Free Speech 4- Unpacking media freedom part 2 Flashcards

Question 1

Q

what are we doing in todays lec?

Answer

A

Today’s lecture: Unpacking MF

(i) why is MF important
(ii) assessment of its contents

Question 2

Q

The importance and role of MF?

Answer

A

MF is linked to the media’s public watchdog role #

Question 3

Q

cases for mf is linked to medias public watchdog?

Answer

A

(Observer and Guardian v UK (1992) 14 EHRR 153, [59].

A-G v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No. 2) [1990] 1 AC 109, 183 per Sir John Donaldson MR).

Question 4

Q

Importance of MF justified by?

Answer

A

(i) liberty of the publisher and

(ii) facilitation of public discourse in democracies

Question 5

Q

what does (i) liberty of the publisher mean?

Question 6

Q

what does (ii) facilitation of public discourse in democracies mean?

Question 7

Q

cases for importance of mf justified by?

Answer

A

(Axel Springer AG v Germany (No. 1) [2012] App. no. 39954/08 [79]; Von Hannover v Germany (No. 2) [2012] App. nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08 [102]; Sunday Times v United Kingdom (No. 1) [1979] App. no. 6538/74 [65]; Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway [1999] App. no. 21980/93 [62]; Times Newspapers Ltd v United Kingdom (Nos. 1 and 2) [2009] App. nos. 3002/03 and 23676/03 [40]).

Question 8

Q

The role MF plays in enabling the media to facilitate public discourse - what is meant by this title?

Answer

A

Rooney: media must be guaranteed ‘effective means’ for news gathering/dissemination

Nestler: Privileged protection/minimal restriction.

Means as many views as possible are represented (see Dennis v United States (1951) 341 US 494, 584 and Alonzo)

Question 9

Q

what is similarly to previous?

Answer

A

Simarly the int cov on civil and political rights or the International cov on civil and pol rights= the human right committee has also examined role played by free media in the democratic process. And in case of bodrovich against Serbia and Montenegro t

Question 10

Q

The role MF plays in enabling the media to facilitate public discourse - what did the commitee do?

Answer

A

-Ability of society to self-govern = largely dependent on the media. See jurisprudence:

The committee acknowledged that in cirucm of public debate in a democratic society , especially in the media concerning figues in public demain,

Question 11

Q

The role MF plays in enabling the media to facilitate public discourse - so what did ecthr say?

Answer

A

ECtHR: MF ‘affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of political leaders. It is incumbent on the [media] to impart information and ideas on political issues and other subjects of public interest.’

IACHR: Media = catalyst for ‘social dimension’ of free speech.

Question 12

Q

The role MF plays in enabling the media to facilitate public discourse - what did iccpr do?

Answer

A

ICCPR: Bodrožić v Serbia and Montenegro [2005] Communication no. 1180/2003 – value placed on uninhibited expression = high

the value placed by the iccpr upon inhibited expression is particular high-

Question 13

Q

The role MF plays in enabling the media to facilitate public discourse -what was the reason for iccpr do this?

Answer

A

reasin fir this ius bc through media, citiznes gain wider access to info. And have the opp to disseminate infoa nd opinions about he acitvis of elected bodies and there memebrs.

Question 14

Q

The role MF plays in enabling the media to facilitate public discourse - so what is it quite clear that we have here?

Answer

A

So quite clearly we have jurisprudence of a number of diff courts and in relation to diff covnetions, which all acknowledges improtantce emdia plays or emdia freedom plays partic ind emocratic process.

Question 15

Q

GAME OFF- summary why mf so imporant and what role play in public discourse?

Answer

A

Why media freedom is improtnat and what role play public discours- just summary –

I know nothing aboutmedia law – im from authirtarian state- so somewhere where gov controls the media totally, why would u tell them that media feedom important-

Question 16

Q

GAME OFF-what would u tell someone from authartian state who controlled why mf important?

Answer

A

bc there is more info and ideas avail. Because of that we learn more we develop more. E.gs where media maybe exposed thigns that being happened e.g Brexit very good e.g – not just avout poli it could be about for instance whats going on in busienns- through cove journalism told about pension defci 400 mill actually in billions. That’s info we need to know.

It was investigative journalism of course which bough samitixe manager to end cos they uncovered him taling someonein asis and paid doing something he shoudlnt have

Question 17

Q

GAME OFF-what does it not always have to relate to?

Answer

A

Doesn’t always have to relate to politics but so often it does that’s why media so import

Question 18

Q

GAME OFF-what was a good point made in lec 1?

Answer

A

Good point- mentione 1st lec goes back to media morality in partic- diff newspapers always have had some politcil buyers, hyoull have 1 newspaper more geered towards labour party or cons. An of cours more info have the more media freedom we have. So were not all being led 1 outlet from 1 political or comemrical bias.

Question 19

Q

GAME OFF-what we seeing atm?

Answer

A

Seeing atm with takeover sky reever murchod 1 big issue there is cos own s other organ too much powr vested in his hands.

Question 20

Q

MF: Instrumental rather than inherent- so what is mf other than inherent right

Answer

A

So rather tha being an inherent right, prusant to jurisprudence of European courts of hr , media freedom is also an insutrumental right,

Question 21

Q

MF: Instrumental rather than inherent- what isnt this the case for?

Answer

A

hw as were gonna se this isn’t the case with us, us is very different, as result of press technology model which were gonna look at.

Question 22

Q

MF: Instrumental rather than inherent– who explains this?

Answer

A

Rather than being .. R.a.w first line Media freedom is an instrumental right, hence the pic of air guitar etc, as a result , as yan hoster explains.

Question 23

Q

what does yan hoster explain?

Answer

A

Media freedom protects the media for fulfilling a beneficial function for society in gnernal. That is informing public about matters of genral concern.

Question 24

Q

what does yan hoster go on to say?

Answer

A

And what yanhoster goes on to say is that media freedom is more tghan merely freedom of expression for journalists, he syas that afofridng partic protection for media. Is based on a conseuqtnialists and funcutional understanding of the emdias activity, by conseuqenous mean the results of their activites, what it actually does is it aids public discourse.

Question 25

Q

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

Answer

A

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.

Question 26

Q

so what are we gonna look at?

Answer

A

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

Question 27

Q

Part 1: MF’s protection of media speech - introduction- so what we gonna look at first?

Answer

A

So lets look at mf protection of speech first.

Question 28

Q

Part 1: MF’s protection of media speech -foe and mf can be sub cat into?

Answer

A

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

Question 29

Q

Part 1: MF’s protection of media speech -what is this enshrined in?

Answer

A

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

Question 30

Q

Part 1: MF’s protection of media speech -what about all these 3 conv?

Answer

A

so all 3 of those covnentiosn says same thing.

Question 31

Q

Part 1: MF’s protection of media speech -what is worthy to note here?

Answer

A

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.

Question 32

Q

Part 1: MF’s protection of media speech -pursant to european?

Answer

A

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

Question 33

Q

Part 1: MF’s protection of media speech -art 10 protects in depth?

Answer

A

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.

Question 34

Q

Part 1: MF’s protection of media speech -what about this protection?

Answer

A

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

Question 35

Q

Part 1: MF’s protection of media speech -mf takes this further?how does it take it a step further?

Answer

A

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.

Question 36

Q

Part 1: MF’s protection of media speech -bc it also includes?

Answer

A

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

Question 37

Q

Part 1: MF’s protection of media speech -so what does this mean?

Answer

A

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

Question 38

Q

Part 1: MF’s protection of media speech -what does this negative aspect manifest itself in?

Answer

A

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?

Question 39

Q

Part 1: MF’s protection of media speech -cases connec art 10?

Answer

A

(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]).

Question 40

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- what is sub cat 1?

Answer

A

The freedom to hold opinion1st= sub cat 1

Question 41

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- - what is meant by freedom to hold opinion?

Answer

A

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.

Question 42

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- so in respect of comm look at?

Answer

A

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

Question 43

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- talk about?

Answer

A

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

Question 44

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- what is hr committ?

Answer

A

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.

Question 45

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- what does hr comit adjudicate?

Answer

A

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

Question 46

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- what about iccpr?

Answer

A

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

Question 47

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- what is meant after iccpr?

Answer

A

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.

Question 48

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- so what does freedom to hold opinion mena?

Answer

A

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

Question 49

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- regardless of whether excercising right what?

Answer

A

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.

Question 50

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- cases in regard to iccpr?

Answer

A

(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]).

Question 51

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- what about all types of opinion

Answer

A

protect all rights of opion

All types of opinion are protected.

Question 52

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- what are the types of opinion protected?

Answer

A

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

Question 53

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- what about aritcl 19 1?

Answer

A

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

Question 54

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- what is meant by absolute right?

Answer

A

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

Question 55

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- in contrast to this what is the art?

Answer

A

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.

Question 56

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- what do we ahve under art 10?

Answer

A

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

Question 57

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- what about art 10?

Answer

A

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

Question 58

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- example of restric of art 10?

Answer

A

. 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

Question 59

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- what do we also have right to ? and what happens?

Answer

A

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.

Question 60

Q

The freedom to hold opinions- so free speech may win what?

Answer

A

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

Question 61

Q

The freedom to hold opinions-what about art 10 2 ?

Answer

A

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).

Question 62

Q

The freedom to impart I&Is - what must we now look at?

Answer

A

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

Question 63

Q

The freedom to impart I&Is - importance in imparting info reinstated in?

Answer

A

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.

Question 64

Q

The freedom to impart I&Is -So the European court of hr famous passage?

Answer

A

‘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 63

A

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 64

A

Handyside = starting point

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

Answer 65

A

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 66

A

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 67

A

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

Answer 68

A

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 69

A

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 70

A

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 71

A

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

Answer 72

A

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

Answer 73

A

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 74

A

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 75

A

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

Answer 76

A

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 77

A

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 78

A

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 79

A

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

Answer 80

A

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

Answer 81

A

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 82

A

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 83

A

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 84

A

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

Answer 85

A

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 86

A

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 87

A

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 88

A

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

Answer 89

A

. 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 90

A

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 91

A

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

Answer 92

A

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 93

A

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 94

A

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 95

A

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 96

A

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 97

A

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 98

A

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 99

A

Now looking at interviewees in particl.

Answer 100

A

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

Answer 101

A

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 102

A

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 103

A

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

Answer 104

A

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 105

A

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

Answer 106

A

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

Answer 107

A

Difficult/provocative questions

Interviewees would choose who to talk to

Answer 108

A

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 109

A

. 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 110

A

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 111

A

Since latter intervied person can reply immediately.

Answer 112

A

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

Answer 113

A

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 114

A

Remember negative right of not having to impart I&Is

Manifests in editorial freedom

Answer 115

A

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 116

A

This ahs been subject of jusirprudence in number of juridicitons incl echr .

ECtHR: Melnychuk v Ukraine [2005] App. No. 28743/03, p. 6

Answer 117

A

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 118

A

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 119

A

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

Answer 120

A

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

Answer 121

A

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 122

A

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 123

A

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 124

A

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

Answer 125

A

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 126

A

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

Answer 127

A

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 128

A

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

Answer 129

A

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 130

A

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

Answer 131

A

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 132

A

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 133

A

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 134

A

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 135

A

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

Answer 136

A

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 137

A

So lets look at protextion of r.a.w

Answer 138

A

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 139

A

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

Answer 140

A

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

Answer 141

A

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 142

A

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 143

A

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 144

A

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 145

A

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 146

A

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 147

A

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

Answer 148

A

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 149

A

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 150

A

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 151

A

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 152

A

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 153

A

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 154

A

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

Answer 155

A

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 156

A

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 157

A

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 158

A

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 159

A

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

Answer 160

A

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 161

A

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 162

A

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 163

A

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 164

A

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 165

A

Pre-conditions that enable the media to utilise MF.

Entitlements include:

Answer 166

A

(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 167

A

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 168

A

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 169

A

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 170

A

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

Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Free Speech 4- Unpacking media freedom part 2 Flashcards

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome^TM