Raab的权利法案以及试图在法律上重新平衡《欧洲人权公约》第8条和第10条所固有的挑战

Q2 Social Sciences

Journal of Media Law Pub Date : 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1080/17577632.2023.2213914

H. Fenwick

{"title":"Raab的权利法案以及试图在法律上重新平衡《欧洲人权公约》第8条和第10条所固有的挑战","authors":"H. Fenwick","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2023.2213914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article explores the right-wing tendency to parade the creation of greater protection for free speech as a key basis for revision or repeal of the Human Rights Act. To illustrate that point it takes as a case study the potential change to the balance to be struck between Articles 10 and 8 under the proposed Bill of Rights in the context of the tort of misuse of private information. Given the apparently flagship nature of the provisions aimed at such a re-balancing, and the support it enjoys in particular newspapers, it appears probable that they will re-emerge in some form. The notion that judges have disregarded media freedom and usurped the function of Parliament in creating a European-style privacy law appears to be embedded in right-wing thinking and is therefore unlikely to be discarded. It is a trend that will probably continue, whatever the fate of this particular instrument.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Raab’s bill of rights and the challenges inherent in attempting a statutory re-balancing of articles 8 and 10 ECHR\",\"authors\":\"H. Fenwick\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17577632.2023.2213914\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article explores the right-wing tendency to parade the creation of greater protection for free speech as a key basis for revision or repeal of the Human Rights Act. To illustrate that point it takes as a case study the potential change to the balance to be struck between Articles 10 and 8 under the proposed Bill of Rights in the context of the tort of misuse of private information. Given the apparently flagship nature of the provisions aimed at such a re-balancing, and the support it enjoys in particular newspapers, it appears probable that they will re-emerge in some form. The notion that judges have disregarded media freedom and usurped the function of Parliament in creating a European-style privacy law appears to be embedded in right-wing thinking and is therefore unlikely to be discarded. It is a trend that will probably continue, whatever the fate of this particular instrument.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37779,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Media Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Media Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2023.2213914\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Media Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2023.2213914","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文探讨了右翼倾向于将创造更大的言论自由保护作为修改或废除《人权法》的关键基础。为了说明这一点，本文以一个案例研究为例，研究在滥用私人信息侵权的背景下，拟议的《权利法案》第10条和第8条之间的平衡可能发生的变化。考虑到旨在实现这种再平衡的条款明显具有旗舰性质，以及它在某些报纸上得到的支持，它们似乎很可能会以某种形式再次出现。法官无视媒体自由，在制定欧洲式隐私法的过程中篡夺了议会的职能，这种观念似乎根植于右翼思想，因此不太可能被抛弃。无论这一特殊工具的命运如何，这一趋势很可能会持续下去。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Raab’s bill of rights and the challenges inherent in attempting a statutory re-balancing of articles 8 and 10 ECHR

ABSTRACT This article explores the right-wing tendency to parade the creation of greater protection for free speech as a key basis for revision or repeal of the Human Rights Act. To illustrate that point it takes as a case study the potential change to the balance to be struck between Articles 10 and 8 under the proposed Bill of Rights in the context of the tort of misuse of private information. Given the apparently flagship nature of the provisions aimed at such a re-balancing, and the support it enjoys in particular newspapers, it appears probable that they will re-emerge in some form. The notion that judges have disregarded media freedom and usurped the function of Parliament in creating a European-style privacy law appears to be embedded in right-wing thinking and is therefore unlikely to be discarded. It is a trend that will probably continue, whatever the fate of this particular instrument.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Media Law Social Sciences-Law

CiteScore

0.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The only platform for focused, rigorous analysis of global developments in media law, this peer-reviewed journal, launched in Summer 2009, is: essential for teaching and research, essential for practice, essential for policy-making. It turns the spotlight on all those aspects of law which impinge on and shape modern media practices - from regulation and ownership, to libel law and constitutional aspects of broadcasting such as free speech and privacy, obscenity laws, copyright, piracy, and other aspects of IT law. The result is the first journal to take a serious view of law through the lens. The first issues feature articles on a wide range of topics such as: Developments in Defamation · Balancing Freedom of Expression and Privacy in the European Court of Human Rights · The Future of Public Television · Cameras in the Courtroom - Media Access to Classified Documents · Advertising Revenue v Editorial Independence · Gordon Ramsay: Obscenity Regulation Pioneer?