Freedom of Speech V Protection of Reputation PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download Freedom of Speech V Protection of Reputation PDF full book. Access full book title Freedom of Speech V Protection of Reputation by Jideofor Adibe. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Jideofor Adibe
Publisher: Adonis & Abbey Publishers
ISBN: 9781906704322
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Get Book Here
Book Description
In this study, it is looked at how free speech interests are balanced against the need to protect reputation in American and English defamation laws. The premise of the study is that while freedom of the press is desirable and cherishable, it is important that the individual is recognized as the foundational block of human rights and the democratic process, who is entitled to his reputation as part of his human dignity. It means that cases in which the press uses public interest defence to attack reputations require close analyses to ensure that both the individual and the public good are equally protected. This study examined four cases in the U.S., New York Times v Sullivan, Curtis Publishing Co. v Butts -- Time Inc v Hill and Monitor Patriot v Roy. In the UK, the cases examined are Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspaper Ltd. and Others, Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd, and George Galloway v Telegraph Group Ltd.--[book cover].
Author: Jideofor Adibe
Publisher: Adonis & Abbey Publishers
ISBN: 9781906704322
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Get Book Here
Book Description
In this study, it is looked at how free speech interests are balanced against the need to protect reputation in American and English defamation laws. The premise of the study is that while freedom of the press is desirable and cherishable, it is important that the individual is recognized as the foundational block of human rights and the democratic process, who is entitled to his reputation as part of his human dignity. It means that cases in which the press uses public interest defence to attack reputations require close analyses to ensure that both the individual and the public good are equally protected. This study examined four cases in the U.S., New York Times v Sullivan, Curtis Publishing Co. v Butts -- Time Inc v Hill and Monitor Patriot v Roy. In the UK, the cases examined are Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspaper Ltd. and Others, Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd, and George Galloway v Telegraph Group Ltd.--[book cover].
Author: Bychawska-Siniarska, Dominika
Publisher: Council of Europe
ISBN:
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 124
Get Book Here
Book Description
European Convention on Human Rights – Article 10 – Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. In the context of an effective democracy and respect for human rights mentioned in the Preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of expression is not only important in its own right, but it also plays a central part in the protection of other rights under the Convention. Without a broad guarantee of the right to freedom of expression protected by independent and impartial courts, there is no free country, there is no democracy. This general proposition is undeniable. This handbook is a practical tool for legal professionals from Council of Europe member states who wish to strengthen their skills in applying the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in their daily work.
Author: Jideofor Adibe
Publisher: Adonis & Abbey Publishers Ltd
ISBN: 190911281X
Category : Reference
Languages : en
Pages : 109
Get Book Here
Book Description
Free speech is increasingly recognised as a universal human value, even though its application differs in different jurisdictions. Free speech is however never absolute, even in jurisdictions like the USA, where the First and Fourteenth Amendments give it special protection. The main reason why free speech cannot be absolute is because it competes with other equally important human values such as the right to privacy, reputation or to protect societies from potential harms from unrestrained hate or obscene speech. In this study we look at how free speech interests are balanced against the need to protect reputation in American and English defamation laws. We studied cases from both countries to see how this tension is resolved. We pay special attention to 'public interest' defence since the media often justifies its attack on reputation on 'public interest', even when it is substiuting its own interest for this 'public interest'. The premise of the study is that while freedom of the press is desirable and cherishable, it is important that the individual is recognised as the foundational block of human rights and the democratic process, who is entitled to his reputation as part of his human dignity. If the notion of human rights is necessarily anti-majoritarian in principle, it means that cases in which the press uses public interest defence to attack reputations require close analyses to ensure that both the individual and the public good are equally protected. We examined four cases in the US - New York Times v Sullivan (involving a public official), Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (involving a public figure), Time Inc v Hill (involving a private individual who was transformed into a public figure against his will), and Monitor Patriot v Roy (involving a candidate for a political office). In the UK we examined Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd. and Others (involving a local authority, which sued for libel), Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd (involving a politician), and George Galloway v Telegraph Group Ltd (involving a controversial politician who was famous for opposing the Iraq war and the UN's sanctions against the country - both supported by the defendant newspaper). In all these cases, 'public interest' figured prominently as one of the defences by the accused media house. But what is the notion of 'public interest' espoused in the these cases? And does it sufficiently protect both the public good and the individual?
Author: Dario Milo
Publisher:
ISBN: 9780191709449
Category : Freedom of speech
Languages : en
Pages : 338
Get Book Here
Book Description
This text examines the law of defamation, and argues that it must be reformed in a number of ways in order to balance two important constitutional rights, the right to reputation and the right to freedom of expression.
Author: Mariëtte Jones
Publisher:
ISBN: 9781032542638
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Get Book Here
Book Description
"In an effort to balance the protection of reputation and the right to free speech, the UK Parliament attempted to fundamentally transform English libel law through the Defamation Act 2013. This book evaluates the success of this attempt by means of a comparative analysis of relevant law in the United States of America (US), Germany and the European Court of Human Rights. It examines the reasons why it was deemed necessary to reform the common law of defamation in England and Wales, the changes wrought by the act, and the case law it has engendered. As defamation often occurs internationally, the book also takes a broad comparative look at the way in which other relevant jurisdictions attempt to balance reputational protection and free speech. The natural starting point is the US where freedom of expression is strongly protected by the US Constitution. From there the focus shifts to Germany where both competing legal interests are likewise given constitutional protection. The European Court of Human Rights' jurisprudence is also examined because of its highly developed balancing approach and its general reflection of European legal thinking. Recent high-profile defamation cases such as those concerning the actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, decided in the UK as well as the US, form interesting and informative case studies. The final section of the work rates the libel reform attempted in the UK against its own benchmarks, provides suggestions about the way in which it is developing, and concludes that valuable lessons can still be learnt from the comparator jurisdictions. The book will be essential reading for those working in the areas of Human Rights Law and Media Law"--
Author: Valerie C. Brannon
Publisher: Independently Published
ISBN: 9781092635158
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 50
Get Book Here
Book Description
As the Supreme Court has recognized, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have become important venues for users to exercise free speech rights protected under the First Amendment. Commentators and legislators, however, have questioned whether these social media platforms are living up to their reputation as digital public forums. Some have expressed concern that these sites are not doing enough to counter violent or false speech. At the same time, many argue that the platforms are unfairly banning and restricting access to potentially valuable speech. Currently, federal law does not offer much recourse for social media users who seek to challenge a social media provider's decision about whether and how to present a user's content. Lawsuits predicated on these sites' decisions to host or remove content have been largely unsuccessful, facing at least two significant barriers under existing federal law. First, while individuals have sometimes alleged that these companies violated their free speech rights by discriminating against users' content, courts have held that the First Amendment, which provides protection against state action, is not implicated by the actions of these private companies. Second, courts have concluded that many non-constitutional claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, which provides immunity to providers of interactive computer services, including social media providers, both for certain decisions to host content created by others and for actions taken "voluntarily" and "in good faith" to restrict access to "objectionable" material. Some have argued that Congress should step in to regulate social media sites. Government action regulating internet content would constitute state action that may implicate the First Amendment. In particular, social media providers may argue that government regulations impermissibly infringe on the providers' own constitutional free speech rights. Legal commentators have argued that when social media platforms decide whether and how to post users' content, these publication decisions are themselves protected under the First Amendment. There are few court decisions evaluating whether a social media site, by virtue of publishing, organizing, or even editing protected speech, is itself exercising free speech rights. Consequently, commentators have largely analyzed the question of whether the First Amendment protects a social media site's publication decisions by analogy to other types of First Amendment cases. There are at least three possible frameworks for analyzing governmental restrictions on social media sites' ability to moderate user content. Which of these three frameworks applies will depend largely on the particular action being regulated. Under existing law, social media platforms may be more likely to receive First Amendment protection when they exercise more editorial discretion in presenting user-generated content, rather than if they neutrally transmit all such content. In addition, certain types of speech receive less protection under the First Amendment. Courts may be more likely to uphold regulations targeting certain disfavored categories of speech such as obscenity or speech inciting violence. Finally, if a law targets a social media site's conduct rather than speech, it may not trigger the protections of the First Amendment at all.
Author: Jason Porterfield
Publisher: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc
ISBN: 1448883768
Category : Juvenile Nonfiction
Languages : en
Pages : 50
Get Book Here
Book Description
Digital communicationparticularly via social networking siteshas quickly become a dominant form of interaction in our society and worldwide. The instantaneous convenience of conversation and dialog with friends down the street or strangers halfway across the globe is a wondrous technological development and one with enormous potential for relationship-strengthening, idea-sharing, and community-building. Yet the anonymity of digital communication and self-expression also provides some users with a false sense of impunity. They feel encouraged to say things they wouldn't say in a face-to-face encounter. Some of these posts can be bullying; some can involve hate speech or defamation. Readers will walk the line that separates harsh but legitimate criticism, which is protected by free speech provisions of the Constitution, from defamation and other illegal forms of expression. They also wade into these troubled waters, sort through the major legal precedents, and are provided with some invaluable guidelines to follow when expressing themselves or communicating with others via the Internet.
Author: Dario Milo
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
ISBN:
Category : Language Arts & Disciplines
Languages : en
Pages : 394
Get Book Here
Book Description
The book examines the law of defamation, and argues that it must be reformed in a number of ways in order to balance two important constitutional rights, the right to reputation and the right to freedom of expression. The book analyses how far the media and others should be entitled to go in reporting on important matters of public interest in society, such as corruption and misconduct in public office. It also examines where the line should be drawn between a public figure's public and private life.
Author: Council of Europe
Publisher:
ISBN: 9789287182500
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 70
Get Book Here
Book Description
Freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom, one of the cornerstones of democracy in Europe, enshrined in various key texts, including the European Convention on Human Rights. But the boundaries between freedom to criticise and damaging a person's honour or reputation are not always very clear. By defining public insults and defamation, the law can set limits on freedom of expression, which is neither absolute nor boundless. But how far can it go? This study examines the details of the European Court of Human Right's case law on defamation. It explores a range of substantive and procedural issues that the Court has considered, and clarifies the concept of defamation, positioning it in relation to freedom of expression and public debate. It explains how overly protective defamation laws can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and public debate, and discusses the proportionality of defamation laws and their application.
Author: Jonathan Griffiths
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
ISBN:
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 488
Get Book Here
Book Description
Written by a team of leading scholars and practitioners, this book analyzes the potential for interaction and conflict between copyright and free speech. Recent examples include the series of First Amendment challenges that have been brought against the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Ashdown v. Telegraph Group in the UK. The analysis draws upon a wide variety of viewpoints and jurisdictions to provide a sustained study of the subject suitable for use by both practitioners and academics.
