{"title":"Raab’s bill of rights and the challenges inherent in attempting a statutory re-balancing of articles 8 and 10 ECHR","authors":"H. Fenwick","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2023.2213914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article explores the right-wing tendency to parade the creation of greater protection for free speech as a key basis for revision or repeal of the Human Rights Act. To illustrate that point it takes as a case study the potential change to the balance to be struck between Articles 10 and 8 under the proposed Bill of Rights in the context of the tort of misuse of private information. Given the apparently flagship nature of the provisions aimed at such a re-balancing, and the support it enjoys in particular newspapers, it appears probable that they will re-emerge in some form. The notion that judges have disregarded media freedom and usurped the function of Parliament in creating a European-style privacy law appears to be embedded in right-wing thinking and is therefore unlikely to be discarded. It is a trend that will probably continue, whatever the fate of this particular instrument.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Media Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2023.2213914","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article explores the right-wing tendency to parade the creation of greater protection for free speech as a key basis for revision or repeal of the Human Rights Act. To illustrate that point it takes as a case study the potential change to the balance to be struck between Articles 10 and 8 under the proposed Bill of Rights in the context of the tort of misuse of private information. Given the apparently flagship nature of the provisions aimed at such a re-balancing, and the support it enjoys in particular newspapers, it appears probable that they will re-emerge in some form. The notion that judges have disregarded media freedom and usurped the function of Parliament in creating a European-style privacy law appears to be embedded in right-wing thinking and is therefore unlikely to be discarded. It is a trend that will probably continue, whatever the fate of this particular instrument.
期刊介绍：
The only platform for focused, rigorous analysis of global developments in media law, this peer-reviewed journal, launched in Summer 2009, is: essential for teaching and research, essential for practice, essential for policy-making. It turns the spotlight on all those aspects of law which impinge on and shape modern media practices - from regulation and ownership, to libel law and constitutional aspects of broadcasting such as free speech and privacy, obscenity laws, copyright, piracy, and other aspects of IT law. The result is the first journal to take a serious view of law through the lens. The first issues feature articles on a wide range of topics such as: Developments in Defamation · Balancing Freedom of Expression and Privacy in the European Court of Human Rights · The Future of Public Television · Cameras in the Courtroom - Media Access to Classified Documents · Advertising Revenue v Editorial Independence · Gordon Ramsay: Obscenity Regulation Pioneer?
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
