报道警方调查、隐私权和社会污名:Richard诉BBC

Q2 Social Sciences Journal of Media Law Pub Date : 2018-07-03 DOI:10.1080/17577632.2019.1582134
J. Rowbottom
{"title":"报道警方调查、隐私权和社会污名:Richard诉BBC","authors":"J. Rowbottom","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2019.1582134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In Richard v BBC, a media report revealing that the police were investigating a person in relation to alleged historic sex offence was found to violate the claimant’s expectation of privacy. The ruling is important in drawing new boundaries on what can be reported in relation to criminal investigations. This article examines the decision and considers its relationship with other areas of law. In particular, the decision showed an overlap with defamation in so far as injury to reputation was central to the claim. More broadly, the law of privacy can now limit the publication of information about prior convictions, suggesting greater protection is now offered for personal information relating to the criminal justice system.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17577632.2019.1582134","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting police investigations, privacy rights and social stigma: Richard v BBC\",\"authors\":\"J. Rowbottom\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17577632.2019.1582134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In Richard v BBC, a media report revealing that the police were investigating a person in relation to alleged historic sex offence was found to violate the claimant’s expectation of privacy. The ruling is important in drawing new boundaries on what can be reported in relation to criminal investigations. This article examines the decision and considers its relationship with other areas of law. In particular, the decision showed an overlap with defamation in so far as injury to reputation was central to the claim. More broadly, the law of privacy can now limit the publication of information about prior convictions, suggesting greater protection is now offered for personal information relating to the criminal justice system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37779,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Media Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17577632.2019.1582134\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Media Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2019.1582134\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Media Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2019.1582134","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

摘要

摘要在Richard诉BBC一案中,一则媒体报道称,警方正在调查一名涉嫌历史性犯罪的人,该报道违反了原告对隐私的期望。这项裁决对于为刑事调查中可以报告的内容划定新的界限很重要。本文审查了该决定,并考虑了它与其他法律领域的关系。特别是,该裁决表明,在损害名誉是索赔的核心方面,与诽谤有重叠。更广泛地说,隐私法现在可以限制公布有关前科的信息,这表明现在对与刑事司法系统有关的个人信息提供了更大的保护。
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
Reporting police investigations, privacy rights and social stigma: Richard v BBC
ABSTRACT In Richard v BBC, a media report revealing that the police were investigating a person in relation to alleged historic sex offence was found to violate the claimant’s expectation of privacy. The ruling is important in drawing new boundaries on what can be reported in relation to criminal investigations. This article examines the decision and considers its relationship with other areas of law. In particular, the decision showed an overlap with defamation in so far as injury to reputation was central to the claim. More broadly, the law of privacy can now limit the publication of information about prior convictions, suggesting greater protection is now offered for personal information relating to the criminal justice system.
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
Journal of Media Law
Journal of Media Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
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?
期刊最新文献
The Bypass Strategy: platforms, the Online Safety Act and future of online speech Freedom of expression after disinformation: Towards a new paradigm for the right to receive information The Digital Services Act’s red line: what the Commission can and cannot do about disinformation The regulation of disinformation: a critical appraisal The EU policy on disinformation: aims and legal basis
×
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