Search results

The Relationship between the Right to Respect for One's Private and Family Life and the Right to Freedom of Expression according to the European Convention on Human Rights SUMMARY Right to private life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, protects individuals not only against interference by the public authorities but also against interference by individuals and private institutions, including the media. Freedom of expression is one of the key foundations of a democratic society. In that regard, the media play a pre-eminent role in a State governed by the rule of law. This brings us to the heart of a situation of "virtual conflict" between two rights. Each right and freedom is proclaimed, recognised and guaranteed, but, at the same time, each one is capable of limiting the other and being limited by it. Indeed, the right to respect for private life may be openly hostile to freedom of expression. A conflict of values lies within the tension between freedom of expression, the public's right to be informed and the right to one's privacy or reputation. Conflicts between privacy and freedom of expression commonly arise where non-State actors, such as the media or authors of books, publicise private matters. Publishers may claim that the revelations were a matter of public interest or that the individuals involved had forfeited their privacy interest by leading very public lives. The legitimacy of these claims has been tested in a number of cases in countries which provide legal protection for privacy. In such cases, courts have had to balance privacy interests against the guarantees of freedom of expression. The need to balance these key interests arises most commonly where privacy laws restrict freedom of expression. The balance between privacy and freedom of expression depends on one's assessment of what the public interest demands. Journalism shall be exercised so as to serve freedom of expression, which includes respect for other fundamental rights, freedoms and interests protected by the Convention. The competing right we are concerned with is the right to private life, respect for which by the media is, as numerous texts adopted within the Council of Europe have also emphasised, an imperative need. It is various implications for the operation of the media in a democratic society, which are to be found in numerous codes of professional practice: respect for the public's right to be informed accurately of facts and events; collection of information by fair means; presentation of information, comments and criticism in such a way as to avoid unwarranted invasion of privacy, defamation or unfounded accusations; correction of any seriously inaccurate information, etc. Many cases in which privacy interests arise involve a public figure and such cases usually engage the public interest. Public figures often play an important social role and this should be taken into account in determining whether the public interest is engaged. The private lives of public figures are entitled to protection, save where they may have an impact upon public events. The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual. This study of a comparative analysis about the conflicting situation between Articles 8 ant 10 of the Convention indicates that freedom of the press should not be understood as some kind of licence for publishers and broadcasters, allowing them to maximise profits by commercialising other people's lives against their will. Freedom of the press has to be understood in a way required by its democratic legitimacy and its high legal status. The press is supposed to serve public discussion and the shaping of public opinion on subjects of general importance.

The Relationship between the Right to Respect for One's Private and Family Life and the Right to Freedom of Expression according to the European Convention on Human Rights SUMMARY Right to private life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, protects individuals not only against interference by the public authorities but also against interference by individuals and private institutions, including the media. Freedom of expression is one of the key foundations of a democratic society. In that regard, the media play a pre-eminent role in a State governed by the rule of law. This brings us to the heart of a situation of "virtual conflict" between two rights. Each right and freedom is proclaimed, recognised and guaranteed, but, at the same time, each one is capable of limiting the other and being limited by it. Indeed, the right to respect for private life may be openly hostile to freedom of expression. A conflict of values lies within the tension between freedom of expression, the public's right to be informed and the right to one's privacy or reputation. Conflicts between privacy and freedom of expression commonly arise where non-State actors, such as the media or authors of books, publicise private matters. Publishers may claim that the revelations were a matter of public interest or that the individuals involved had forfeited their privacy interest by leading very public lives. The legitimacy of these claims has been tested in a number of cases in countries which provide legal protection for privacy. In such cases, courts have had to balance privacy interests against the guarantees of freedom of expression. The need to balance these key interests arises most commonly where privacy laws restrict freedom of expression. The balance between privacy and freedom of expression depends on one's assessment of what the public interest demands. Journalism shall be exercised so as to serve freedom of expression, which includes respect for other fundamental rights, freedoms and interests protected by the Convention. The competing right we are concerned with is the right to private life, respect for which by the media is, as numerous texts adopted within the Council of Europe have also emphasised, an imperative need. It is various implications for the operation of the media in a democratic society, which are to be found in numerous codes of professional practice: respect for the public's right to be informed accurately of facts and events; collection of information by fair means; presentation of information, comments and criticism in such a way as to avoid unwarranted invasion of privacy, defamation or unfounded accusations; correction of any seriously inaccurate information, etc. Many cases in which privacy interests arise involve a public figure and such cases usually engage the public interest. Public figures often play an important social role and this should be taken into account in determining whether the public interest is engaged. The private lives of public figures are entitled to protection, save where they may have an impact upon public events. The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual. This study of a comparative analysis about the conflicting situation between Articles 8 ant 10 of the Convention indicates that freedom of the press should not be understood as some kind of licence for publishers and broadcasters, allowing them to maximise profits by commercialising other people's lives against their will. Freedom of the press has to be understood in a way required by its democratic legitimacy and its high legal status. The press is supposed to serve public discussion and the shaping of public opinion on subjects of general importance.

The Relationship between the Right to Respect for One's Private and Family Life and the Right to Freedom of Expression according to the European Convention on Human Rights SUMMARY Right to private life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, protects individuals not only against interference by the public authorities but also against interference by individuals and private institutions, including the media. Freedom of expression is one of the key foundations of a democratic society. In that regard, the media play a pre-eminent role in a State governed by the rule of law. This brings us to the heart of a situation of "virtual conflict" between two rights. Each right and freedom is proclaimed, recognised and guaranteed, but, at the same time, each one is capable of limiting the other and being limited by it. Indeed, the right to respect for private life may be openly hostile to freedom of expression. A conflict of values lies within the tension between freedom of expression, the public's right to be informed and the right to one's privacy or reputation. Conflicts between privacy and freedom of expression commonly arise where non-State actors, such as the media or authors of books, publicise private matters. Publishers may claim that the revelations were a matter of public interest or that the individuals involved had forfeited their privacy interest by leading very public lives. The legitimacy of these claims has been tested in a number of cases in countries which provide legal protection for privacy. In such cases, courts have had to balance privacy interests against the guarantees of freedom of expression. The need to balance these key interests arises most commonly where privacy laws restrict freedom of expression. The balance between privacy and freedom of expression depends on one's assessment of what the public interest demands. Journalism shall be exercised so as to serve freedom of expression, which includes respect for other fundamental rights, freedoms and interests protected by the Convention. The competing right we are concerned with is the right to private life, respect for which by the media is, as numerous texts adopted within the Council of Europe have also emphasised, an imperative need. It is various implications for the operation of the media in a democratic society, which are to be found in numerous codes of professional practice: respect for the public's right to be informed accurately of facts and events; collection of information by fair means; presentation of information, comments and criticism in such a way as to avoid unwarranted invasion of privacy, defamation or unfounded accusations; correction of any seriously inaccurate information, etc. Many cases in which privacy interests arise involve a public figure and such cases usually engage the public interest. Public figures often play an important social role and this should be taken into account in determining whether the public interest is engaged. The private lives of public figures are entitled to protection, save where they may have an impact upon public events. The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual. This study of a comparative analysis about the conflicting situation between Articles 8 ant 10 of the Convention indicates that freedom of the press should not be understood as some kind of licence for publishers and broadcasters, allowing them to maximise profits by commercialising other people's lives against their will. Freedom of the press has to be understood in a way required by its democratic legitimacy and its high legal status. The press is supposed to serve public discussion and the shaping of public opinion on subjects of general importance.

The Relationship between the Right to Respect for One's Private and Family Life and the Right to Freedom of Expression according to the European Convention on Human Rights SUMMARY Right to private life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, protects individuals not only against interference by the public authorities but also against interference by individuals and private institutions, including the media. Freedom of expression is one of the key foundations of a democratic society. In that regard, the media play a pre-eminent role in a State governed by the rule of law. This brings us to the heart of a situation of "virtual conflict" between two rights. Each right and freedom is proclaimed, recognised and guaranteed, but, at the same time, each one is capable of limiting the other and being limited by it. Indeed, the right to respect for private life may be openly hostile to freedom of expression. A conflict of values lies within the tension between freedom of expression, the public's right to be informed and the right to one's privacy or reputation. Conflicts between privacy and freedom of expression commonly arise where non-State actors, such as the media or authors of books, publicise private matters. Publishers may claim that the revelations were a matter of public interest or that the individuals involved had forfeited their privacy interest by leading very public lives. The legitimacy of these claims has been tested in a number of cases in countries which provide legal protection for privacy. In such cases, courts have had to balance privacy interests against the guarantees of freedom of expression. The need to balance these key interests arises most commonly where privacy laws restrict freedom of expression. The balance between privacy and freedom of expression depends on one's assessment of what the public interest demands. Journalism shall be exercised so as to serve freedom of expression, which includes respect for other fundamental rights, freedoms and interests protected by the Convention. The competing right we are concerned with is the right to private life, respect for which by the media is, as numerous texts adopted within the Council of Europe have also emphasised, an imperative need. It is various implications for the operation of the media in a democratic society, which are to be found in numerous codes of professional practice: respect for the public's right to be informed accurately of facts and events; collection of information by fair means; presentation of information, comments and criticism in such a way as to avoid unwarranted invasion of privacy, defamation or unfounded accusations; correction of any seriously inaccurate information, etc. Many cases in which privacy interests arise involve a public figure and such cases usually engage the public interest. Public figures often play an important social role and this should be taken into account in determining whether the public interest is engaged. The private lives of public figures are entitled to protection, save where they may have an impact upon public events. The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual. This study of a comparative analysis about the conflicting situation between Articles 8 ant 10 of the Convention indicates that freedom of the press should not be understood as some kind of licence for publishers and broadcasters, allowing them to maximise profits by commercialising other people's lives against their will. Freedom of the press has to be understood in a way required by its democratic legitimacy and its high legal status. The press is supposed to serve public discussion and the shaping of public opinion on subjects of general importance.