Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

Legal incapacitation in media access interdictions and the internet

Chris Wiersma (2016) Freedom and Control of Digital Expression in the Digital Aftermath of the 2015 Paris Attacks.
abstract
In this paper I first situate the general norm in the Council of Europe countries on access to the internet by actors in the media in the context of key concerns related to the internet as a medium according to UNESCO’s Internet Study. Following on I provide analysis of media access to public events and places within the scope for protection according to recent sources from the Council of Europe’s political decision-making organs and the case-law of Human Rights Court. Further I delineate the scope for protection to digital free expression by a comparison of cases in the Netherlands on the internet as a means of access vis-à-vis a means of publication on social media and blogs. On this theme I focus on the particular motivations for protection of a wide-range of behavior related to the internet and specifics thereof in the parliamentary history of the Dutch law. Suggested by their wording, these political and judicial decisions limit the European Court’s general invocation of journalisms ethics when such is related to certain ‘ increased protections ’ to journalists. Some cases have - as instances of decisional law - given journalists/press the ‘ benefit of the doubt ’. I delineate how the Court has found the rights to seek, impart and receive up until recently, as well related to internet. Article 10 ECHR and other sources (eg. the Declarations and Recommendations of the decision-making organs of the Council of Europe) provide a scope for protection. We’re reminded that not only Article 10 defines what comes to the scope for protection, but also rights to observe protests (article 11 ECHR), eg. The case-law of the Netherlands has suggested that privacy intrusions are the most upcoming issue of media access in the field of communications and the internet. Injunctive relief with targeted, specifics for execution has be offered for certain heightened privacy protection. General laws on informational acts, such as beleaguering on the internet shouldn’t lead to denying a person of means of communication if no alternative, similar means are available. I related the analysis finally to the question why we should define professionalism as an ongoing and timely issue. The definition attempted by the Court / Council of Europe according to different sources of international standards has been related to the concept of ‘responsible journalism’, but the European Court can be seen to use a too simple view of what sources constitute its test(s) in a case.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
conference
publication status
unpublished
subject
keyword
Judging, Media, Incapacitation, Press freedom, Access, Internet, Beleaguering, Comparative media and information law research
in
Freedom and Control of Digital Expression in the Digital Aftermath of the 2015 Paris Attacks
conference name
Freedom and Control of Digital Expression in the Digital Aftermath of the 2015 Paris Attacks
conference location
Toulouse School of Economics, iast.fr - the Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST)
conference start
2016-10-13
conference end
2016-10-14
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
C3
copyright statement
I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher
id
8116101
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8116101
date created
2016-10-17 14:07:11
date last changed
2016-12-19 15:37:49
@inproceedings{8116101,
  abstract     = {In this paper I first situate the general norm in the Council of Europe countries on access to the internet by actors in the media in the context of key concerns related to the internet as a medium according to UNESCO{\textquoteright}s Internet Study. Following on I provide analysis of media access to public events and places within the scope for protection according to recent sources from the Council of Europe{\textquoteright}s political decision-making organs and the case-law of Human Rights Court. Further I delineate the scope for protection to digital free expression by a comparison of cases in the Netherlands on the internet as a means of access vis-{\`a}-vis a means of publication on social media and blogs. On this theme I focus on the particular motivations for protection of a wide-range of behavior related to the internet and specifics thereof in the parliamentary history of the Dutch law.
Suggested by their wording, these political and judicial decisions limit the European Court{\textquoteright}s general invocation of journalisms ethics when such is related to certain {\textquoteleft} increased protections {\textquoteright} to journalists. Some cases have - as instances of decisional law - given journalists/press the {\textquoteleft} benefit of the doubt {\textquoteright}. I delineate how the Court has found the rights to seek, impart and receive up until recently, as well related to internet. Article 10 ECHR and other sources (eg. the Declarations and Recommendations of the decision-making organs of the Council of Europe) provide a scope for protection. We{\textquoteright}re reminded that not only Article 10 defines what comes to the scope for protection, but also rights to observe protests (article 11 ECHR), eg. The case-law of the Netherlands has suggested that privacy intrusions are the most upcoming issue of media access in the field of communications and the internet. Injunctive relief with targeted, specifics for execution has be offered for certain heightened privacy protection. General laws on informational acts, such as beleaguering on the internet shouldn{\textquoteright}t lead to denying a person of means of communication if no alternative, similar means are available.
I related the analysis finally to the question why we should define professionalism as an ongoing and timely issue. The definition attempted by the Court / Council of Europe according to different sources of international standards has been related to the concept of {\textquoteleft}responsible journalism{\textquoteright}, but the European Court can be seen to use a too simple view of what sources constitute its test(s) in a case.},
  author       = {Wiersma, Chris},
  booktitle    = {Freedom and Control of Digital Expression in the Digital Aftermath of the 2015 Paris Attacks},
  keyword      = {Judging,Media,Incapacitation,Press freedom,Access,Internet,Beleaguering,Comparative media and information law research},
  language     = {eng},
  location     = {Toulouse School of Economics, iast.fr - the Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST)},
  title        = {Legal incapacitation in media access interdictions and the internet},
  year         = {2016},
}

Chicago
Wiersma, Chris. 2016. “Legal Incapacitation in Media Access Interdictions and the Internet.” In Freedom and Control of Digital Expression in the Digital Aftermath of the 2015 Paris Attacks.
APA
Wiersma, C. (2016). Legal incapacitation in media access interdictions and the internet. Freedom and Control of Digital Expression in the Digital Aftermath of the 2015 Paris Attacks. Presented at the Freedom and Control of Digital Expression in the Digital Aftermath of the 2015 Paris Attacks.
Vancouver
1.
Wiersma C. Legal incapacitation in media access interdictions and the internet. Freedom and Control of Digital Expression in the Digital Aftermath of the 2015 Paris Attacks. 2016.
MLA
Wiersma, Chris. “Legal Incapacitation in Media Access Interdictions and the Internet.” Freedom and Control of Digital Expression in the Digital Aftermath of the 2015 Paris Attacks. 2016. Print.