{"title":"私隐及言论","authors":"Ioanna Tourkochoriti","doi":"10.4324/9781315254999-25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter discusses the concept of privacy and case law which shows the different approaches between Europe and the US concerning the balancing of freedom of speech when it conflicts with other rights. Judges and scholars also refer to the concept of human dignity in this area. The concept of dignity can serve in the US in order to limit freedom of expression, whereas it serves in Europe as a foundation of the need to limit freedom of expression. The requirement for government transparency creates a presumption in favour of protecting expression. The extended interpretation of ‘privacy’ in the law of many European states means depriving the public debate from information that would be crucial to a well-informed electorate. The chapter then looks at the intermediate concepts that judges have come up with in order to balance the exercise of rights in conflict. Those criteria concern the periphery of the activities that are to be protected by the right to privacy. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the right to be forgotten.","PeriodicalId":348867,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Privacy and Speech\",\"authors\":\"Ioanna Tourkochoriti\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781315254999-25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter discusses the concept of privacy and case law which shows the different approaches between Europe and the US concerning the balancing of freedom of speech when it conflicts with other rights. Judges and scholars also refer to the concept of human dignity in this area. The concept of dignity can serve in the US in order to limit freedom of expression, whereas it serves in Europe as a foundation of the need to limit freedom of expression. The requirement for government transparency creates a presumption in favour of protecting expression. The extended interpretation of ‘privacy’ in the law of many European states means depriving the public debate from information that would be crucial to a well-informed electorate. The chapter then looks at the intermediate concepts that judges have come up with in order to balance the exercise of rights in conflict. Those criteria concern the periphery of the activities that are to be protected by the right to privacy. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the right to be forgotten.\",\"PeriodicalId\":348867,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315254999-25\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315254999-25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter discusses the concept of privacy and case law which shows the different approaches between Europe and the US concerning the balancing of freedom of speech when it conflicts with other rights. Judges and scholars also refer to the concept of human dignity in this area. The concept of dignity can serve in the US in order to limit freedom of expression, whereas it serves in Europe as a foundation of the need to limit freedom of expression. The requirement for government transparency creates a presumption in favour of protecting expression. The extended interpretation of ‘privacy’ in the law of many European states means depriving the public debate from information that would be crucial to a well-informed electorate. The chapter then looks at the intermediate concepts that judges have come up with in order to balance the exercise of rights in conflict. Those criteria concern the periphery of the activities that are to be protected by the right to privacy. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the right to be forgotten.