Minutes -

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-306
Author(s):  
LeeInHo
Keyword(s):  
Special Reference ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The Public

scholarly journals Copyright Policymaking as Procedural Democratic Process: A Discourse Theoretic Perspective on ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarie Bridy
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The Public ◽  
Law Faculty ◽  
College Of Law ◽  
Security Information ◽  
University Of Idaho

In Bring in the Nerds: Secrecy, National Security, and the Creation of Intellectual Property Law, David Levine juxtaposes two starkly different copyright policymaking processes: the closed international process that produced the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the relatively open domestic process that led quite dramatically to the scuttling of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). He reads the two processes against each other as a prelude to recommending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reform. The amendment to FOIA that Professor Levine proposes would open the international IP policymaking process to greater public scrutiny by creating a qualified public right to "foreign relations" national security information, which was systematically withheld from the public during the ACTA negotiations. This article, prepared for the Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal's 2012 Symposium, "Piracy and the Politics of Policing: Legislating and Enforcing Copyright Law," is a response to Professor Levine that draws on Jürgen Habermas' discourse theory of procedural democracy to examine the policymaking dynamics of ACTA and SOPA/PIPA and to assess the democracy-enhancing potential of the FOIA reform Professor Levine proposes.Annemarie BridyProfessor<http://www.uidaho.edu/law/faculty/annemariebridy>|University of Idaho College of Law|PO Box 83720-0051|Boise, ID 83720|Ph. 208.364.4583Affiliate Scholar<https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/people/annemarie-bridy>|Stanford Center for Internet and SocietyAffiliate Fellow<http://isp.yale.edu/people-directory?type=19>|Yale Information Society ProjectSSRN<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=630766>|HeinOnline<http://heinonline.org/HOL/AuthorProfile?collection=journals&search_name=Bridy,%20Annemarie&base=js>|LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/annemariebridy>|Twitter<https://twitter.com/AnnemarieBridy>

scholarly journals Access to Information Held by Public Authorities

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Record Management ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Definition Of Information ◽  
The Right

Chapter 4 considers the administrative structure created by the Freedom of Information Act 2000; the right to information itself; the public authorities that are subject to the right; and the way in which requests for information should be handled. The chapter addresses the form of the request; the definition of ‘information’; the problems that tribunals have had in deciding whether information is held by a public authority; time limits; the transfer of requests from one authority to another; the duty to provide advice and assistance; fees and costs; vexatious and repeated requests; and the notice which has to be given when a request is refused. The chapter then considers the automatic disclosure of information through publication schemes, the need for consultation with third parties, and record management.

Secrecy

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
National Interest ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

This chapter concerns the statutory prohibitions on unauthorized disclosures of information contained in the Official Secrets Act 1989, and their interrelationship with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It identifies the categories of information protected by, and the persons subject to, the 1989 Act. The elements of the various offences created by that Act are discussed, in particular the requirements for disclosures to be made without lawful authority and to be damaging to a specified national interest. The chapter examines the question of compatibility between the 1989 Act and the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, focusing on the House of Lords’ decision in the case of David Shayler. It concludes by considering which of the exemptions from the right of access under the 2000 Act may apply to information within the scope of the 1989 Act.

WARNER MUSIC UK LTD v TUNEIN INC

2019 ◽  
Vol 136 (12) ◽  
pp. 777-833
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Communication To The Public ◽  
Sound Recordings ◽  
The Public ◽  
Internet Radio ◽  
New Public ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Safe Harbours

Abstract H1 Copyright – Infringement – Sound recordings – Internet radio services – Hyperlinks – Targeting – Communication to the public – Whether communication to the public in the UK – Consent – Whether the UK public was a new public – Freedom of information – Freedom of expression – Availability of a recording facility – Liability of users – Time shifting – Liability of station providers – Authorisation – Safe harbours

Expanding Privacy Rationales under the Federal Freedom of Information Act

2011 ◽  
pp. 42-56
Author(s):  
Charles N. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Information Flow ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Government Information ◽  
Privacy Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Government ◽  
Post September 11 ◽  
The One

Access to government information in a post-September 11 often involves the resolution of conflicts between privacy rights and the public interest inherent in information flow. On the one hand, information about any individual investigated by the government, or merely landing in an investigative file, might very well invade the privacy of the detainees by unduly stigmatizing them. In fact, such reasoning reflects a line of argumentation central to the federal government’s justification for denial of access: privacy interests, particularly the risk of stigmatization. This chapter reviews the origins and expansion of stigmatization as grounds for protection of information under the FOIA. Examination of several key post-Reporters Committee cases decided by the federal courts illustrates the scope of the problem, as stigmatization has gained a great deal of legal traction in recent years.

8. Public Interest Immunity and Related Matters

2021 ◽  
pp. 190-203
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Proper Functioning ◽  
The Law

Chapter 8 examines the doctrine of public interest immunity. It discusses the development of the law; ‘class’ claims and ‘contents’ claims; national security and analogous concerns; proper functioning of the public service; the two main contexts in which public interest immunity disputes in criminal cases have arisen—the disclosure of the identity of police informers, and the disclosure of the location of police observation points; how the doctrine of public interest immunity stands alongside, and probably overlaps with, the operations of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which governs the disclosure of sources of information contained in publications.

8. Public Interest Immunity and Related Matters

Evidence ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Proper Functioning ◽  
The Law

Chapter 8 examines the doctrine of public interest immunity. It discusses the development of the law; ‘class’ claims and ‘contents’ claims; national security and analogous concerns; proper functioning of the public service; the two main contexts in which public interest immunity disputes in criminal cases have arisen—the disclosure of the identity of police informers, and the disclosure of the location of police observation points; how the doctrine of public interest immunity stands alongside, and probably overlaps with, the operations of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which governs the disclosure of sources of information contained in publications.

7. Freedom of Expression (Article 10) I: Official Secrets and Freedom of Information

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Costigan ◽  
Richard Stone
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Law

Course-focused and comprehensive, the Textbook on series provide an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. This chapter discusses the law governing official secrets and freedom of information. It covers arguments for the protection of freedom of expression; arguments for and against official secrecy; official secrecy under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998); the Official Secrets Acts 1911–1920; the Official Secrets Act 1989; the action for breach of confidence; breach of confidence under HRA 1998; and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document