Zakaz cenzury prewencyjnej w świetle zasady wolności słowa

L. Jaworski
{"title":"Zakaz cenzury prewencyjnej w świetle zasady wolności słowa","authors":"L. Jaworski","doi":"10.15804/tpn2014.1.09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Censorship is a special case of media control. In the authoritarian system it is preventive censorship as well as press licensing that constitute a characteristic symptom of this control. In law, the notion of censorship has not been defined: therefore one has to refer to doctrines and jurisdiction. In the Polish law, a clear ban on preventive censorship, understood as making publishing or broadcasting a certain message dependent on the prior consent of a public authority, was included in Article 54 Section 2 of the Constitution. This regulation constitutes, in the area that it regulates, a development and confirmation of the freedom of the press and other media rule expressed in Article 14 of the Constitution. Additional provisions of the press’s freedom of speech in the context discussed here are formulated in Article 3 of the Press Law. Although it does not refer directly to preventive censorship, the ban it expresses is supposed to prevent the actual infringement on the freedom of the press by preventing its print and distribution. As for the issues discussed here, what may be controversial is the approach limiting the introduction of preventive censorship only to public administration institutions. The Constitutional Tribunal in its verdict from 20 July 2011, referring to the use of publication ban within proceedings to secure claims in claims against mass media concerning the protection of personal rights (Article 755 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure) stated that the judicial power is not the administrative power. Therefore, the courts’ activity cannot be considered as using censorship, but rather as monitoring the law being obeyed in the preventive meaning. And as for the regulations included in the European Convention on Human Rights, its Article 10 (as well as its other regulations) does not directly refer to the issue of controlling or obstructing publications, especially press releases. This question, however, has been the subject of many rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.","PeriodicalId":413483,"journal":{"name":"Themis Polska Nova","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Themis Polska Nova","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15804/tpn2014.1.09","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Censorship is a special case of media control. In the authoritarian system it is preventive censorship as well as press licensing that constitute a characteristic symptom of this control. In law, the notion of censorship has not been defined: therefore one has to refer to doctrines and jurisdiction. In the Polish law, a clear ban on preventive censorship, understood as making publishing or broadcasting a certain message dependent on the prior consent of a public authority, was included in Article 54 Section 2 of the Constitution. This regulation constitutes, in the area that it regulates, a development and confirmation of the freedom of the press and other media rule expressed in Article 14 of the Constitution. Additional provisions of the press’s freedom of speech in the context discussed here are formulated in Article 3 of the Press Law. Although it does not refer directly to preventive censorship, the ban it expresses is supposed to prevent the actual infringement on the freedom of the press by preventing its print and distribution. As for the issues discussed here, what may be controversial is the approach limiting the introduction of preventive censorship only to public administration institutions. The Constitutional Tribunal in its verdict from 20 July 2011, referring to the use of publication ban within proceedings to secure claims in claims against mass media concerning the protection of personal rights (Article 755 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure) stated that the judicial power is not the administrative power. Therefore, the courts’ activity cannot be considered as using censorship, but rather as monitoring the law being obeyed in the preventive meaning. And as for the regulations included in the European Convention on Human Rights, its Article 10 (as well as its other regulations) does not directly refer to the issue of controlling or obstructing publications, especially press releases. This question, however, has been the subject of many rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.
审查制度是媒体控制的一种特殊情况。在威权体制中,预防性审查和新闻许可构成了这种控制的特征症状。在法律上,审查的概念还没有定义:因此,人们必须参考理论和管辖权。在波兰法律中,《宪法》第54条第2款明确禁止预防性审查,即规定出版或广播某种信息必须事先得到公共当局的同意。这项条例在其所管制的领域内,是对《宪法》第14条所表达的新闻自由和其他媒介规则的发展和确认。《新闻法》第3条对这里讨论的新闻言论自由作出了补充规定。虽然它没有直接提到预防性审查,但它所表达的禁令应该通过阻止其印刷和发行来防止对新闻自由的实际侵犯。至于这里讨论的问题,可能引起争议的是将预防性审查的引入仅限于公共行政机构的做法。宪法法庭在2011年7月20日的判决书中提到在诉讼中使用出版禁令,以确保对大众媒体提出的关于保护个人权利的索赔(《民事诉讼法》第755条第2款),指出司法权不是行政权。因此,法院的活动不能被视为使用审查制度,而是在预防意义上监督法律的遵守。至于《欧洲人权公约》所载的条例,其第10条(以及其他条例)并没有直接涉及控制或阻碍出版物,特别是新闻发布的问题。然而,这个问题一直是欧洲人权法院许多裁决的主题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信