Free Speech 4- Unpacking media freedom part 2 Flashcards

Question

the protection by mf is split into how many parts and what are they?

Answer 1

So as well become apparent go thru next lec sldies. The proetcion privded by media freedom is split int 2 parts. Not only doe sit protext emdia speech. But it also affords the media both defence and positive isnittuional rptoection, from intefernce from the state. Which well look at in a ltitle while.

Answer 2

So sgtart by looking t speech. Then well look at isnitutional protectin that media freedom provides the media.

Answer 3

So lets look at mf protection of speech first.

Answer 4

FoE and MF can be sub-categorised into the freedom to: (i) hold opinions and (ii) receive and impart I&Is.

Answer 5

this is Enshrined within Art 10 ECHR, Art 19 ICCPR and Art 13 ACHR. but also Art 19 ICCPR and Art 13 ACHR protect all forms of expression ( american convention on hr) Art 10 ECHR protects substance, form, conveyance and method of dissemination of expression

Answer 6

so all 3 of those covnentiosn says same thing.

Answer 7

Now at this juncture worthy to note that artciles 19 1 and 13 1 repsetcively protect all froms of expression. And also means of conveyance so how they are disseminated to the audience.

Answer 8

Pursant to the European since European court human rights jursip- article 10 of eu convention protects the substance of ideas and info.

Answer 9

It protects the form in which those ideas and info are conveyed to audience , it also protects the method of dismmentation. Whichc an encompass any media such as books, newpsas,tv,radio and also social meida.

Answer 10

So that protect has very wide ambit- its wide spread.

Answer 11

Now this enhanced right to media freedom-t akes this protection afforded to art 10 1 which of course applies to all of us a step further.

Answer 12

As it also includes, the right to deicde upon the method and techinuq of reporting, and the eay in which the amterial is presented.

Answer 13

So what this means is right to media freedom, consists of a positive freedom which is right to gather and publish info in a certain way. And it also includes a negative freedom which is not to have to publish info. So media have right not to publish certain info. MF takes this further – positive / negative rights

Answer 14

And this negative aspect of the right manifests itself in editorial freedom. Which is very very important for medi actors. Editorial freedo come back to that in a mo. So are u happy with that?

Answer 15

(Autronic AG v Switzerland [1990] App. no. 12726/87 [47]; Jersild v Denmark [1994] App. no. 15890/89 [31]; De Haes and Gijsels v Belguim [1997] App. no. 19983/92 [48]; Murphy v Ireland [2003] App. no. 44179/98 [61]; Radio France and others v France [2004] App. no. 53984/00 [39]).

Answer 16

The freedom to hold opinion1st= sub cat 1

Answer 17

Acts as a pre-condition to the right of individuals to express themselves. - So as con situte as right to freedom of expression- the freedom to hold opinions without interference acts as a pre condition to right of indicuals to freely express themselves.

Answer 18

-So in repect of media f – well l.ok at human rights committee-

Answer 19

ess- tlak abotue chr jursiprenc in respect of eu conveiton,

Answer 20

hr clomitte is the commit which judicates cases relating to international cov on civl and polcitical rights. They also habve thjeir own body of jursi.

Answer 21

So hr committee adjusicates on the on the icpr and in respect of mr, the human rights comm tells us in respect iccpr –

Answer 22

ICCPR: Includes the right to change an opinion, or not have one at all

Answer 23

what this means is that media actor, may freely have an opinion that they may change or they may not have an opinion at all.

Answer 24

K so freedom to hold opinions means we can change opinion and don’t have to have 1 in the first place.

Answer 25

Regardless of whether were excersing our righjt to change our opinion to hold our ropinio ot change or not have 1 at all rather, the right to hold opinion ust not be subject to any interf or punishment. Says the hr committee.

Answer 26

(Mpaka-Nsusu v Zaire [1986] Communication no. 157/1983 [10]; Primo Jose Essono Mika Miha v Equatorial Guinea [1994] Communication no. 414/1990 [6.8]; Faurisson v France [1996] Communication no. 550/93; Kang v Republic of Korea [2003] Communication no. 878/1999 [7.2]; General Comment no. 34, [9]).

Answer 27

protect all rights of opion | All types of opinion are protected.

Answer 28

including those of a political, scientific, historic , mroal or religious nature, hw there are some subtle differences btw.

Answer 29

``` Article 19(1) ICCPR: absolute right So under article 19 1 of the iccpr , its an absolute right. ```

Answer 30

And by that when I say absolute right I mean it isn’t qualified by anything. There are nor restircition to it.

Answer 31

In contrast we know that article 10 2 of the europena convetion. Qualfiies art 10 1 . Article 10(2) ECHR and 13(2) ACHR qualify the right.

Answer 32

So says have all these right freedom expression udner art 10 1 hw under certain circum it can be limited/restricted.

Answer 33

So there are limitations placed on art 10 1 right to freedom of expression. Can anyone remember what sort of thos restrictions are, or m aybe. Under atic 10 2 . So when may our right fs be restricted

Answer 34

. E.g yes speech nationals ecurity? – wen through this in seminar. National security good e.g hate speech good e.g Violence or – public disorder good e.g – if has anti democratic sentiment. Anything else? Right to respect- countervading rights of other indvid so

Answer 35

talked about we also have a right to privacy, right to representation also and of course what happens is our right to free speech sometimes ahs to be balanced agains there counterbvielign rights and depending on circum of case, and very often dependant on public int in speech with respect sppech that’s ocnerned in case in might be that 1 wins over the other essentially.

Answer 36

– So some frespecch may win, right toprivay or rep depending on circum.

Answer 37

Under articl 10 2 we know it qualifies right to art 10 1 and aricl 132 does same thing articl 10 2 almosr indetical how it is written. So we don’t have absolute right to hold opinions under eu convention as we do have under internationl cov on cil polcitial rights ( slghlty different).

Answer 38

Lets look now at freedom or right to impart freedom or ideas Sso the importance of medias role in imparting info and ideas has been consitely reitatrted by the eu court of hr., and what famously said in case lingens va ustria above. So the European court of hr famous passage, was judgment in

Answer 39

Sso the importance of medias role in imparting info and ideas has been consitely reitatrted by the eu court of hr., and what famously said in case lingens va ustria above.

Answer 40

‘Freedom of the press…affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of political leaders and on matters of general interest.’ Lingens v Austria [1986] App. no. 9815/82 [42].

Answer 41

Handsyide against uk – remebr in first lec was that handside was 1 first opp that ec human rights had to give a full judgment on article 10 and its operation. Actually what seen in handyside has been consistently applied evr since.

Answer 42

Handyside = starting point So what this judgment really is is operates as starting point.

Answer 43

see also: Sunday Times v United Kingdom (No. 1) [1979] App. no. 6538/74 [65]; Lingens v Austria [1986] App. no. 9815/82 [41]; Axel Springer AG v Germany (No. 1) [2012] App. no. 39954/08 [78]; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland [1992] App. no. 13778/88 [63].

Answer 44

Ti tells us right to fs and also by extension mf is applicable not only to info and ideas thata re faourbaly recived or regarded as in offensive or as a matter of indfierence but also to those that offen shock, or disturb , estate or any sector of the population, such demands of that pluriasm tolerance and broad mindnessness of right which there is no democratic society- went through tht judgment couple weeks ago

Answer 45

but tht is famous part of jdug- and that ahs been consistently applied evr since.

Answer 46

Similarly us has said something or us supreme court dsif omsrhtinf similar in case of cohen Cohen v California 403 US 15, 25 (1971).

Answer 47

- 1 mans vulgerailty is another mans lyric. So in repsect of info and ideas imparted and rfecevied. Foe and mr are content neutral. FoE/MF = content neutral

Answer 48

Which mean critical q for lawyers, is whether restriction of partic expression, is justified in the specific cirumstances. Bearing in mind any conflicting rights and intersts that may be enaged. And ofcourse perfect example of that what we just spoke back moment ago is where u have counterveiling rights of other indicisa- privacy , representation etc.

Answer 49

Were gonna next stay with impart ideas but look specifically at 3rd parites.

Answer 50

Fredm impart in repsec of 3rd parties- Freedom to impart I&Is also applies to 3rd parties.

Answer 51

So freedom to impart infoand dieas is not just confied to the publishing journalist or publishing media organisation, it also applies to statements which are made b y interviewees and other 3rd parties.

Answer 52

So according to echr in case of selisot and axel – this aspect fo right to emdia freedom is critical to the medias ability to be able to form its function as the public watchdog. -Selistö v Finland [2004] App. no. 56767/00 and Axel Springer AG v Germany (No. 2) [2014] App. no. 48311/10: critical to public watchdog role.

Answer 53

So this protection that’s afforded to interviewes and 3rd parties is critical to enable it to form its functionas a public watchdog.

Answer 54

Also as we are in line with echr judgemnt in handside- the media are nto required to disntance themselves form statements which made by interviewees that may be provactive, or maybe offensive to other people, or may damage the rep of others. They are not req to distanced themselves, from statements that are made by 3rd parties which may be provoc, offensive or could damge rep of others.

Answer 55

Media not required to distance themselves from 3rd party statements:(Radio France and others v France [2004] App. no. 53984/00 [37]; July and SARL Liberation v France [2008] App. no. 20893/03 [71]; Orban and others v France [2009] App. no. 20985/05 [52]; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v Denmark [2004] App. no. 49017/99 [77]).

Answer 56

As a result what this means is is that the media should only be pun ished from disemminating this info coming form their soruces in very limited cicumstances.

Answer 57

Such as when their punication is providing a platform fo rinciting violence and hatred in sit of conflict or tension.

Answer 58

Now according to both echr and also inter amrican court of huma rights.

Answer 59

Punishment for information from 3rd parties = very limited circumstances.- The reason for this is bc punishing media actors for publishing info from 3rd parties would negatively impact upon the emdias ability to facilitate public discourse on matters of public concern.

Answer 60

Why o u think so much import attached to the right to enhanced info repsetc 3rd parties for media? So media don’t have to distance selves staments made by 3rd parites even if staments made offensive, prova , dam rep of others why is that import? –

Answer 61

so these 3rd parties what are they doing giving media info. So media absolute fundammentlaly rely on these soruces. They rely on ppl to give info. Without ppl giving info the media cant do job, which means that there would be a chilling effect on public discourse which means we wouldn’t eb an informed electorate.

Answer 62

Stay with right to rimaprt but talk in context of anonymous and sudoomus speech

Answer 63

Gonan look at as stand alone lec soon.- this si big issue paritc in repset of social media- 1st line- Anonymous and pseudonymous speech: 3rd parties

Answer 64

But for puposes of this lec and prupsoe of unpackinfg mf – were gonna look at how a and p speech has been treated by echr in repect of info which comes from 3rd party.

Answer 65

Now as said when look as standits prevlent on social media, big issue on sm and as result citizen journalist often write an dpublish anonymously, and thagts something else well look at in that lec, but somrthig just to bare in mind atm.

Answer 66

They have it published anonymously or very often theryee using a sudamin aswell

Answer 67

. Actually ase recently called author of blog against tiems- blog written by high rank police officer –ewrote blog about polic practice and he was writing undr diff name and actually wo 2009 all round price for journalism he is journa cos fact info dissmeinatin very much in public int even tho doing it anonymously

Answer 68

As a result as sm not only faciilattates citizine horuanlism but also acts as a source of news for traditional media. Course something we looked at in 1st lec.

Answer 69

That kind of symbiotic rels that has ben created by sm btw sm and the traditional media.

Answer 70

The echr recgnition that editors have right to publish info emanating form a and p soruces is rel both to traditional media and to ciitzne jorualist.

Answer 71

So echr recognisd and case albert anglemtn kasssharf v Austria that editots have right to publish anonymously. And if anyone read economsi ttnhey publish evry anonymously there is no name attached to any article. So that’s clear e.g of its right that editors have to publish annoy.

Answer 72

So in cases involving pub of info coming from anonymous and sudamous soruces, assessing the varasity of the pub has been cenrtral tot reaaosning of echr. And this assessment of varisty the improtnae of assessing varaisty publciaiton is illustarated by 2 cases. Veracity of publication = critical

Answer 73

Top case = 2 cases illustrate point nice Print Zeitungsverlag v Austria [2013] App. no. 46389/99 [32]. Lavric v Romania [2014] App. no. 22231/05.

Answer 74

Print = concerned newspaper that had published article quoting a letter that had been sent to member of a tourism association supervisory board. The letter include defamatory sttament which newpsarer distanced self from hw the eu cort held that by publish anonymously letter the newspaper had communicated it to a far larger audience that the restricted group board memebrs to which it was to whom it wasm roginally intended to be read by. As rsul eu courts reviews the dismmetion of eltter exceed the limits of permissabl reported so in that instant they weren’t then protected by mf. Bc went beyond limtis of what is responsible journalism.

Answer 75

Comapre to case of lavric in alvric had another rnewspaper which published the defamotry content of a complaint made by defendan against public proescuret the newspaper presented tnhis amterial as the objective truth. Rather than saying this statement from 3rd party. This si what 3rd part saying but were not gonna say this is right or wrong which they should have done, did do is published a sthe objective truth which is wrong. Consequentively the echr hel that newsppar in that isntnace lacked professional care required by journalist. Now in my few the decision in lavric right the provison above is troubling- Print Zeitungsverlag: troubling decision?

Answer 76

Why? – lavric said this statement ..come back. Bt like read report I news – not endorsing either view in tnhat just reortign want soruces tell u had done in lavric they didn’t difference 1st case is fact they did this to themselves but ahd they had given paper given v on board the opp to reply had they hadmade it clear that’s teamnt coming from 3rd party theyre shoudlnt eb anything wrong with what doing- they were well within relam of repsonsibel reporting. So my view lavric right but dec first case troubliugn for that reason doesn’t quite fit with what echr suggests.

Answer 77

Now looking at interviewees in particl.

Answer 78

No general obligation to obtain permission from an interviewee pre-publication.

Answer 79

So both the echr and eu commsiion hr in respect of ipccr have handed down judgements relating to media actors tratemtnet of interveiwees so pursuant to right to mf, its been held by eupopean courtof hr, that media actors should not be subject to a general obligation to obtain permission from interviewee before publishjgn an interview.

Answer 80

So if intevriwed bar journalist. The ournalsit doesn’t have t get ur perm ission to publish hat u said, or doesn’t have to get ur permission prior to publication.

Answer 81

Doing so would inhibit journalistic work and public discourse: (Wizerkaniuk v Poland [2011] App. no. 18990/05 [82])

Answer 82

So reason for tnhis according to courts is bc requiring memebrs of media to botain eprmisison/authorisation would inhibit their work and wouldthen negatively impact on the quality of public discourse in 2 ways, for thrse 2 points her.

Answer 83

1st media may be deterred from asking diffucilt and provative questions for fear of itnerviwees preventing publication by refusing to grant their permission ,

Answer 84

2nd reason intervewes may chosoe which embers f media to talk to based on represtation for being corporative

Answer 85

Difficult/provocative questions | Interviewees would choose who to talk to

Answer 86

Interviewees do not have to be interviewed in a particular way: Haider v Austria [1995] App. no. 25060/94 and Filatenko v Russia [2007] App. no. 73219/01.

Answer 87

. Furthermore in tehcase of haider v Austria- the European commission wa pre cjurse to echr – so European commsion held that and interviee is not entitled to be itnerviwed in a specific way. As according to court in ahider.

Answer 88

Its in the interest of freedom of polictal debate that the interviewing journalist may also express critical and profvoc bpoint of view and not merely give mutual ques for sattements of the interviwed person.

Answer 89

Since latter intervied person can reply immediately.

Answer 90

And this view by European commission is consistent with later ech of human rights jurspr- case plantia v Russia-

Answer 91

europan ct stated that the punishment of a journalist for having wording his q in specific manner. Would serisouly hamoer the contirb of press to discussion of matters of public interest. And should not be enbisged unless partic strong reasons to do so in other words echr sad is a journalist doesn’t have to tailor their questions for parti interview. They are allowed to ask q in way they see fit. To facilitate public discourse and get info they need to get.

Answer 92

Remember negative right of not having to impart I&Is | Manifests in editorial freedom

Answer 93

Editoral freedom – so as we discussed early. Mf consists of negative right of not having to publish something, impart certain info an ideas. Facit of the right not to have to do this is editoral freedom.

Answer 94

This ahs been subject of jusirprudence in number of juridicitons incl echr . ECtHR: Melnychuk v Ukraine [2005] App. No. 28743/03, p. 6

Answer 95

In partic case of mel r.aw us perspective – leading case = miam. US SC: Miami Herald v Tornillo 418 US 241 (1974) And in this case us supreme court unamiously held that a florida stat, that privded a mantory right to reply to election and, whos char was attacked by newspaper was invalid.

Answer 96

Now us supreme courts decision. In scnelo was basedon fact that the stat conflicted with functions of editors to determine contents of newspapers. And also determine treatment of public issues as they said pursuant to this parttic stat they could be forced to pulish a reply regardless of whether or not consider it appropriate.

Answer 97

Now theres been quite lot case law in us of editoral freedom.

Answer 98

Applies to private and public broadcasters: Columbia Broadcasting System v Democratic National Committee 412 US 94 (1973).

Answer 99

Right to editoral freedom has also been extended to both private and public brpadcasters so by that it will be in this country the difference btw bb c public broadcaster and sky private broadcaster-

Answer 100

ursuant to this they can determine their own programme schedules they can reject political advertismetns, and they can take a disrinctive view on controversial public figures.

Answer 101

Consequently 2 diff articles descirved bezanson editoral freedoma nd deditoral discretiona s the very essense of mf bc in bez view it is the equiv of free will or libert which is [protected for individ by freespeech clause of the 1st ammedment and ofc iruse also protected by art 10 European convetion and also protected art 19 iccpr and art 13

Answer 102

Wide editorial discretion: FCC v League of Women Voters of California 468 US 384 (1984).

Answer 103

See Bezanson, ‘Institutional Speech’ (1995) 80 Iowa L Rev 735, 806-15; ‘The Developing Law of Editorial Judgment’ (1999) 78 Nebraska Law Rev 754.

Answer 104

So weve looked at speech rights were now gonna look at institutional protection of the media.

Answer 105

MF goes beyond the protection of media speech | So 1st part just set out is how right to mf protects media speech but mf goes beyond this.

Answer 106

Also protects the media from state interference not directly related to publications.

Answer 107

It also protects the media that includes both media companies and indivvid journalists from satte interference, not directly related to speciif publitiojs. In that it protects the media and journalists as insitutions performing their role as public watchdog and the 4th estate.

Answer 108

Within institutional context MF differs from FoE – intensity and scope.

Answer 109

So within this institutional context. Mf differs from right to freedom of expression. Not only in repsetc of the intensity of the poretction that it affords as with case of media sppech but also in terms of scope of its prowtction. So varies in intensity but also scope. Mf intensity and scope greater.

Answer 110

Rights are not directly speech related So under this isituional protection of the media, rights that are not directly relat to spepch but instead are connected medias news gathering its editoral and sitrbution processes and also to its indepdnants are also protected and guaranteed.

Answer 111

Oster: divided into defensive and positive rights So yanhoster has divided the insitiuonl protection of media into DEFENSIVE AND POSITIVE RIGHTS. I THNINKT HATS A GOOD WAY OF DOING IT. AS REUSLT THIS LEC GONNA DOPT SAME FORMAT

Answer 112

So under defensive rights what weel look at is the right to media freedom protects medias indepdnance, research and in vestigation abilites and also its sources. In respects of positive rights well look at what media is entitled to in order for it to effectively utilize media freedom. So Lets look at defesnvie right 1 = media indpednance

Answer 113

Manole and others v Moldova [2009] App. no. 13936/02.

Answer 114

r.a.w Echr held if powerful, economic or political grouped, obtained a position of dominance of the media and as result influenced, or limited that partic medias editoral freedom, or that partic medias editoral mf this would seriously udnemrine the m edias democratic role. As a result media freedom protects media actors e.g journalsits from undue gov influence. The need from this protection from undue gov influence comes from fact that within democ the citizn that the respective gov serves mandates state auth. Sow e give gov a mandate of power. We give them power that they have. We say we want u to serve us. Any repected gov e.g Theresa may weve given her mandate powe as an electorate- this emans that as media as influence to public opiniona ndideology. It sindepdnance form states is of critical importance to an effective functioning of democ bc if media and state were linked. The media would infleucne our opinion and therefore will ifnleunce who we vote for. Should be as much as sep of those powers as poss

Answer 115

So lets look at protextion of r.a.w

Answer 116

So beneficiairs of right to media freedom are protected against unjust r.a.w MF protects media against unjustified interference with activities related to all forms of newsgathering (inc. undercover work:

Answer 117

Nordisk Film & TV A/S v Denmark [2005] App. no. 40485/02; Haldimann and others v Switzerland [2015] App. no. 21830/09).

Answer 118

MF includes the right to seek information: Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v Hungary [2009] App. no. 37374/05 [27].

Answer 119

This is demo by fact that the council of Europe and echr has also cosnitenly held that media f includes right of media actors seek info pursnat to which liberty to determine whether they need to emplpy investigative journalism-

Answer 120

e.g they hve right to determ whether can they use diff methods such as undercover work to get info they need to get in order to formulate story. So in this case here – below v hungary

Answer 121

The ec stated that law cannot allow arbitrary restrictions which may become form of indirect sensorship should the authorites creat obstacles gathering info. Which they said is an essential and proepratory step in journalism and inherit and protective part of mf.

Answer 122

So the protection agains tunjustified interfences wit the medias news gathering activies ahs a very wide ambit -Protection against unjustified interferences with newsgathering activities subject to wide ambit: Gsell v Switzerland [2009] App. no. 12675/05.

Answer 123

e.g Switzerland- so cse tells us THT MEASURES THAT ARE EQUALLY APPLICABEL TO MEDIA AND GRAL PUBLIC CAN CONTROVENE RIGHT TO MF. IF MEDIA ACOTR IS DISPRORPTIATELY INHIBITED FROM EXCERFCSING THEIR PROFFESION.

Answer 124

SO IN THIS case this involved davos economic fo- what ahpepn various road blocks road closufres which prevented journalist getting to economic forum. Course this road closurs effect idniv as much media but held that was an infrignment on the medias research inestiagtion act. Cos weren’t able to get to forum in order carry out investiga and ther4 publish story=

Answer 125

so ahs wide ambit- by facts of this case,#.

Answer 126

What about information obtained unlawfully? (US Supreme Court: New York Times Co. v United States 403 US 713 (1971); Bartnicki v Vopper 532 US 514 (2001); ECtHR: Radio Twist a.s. v Slovakia [2006] App. no. 62202/00 [62]; Nagla v Latvia [2013] App. no. 73469/10 [97]).

Answer 127

What eucor hr tells us as does supreme court of jurisprd aswele is the frfeodm of media allows media to ublish info obtainend unlawfully so long as there is public interst in reciv ed it and that public itnerst Is greater than states or individ right to confidentiality.

Answer 128

So ther are isntances course tho- data protetio law ??? Reoxognise times media may have to use undercover emthods to get info . That’s where balancing ezcecise comes into play bc they can obtain if unlawfully so long as public interst publishing is greater. Depend on spec circum of case.

Answer 129

3rd defensive right e.a.w Goodwin v United Kingdom [1996] App. no. 17488/90. A-G v Mulholland and Foster [1963] 2 QB 477.

Answer 130

Protection of media sources is a fundamental aspect of MF. So basically protection media soruces vital to mf cos if soruces weren’t protected unlikely 2 come forward and would give journ info facilaite public discorus.e nee bank of sources rely on to give info. Protoect an imat resoirces = vital…?

Answer 131

And ths something journalist in partic quite rightly bc of that extremely concerned with. And sau look at data protec law there are cetain expemptions whch alow journ to protect conf of srvices for that reason.

Answer 132

But despite high level of importance attached to ptoeciton of media soruces.

Answer 133

However, protection of sources = not absolute: Roeman and Schmit v Luxembourg and Financial Times Ltd and others v UK [2003] App. no. 51772/99 / Financial Times Ltd and others v UK [2009] App. no. 821/03.

Answer 134

It is not absolute and this is illustrate by number of cases luxembour eg.etc – in this cases echr found that following factors willld etemrin whether on not a legit interst in disclosjure of the source.

Answer 135

Outweighs right not to disclose info relaitngto identiy of source. 1st of all the nature of the itnerst nd siclosur.e 2ndly public itnerst preventing and publishing public defences and 3rd authencity of info.

Answer 136

The conduct of good faith of source and finally the avail of alternative less intrusive means of obtaining info source. So in som instances ssoruce wont be protected but all of thos partic factors or critiera needs to bemet.

Answer 137

Search of media premises: Sanoma Uitgevers BV v Netherlands [2010] App. no. 38224/03 [71].

Answer 138

So – I contrast In us – although value of soruces is recognized it si nto regarded as an aspect of media or free speech right. Now inncase of branberg v haise- case emntion yday in sem supreme court held 1st amemd to us const does not confer protection for media soruces.

Answer 139

Hw in us e have statuts state satusts which provide shield laws. Stats stats not federal stats. For shiels law for journalist and rights. Which came into force prior against hat case decis and actually num have been enacted since.

Answer 140

Protect partic right for journalist including source protection but it depdns on state. So unlike uk s=and echr in which proptection journalist exhausts as being inheri apsetc of media speech. Us protection journ soruces sans background right. Its happens b ut not inherit part of right to mf.

Answer 141

Positive entitlements to state action. 1 of mf disting features to foe = fact in addition to defsive the right also includes pos entitlements to state action.

Answer 142

And to effectively operate in its role as public watchdog. So according to case law and various lega isnturments and also to according to shol number acc from diff jursidictions, these pos entitle include rightto enable pb to disrrib

Answer 143

Pre-conditions that enable the media to utilise MF. | Entitlements include:

Answer 144

(i) the right to enable a publisher to distribute their publications by any appropriate means; (ii) privileged access to government information, press conferences and court proceedings; (iii) the obligation of the state to protect media actors in the performance of their work, in particular from violence.

Answer 145

So again if we can compare echr – eu more robust than us supremem court. Tjis demo b eu court judgment in swizz case. Compare ECtHR to US Supreme Court: Schweizerische Radio-und Fernsehgesellschaft SRG v Switzerland [2012] App. no. 34124/06 / Pell v Procunier 417 US 817 (1974)and Saxbe v Washington Post 417 US 843 (1974).

Answer 146

In which it held eu court hel that thje swizz aurhories refusal to eprmi media film inside prison and inmate ws disproprtiante should have been allowed in and conduct int with inmate.

Answer 147

Contrsitnly in case of pell etc the supremc ourt held tnhat 1st add does not prpvide media with right to special access or immunites. Sim to swizz case us rejected claim of nespaers to conduc tin with prisoners.

Answer 148

How mf provides insitutinal protection to media have u got any qs are u ahppy if do have qs see him.