Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Freedom of Expression (Constitution (Organs of Public opinion (TV,…
Freedom of Expression
Constitution
-
-
-
-
-
-
regulation must pass proportionality test - all forms of expression protected - some speech may be more protected then other types- context and content important
John Stuart Mill
-
-
-
dangerous to inhibit speech which government presumes to be false - no infallibility in the Government
motivation
-
even believing in moral certainities rarely have a comprehensive - grain of truth unless have access to that opinion that grain of truth could be lost forever
-
Two Russian nationalists trialled on seditionist speech, critical about US intervention in the war - conviction upheld - dissenting judgement strong defends free speech - if you have heartfelt conviction which you believe logically should be able to defend it - idea of marketplace
ECHR article 10
-
-
restrictions posssible - measure needs legitimate aim (prevent crime, protect rights or order, if its necessary)
-
-
-
Criticisms
-
-
John stuart Milton
very optimistic - assumes human understanding and development is one way - without free speech regression in human understanding
-
-
limitations
-
important to balance free speech but rights to privacy, fair trial, good name hate speech, blasphemy
Cogley v RTE substantial justification required - RTE produced documentary on abuses in nursing home, secret, management sought injunction of prior restraint - refused injunction
-
John Milton
wrote pamphlet, required to submit work to censors before publishing
purpose of pamphlet - report on parliamentary proceedings = narrow conception of freedom of speech - no longer just to report parliamentary proceedings
Mahon v Keena european court - press must not overstep certain bounds - member states certain margin of appreciation to determine if restriction needed - restrictions must be justified by overriding requirement in the public interest
contents of letter published, original documents destroyed - wanted to uncover leak - source protected -could have serious impact on the future
-
-
-
Irish Times V Ireland order by court prohibiting full reporting - unconstitutional for the HC - conflicting constitutional right - right to fair trial and trial in public (earlier trial collapsed due to media)- SC any trial not open to media is not in public - judge can give directions to jury - blanket ban exceeded jurisdiction - important part of democratic society
reporting on trials - constitution requires justice administered in public - media important role - helps to prevent corruption - reality very few citizens can see trial live
Murphy v IRTC refusal to permit independent radio station broadcast an ad about Jesus - SC - ban not unconstitutional - presumption of constitutionality
-
Mahon v Post Publications media free to publish material not in the public interest - much of the material serves no public interest - O'Kelly published names of 3 TD's in direct defiance of the Tribunal- no public interest - not unlawful- freedom of expression offers protection to socially valuable works and worthless works