欧洲人权法院在实践中对言论自由的限制和虚假信息的概念

Anđela Đukanović
{"title":"欧洲人权法院在实践中对言论自由的限制和虚假信息的概念","authors":"Anđela Đukanović","doi":"10.5937/nabepo26-33404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The phenomenon of disinformation spreading is a well-known phenomenon. The problem has intensified primarily due to advances in technology. In addition, there is an increased desire for additional information in circumstances of uncertainty and crisis. Some states even resorted to vague or too strict laws or derogations of rights in case of public emergency. While examining whether there is a need for interference with freedom of expression, it seems that the European Court of Human Rights does not give special relevance to the term of disinformation. Nevertheless, two key elements of disinformation can be distinguished. Disinformation is tied to the information's veracity and the intent of the information provider. When determining whether an interference with freedom of expression is justified, the European Court of Human Rights gives these elements some weight, along with comprehensive analysis of other relevant factors. Fear from spreading disinformation must not lead the authorities to simply adopt strict and/or vague laws with severe penalties, which might fail to meet the requirements of freedom of expression protection. However, the term of disinformation can have value in policymaking directed at raising the credibility of information in general.","PeriodicalId":33498,"journal":{"name":"NBP Nauka bezbednost policija","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Limitations on freedom of expression in practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the notion of disinformation\",\"authors\":\"Anđela Đukanović\",\"doi\":\"10.5937/nabepo26-33404\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The phenomenon of disinformation spreading is a well-known phenomenon. The problem has intensified primarily due to advances in technology. In addition, there is an increased desire for additional information in circumstances of uncertainty and crisis. Some states even resorted to vague or too strict laws or derogations of rights in case of public emergency. While examining whether there is a need for interference with freedom of expression, it seems that the European Court of Human Rights does not give special relevance to the term of disinformation. Nevertheless, two key elements of disinformation can be distinguished. Disinformation is tied to the information's veracity and the intent of the information provider. When determining whether an interference with freedom of expression is justified, the European Court of Human Rights gives these elements some weight, along with comprehensive analysis of other relevant factors. Fear from spreading disinformation must not lead the authorities to simply adopt strict and/or vague laws with severe penalties, which might fail to meet the requirements of freedom of expression protection. However, the term of disinformation can have value in policymaking directed at raising the credibility of information in general.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33498,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NBP Nauka bezbednost policija\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NBP Nauka bezbednost policija\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5937/nabepo26-33404\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NBP Nauka bezbednost policija","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5937/nabepo26-33404","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

虚假信息的传播是一个众所周知的现象。这一问题的加剧主要是由于技术的进步。此外,在不确定和危机的情况下,人们越来越希望获得更多的信息。有些州甚至在公共紧急状态下诉诸含糊不清或过于严格的法律或减损权利。在审查是否有必要干预言论自由时,欧洲人权法院似乎没有对虚假信息一词给予特别的重视。然而,虚假信息的两个关键因素是可以区分的。虚假信息与信息的真实性和信息提供者的意图有关。在确定对言论自由的干涉是否正当时,欧洲人权法院在对其他相关因素进行全面分析的同时,也会对这些因素给予一定的重视。对传播虚假信息的恐惧绝不能导致当局简单地采用严厉和(或)含糊的法律和严厉的惩罚,这可能无法满足保护言论自由的要求。然而,虚假信息一词在旨在提高信息可信度的政策制定中具有价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Limitations on freedom of expression in practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the notion of disinformation
The phenomenon of disinformation spreading is a well-known phenomenon. The problem has intensified primarily due to advances in technology. In addition, there is an increased desire for additional information in circumstances of uncertainty and crisis. Some states even resorted to vague or too strict laws or derogations of rights in case of public emergency. While examining whether there is a need for interference with freedom of expression, it seems that the European Court of Human Rights does not give special relevance to the term of disinformation. Nevertheless, two key elements of disinformation can be distinguished. Disinformation is tied to the information's veracity and the intent of the information provider. When determining whether an interference with freedom of expression is justified, the European Court of Human Rights gives these elements some weight, along with comprehensive analysis of other relevant factors. Fear from spreading disinformation must not lead the authorities to simply adopt strict and/or vague laws with severe penalties, which might fail to meet the requirements of freedom of expression protection. However, the term of disinformation can have value in policymaking directed at raising the credibility of information in general.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
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