Suchergebnisse

Must privacy and freedom of expression conflict? To witness recent debates in Britain, you might think so. Anything other than self-regulation by the press is met by howls of anguish from journalists across the political spectrum, to the effect that efforts to protect people's privacy will threaten press freedom, promote self-censorship and prevent the press from fulfilling its vital function of informing the public and keeping a watchful eye on the activities and antics of the powerful.[Brown, 2009, 13 January]1 Effective protections for privacy, from such a perspective, inevitably pose a threat to democratic government via the constraints that they place on the press.Such concerns with privacy must be taken seriously by anyone who cares about democratic government, and the freedom, equality and wellbeing of individuals. But if it is one thing to say that privacy and freedom of expression cannot always be fully protected, it is another to suppose that protections for the one must always come at the expense of the other. After all, the economics of contemporary politics and journalism would seem to be partly responsible for our difficulties in protecting personal privacy while sustaining robust and informative forms of public discourse. [Moore, 2010, 10 -141]2 Most newspapers are loss-making businesses and the need to reduce those losses and, if possible, to turn a profit, make investigative journalism an increasingly expensive proposition as compared to both "comment" and more or less elevated forms of gossip. At the same time, politics has increasingly become the prerogative of a narrow group of people with access to the large sums of money necessary successfully to compete for high office. In those circumstances, the need for critical scrutiny is as important as it is difficult.Revising our ideas about privacy and its protection cannot alone reduce the tensions between freedom of expression and personal privacy typical of our societies, necessary though such revision may be. Moreover, this paper can only touch on some aspects of the ways in which we need to rethink our interests in privacy, in order adequately to reflect people's diverse interests in freedom of expression, and the important role of a free press to1 http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jan/13/pcc-chairman-christopher-meyer-press-freedom ; the indifference to privacy by many journalists is noted by Alan Rusbridger in his review of Joshua Rozenberg (2005). see http://www.theguardian.com/books/2004/mar/27/highereducation.news2 Adam Moore has a helpful – and depressing – discussion of the issue for the USA. Apparently, at the end of 1945 80% of USA newspapers were independently owned. By 1982, 50 corporations owned almost all major media outlets in the USA, including newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, book publishers and movie studios. By 1987, 29 corporations owned them all, and by 1999 they were 9.2democratic government. Nonetheless, I hope to suggest ways of thinking about people's claims to privacy which can be generalised fairly readily, and can help us to think constructively about the nature, causes and solutions to some important social and political problems, even if, in its nature, philosophical analysis rarely tells us what to do.

Algorithms have become increasingly common, and with this development, so have algorithms that approximate human speech. This has introduced new issues with which courts and legislators will have to grapple. Courts in the United States have found that search engine results are a form of speech that is protected by the Constitution, and cases in Europe concerning liability for autocomplete suggestions have led to varied results. Beyond these instances, insight into how courts handle algorithmic speech are few and far between. By focusing on three categories of algorithmic speech, defined as curated production, interactive/responsive production, and semi-autonomous production, this Article analyzes these various forms of algorithmic speech within the international framework for freedom of expression. After a brief introduction of that framework and a look towards approaches to algorithmic speech in the United States, the Article then examines whether the creators or controllers of different forms of algorithms should be considered content providers or mere intermediaries, the determination of which ultimately has implications for liability, which is also explored. The Article then looks at possible interferences with algorithmic speech, and how such interferences may be examined under the three-part test--particular attention is paid to the balancing of rights and interests at play--in order to answer the question of the extent to which algorithmic speech is worthy of protection under international standards of freedom of expression. Finally, other relevant issues surrounding algorithmic speech are discussed that will have an impact going forward, many of which involve questions of policy and societal values that accompany granting algorithmic speech protection.

One of the key tenets (a principle or belief) of democratic and legal state is providing the highest level of media freedom, and it alludes to freedom of expression and freedom of thought and belief. Executive always attempts for seduction and keeping the media under his wing, the Government funding through the media or through government advertising, but the Republic of Macedonia has made several amendments to the improvement of Government advertising during the election campaign and beyond. The Republic of Macedonia needs the existence of a healthy critical awareness and public, with an emphasis on fostering and defending the public debate and freedom of expression. The existence of different opinions, discussions, debates and openness of institutions would justify the existence of the community. Freedom of expression stems from many international legal acts, which were later ratified by the Parliament of Republic of Macedonia. The most important deed is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which clearly stipulates that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom advocacy of opinions and the freedom to seek, give and receive information and ideas through any media . Keywords: expression, debate, freedom, conscience

This paper states a common western ideal of freedom of expression. Such an ideal is tenable, it is argued, only if its implementation makes possible a 'sound mass communication'. A communication is sound if and only if it prepares the way for growth in knowledge, pluralism, and equality of access to mass media. In today's world, with centralized ownership of mass media, the implementation of the common western ideal of freedom of expression does not prepare the way for knowledge, pluralism, and equality. Hence this ideal of freedom of expression is not tenable. Only if freedom of expression is severely restrained by democratic planning does 'a sound mass communication' evolve.

This presentation shows some of the ways in which the Azerbaijani government restricts freedom of expression. It shows the contradictions between constitutional rights and freedoms compared to real life.

Abstract
This article revisits the discussion on the rationales for intellectual property (IP) protection by addressing a particular justificatory theory for IP that had come to the forefront of legal discussions in recent years – the theory based on freedom of expression and information. This modern vision of IP focuses on the communicative nature of IP subject-matter and of IP as a legal regime. Firstly, this article reviews the Kantian theory of copyright that lies at the origins of any modern discussions on the communicative nature of IP regulation with the aim of answering whether IP should be more properly conceived as the system for regulating communication. It then looks at the readings of this theory by contemporary copyright scholars and considers applicability of the communicative theory to other areas of IP such as trademarks and patents. The analysis then proceeds towards looking at the freedom of expression dimension of the 'classic' IP theories. Reflecting on this matter is important as the rationales for IP protection influence virtually all spheres of IP's legal regulation, including – first and foremost – the reach of IP holders' entitlements.