界定记者在欧洲人权法院进行新闻采访的自由:对《欧洲人权公约》第10条的报道采取更基于人权的方法的一步?

Chris Wiersma
{"title":"界定记者在欧洲人权法院进行新闻采访的自由:对《欧洲人权公约》第10条的报道采取更基于人权的方法的一步?","authors":"Chris Wiersma","doi":"10.1080/10811680.2021.1963132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), responding governments often argue that the right to “Freedom of expression” (Article 10) does not apply to cases because of journalists’ controversial methods of information gathering (such as wiretapping, secret recording, the use of aliases, and other methods). This article examines how the ECtHR’s international adjudication is a test of the boundaries of the freedom of journalism. It shows that it is a common human rights issue for the ECtHR to consider the justiciability of wide, principled freedoms about newsgathering. Through a conceptual, legal study of twenty-seven cases covering the past two decades, the analysis is focused on the criteria surrounding the scope of ECHR Article 10, paragraph 1, concerning the acts of a member state. It is argued that the way that the ECtHR is defining the contours of the freedom to conduct newsgathering and investigative journalism provides an undue challenge to legal certainty, because it is tending too much towards including a wide range of elements related to either journalistic ethics or “duties,” such as the lawfulness of journalists' conduct. The article advocates that a more human rights-based coverage under ECHR Article 10 is needed.","PeriodicalId":42622,"journal":{"name":"Communication Law and Policy","volume":"26 1","pages":"507 - 557"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scoping the Journalists’ Freedom to Conduct Newsgathering at the European Court of Human Rights: A Step Toward a More Human Rights-Based Approach to the Coverage of ECHR Article 10?\",\"authors\":\"Chris Wiersma\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10811680.2021.1963132\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"At the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), responding governments often argue that the right to “Freedom of expression” (Article 10) does not apply to cases because of journalists’ controversial methods of information gathering (such as wiretapping, secret recording, the use of aliases, and other methods). This article examines how the ECtHR’s international adjudication is a test of the boundaries of the freedom of journalism. It shows that it is a common human rights issue for the ECtHR to consider the justiciability of wide, principled freedoms about newsgathering. Through a conceptual, legal study of twenty-seven cases covering the past two decades, the analysis is focused on the criteria surrounding the scope of ECHR Article 10, paragraph 1, concerning the acts of a member state. It is argued that the way that the ECtHR is defining the contours of the freedom to conduct newsgathering and investigative journalism provides an undue challenge to legal certainty, because it is tending too much towards including a wide range of elements related to either journalistic ethics or “duties,” such as the lawfulness of journalists' conduct. The article advocates that a more human rights-based coverage under ECHR Article 10 is needed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication Law and Policy\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"507 - 557\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1963132\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2021.1963132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在欧洲人权法院(ECtHR),作出回应的各国政府经常辩称,“言论自由”(第10条)的权利不适用于案件,因为记者收集信息的方法有争议(如窃听、秘密录音、使用化名和其他方法)。本文探讨了欧洲人权法院的国际裁决如何考验新闻自由的界限。这表明,对于欧洲人权委员会来说,考虑有关新闻采编的广泛的、有原则的自由的可诉性是一个共同的人权问题。通过对过去二十年中27个案例的概念性法律研究,本文的分析重点是围绕《欧洲人权公约》第10条第1款关于成员国行为的范围的标准。有人认为,欧洲人权法院界定新闻采编和调查性新闻自由的方式对法律确定性构成了不适当的挑战,因为它过于倾向于包括与新闻伦理或“职责”相关的广泛因素,例如记者行为的合法性。这篇文章主张,欧洲人权公约第10条需要更多以人权为基础的内容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Scoping the Journalists’ Freedom to Conduct Newsgathering at the European Court of Human Rights: A Step Toward a More Human Rights-Based Approach to the Coverage of ECHR Article 10?
At the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), responding governments often argue that the right to “Freedom of expression” (Article 10) does not apply to cases because of journalists’ controversial methods of information gathering (such as wiretapping, secret recording, the use of aliases, and other methods). This article examines how the ECtHR’s international adjudication is a test of the boundaries of the freedom of journalism. It shows that it is a common human rights issue for the ECtHR to consider the justiciability of wide, principled freedoms about newsgathering. Through a conceptual, legal study of twenty-seven cases covering the past two decades, the analysis is focused on the criteria surrounding the scope of ECHR Article 10, paragraph 1, concerning the acts of a member state. It is argued that the way that the ECtHR is defining the contours of the freedom to conduct newsgathering and investigative journalism provides an undue challenge to legal certainty, because it is tending too much towards including a wide range of elements related to either journalistic ethics or “duties,” such as the lawfulness of journalists' conduct. The article advocates that a more human rights-based coverage under ECHR Article 10 is needed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
33.30%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: The societal, cultural, economic and political dimensions of communication, including the freedoms of speech and press, are undergoing dramatic global changes. The convergence of the mass media, telecommunications, and computers has raised important questions reflected in analyses of modern communication law, policy, and regulation. Serving as a forum for discussions of these continuing and emerging questions, Communication Law and Policy considers traditional and contemporary problems of freedom of expression and dissemination, including theoretical, conceptual and methodological issues inherent in the special conditions presented by new media and information technologies.
期刊最新文献
Digital Rights in Europe After the Entry Into Force of Regulations for the Protection of Personal Data: Before and After the Right to Be Forgotten Regulatory Capture in a Transitional Democracy: Media Laws in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq Paranoid Androids: Free Speech Versus Privacy in America’s Resistance Against Intrusive Robocalls An Unreasonable Standard?: The Dilemma of Applying Actual Malice to Irrational Speakers “The Gloss of History”: A Historical Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Justices’ Framing of First Amendment Press Rights to Cover and Access Court Proceedings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1