Advanced search
Publication Cover
Journal of Media Law Volume 5, 2013 - Issue 1
Submit an article Journal homepage
1,415
Views
6
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Theory and Doctrine of ‘Media Freedom’ as a Legal Concept

Jan Oster DAAD Lecturer in Law, King's College London, UK. German advocate (Rechtsanwalt) and Of Counsel with FREY Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, Germany. I wish to thank Cian Murphy, Michael Schillig, Tobias Lock, the participants at the Trans Europe Experts Annual Forum in Paris, 30 March 2012, and at the Free Speech Discussion Forum at the London Center of the University of Notre Dame, 12 and 13 June 2012, for their invaluable comments. Any errors are my own.
Pages 57-78 | Published online: 07 May 2015

  • lord justice leveson devoted only 10 of the 2,000 pages of his inquiry to internet publications; see lord justice leveson, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press, November 2012, 168–77; 736–37.
  • Mosley v UK app no 48009/08 (ecthr, 10 May 2011), para 114.
  • see Busuioc v Moldova app no 61513/00 (ecthr, 21 December 2004), paras 64 and 65; Jersild v Denmark app no 15890/89 (ecthr, 23 september 1994); mutatis mutandis, Janowski v Poland (No 1) app no 25716/94 (ecthr, 21 january 1999), para 32 and Eon v France app no 26118/10 (ecthr, 14 March 2013), para 55; Bodrozic v Serbia and Montenegro app no 1180/2003 (UN human rights committee, 31 october 2005), para 7.2; Gauthier v Canada app no 633/95 (UN human rights committee, 7 april 1999), para 13.4; Marques de Morais v Angola app no 1128/2002 (UN human rights committee, 18 april 2005), para 6.8.
  • 'congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …'
  • see the seminal article by P stewart, ‘or of the Press’ (1975) 26 Hastings Law Journal 631, 633. see also, amongst many other works, rP bezanson, ‘The New free Press Guarantee’ (1977) 63 Virginia Law Review 731, 733; sr West, ‘awakening the Press clause’ (2011) 58 UCLA Law Review 1025, 1032.
  • as does the ecthr with regard to art 10 of the european convention on human rights (ECHR) and the UN human rights committee concerning art 19 of the International covenant on civil and Political rights (IccPr).
  • see eg Jersild v Denmark app no 15890/89 (ecthr, 23 september 1994), para 31; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway app no 21980/93 (ecthr, 20 May 1999), para 63; Bergens Tidende and others v Norway app no 26132/95 (ecthr, 2 May 2000), para 57.
  • see, eg, Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland app no 13778/88 (ecthr, 25 june 1992), para 67; Oberschlick v Austria (No 2) app no 20834/92 (ecthr, 1 july 1997), para 33; Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v Austria app no 28525/95 (ecthr, 26 february 2002), para 43.
  • compare Jersild v Denmark app no 15890/89 (ecthr, 23 september 1994); July and SARL Liberation v France app no 20893/03 (ecthr, 14 february 2008), para 70.
  • Thoma v Luxembourg app no 38432/97 (ecthr, 29 March 2001), para 64; Radio France and others v France app no 53984/00 (ecthr, 30 March 2004), para 37; see also, mutatis mutandis, Pedersen and Baadsgaard v Denmark app no 49017/99 (ecthr, 17 December 2004), para 77.
  • Vejdeland and others v Sweden app no 1813/07 (ecthr, 9 february 2012), concurring opinion by judge boštjan M Zupan?i?, para 12.
  • Halis Do?an and others v Turkey app no 50693/99 (ecthr, 10 january 2006), para 24.
  • Gsell v Switzerland app no 12675/05 (ecthr, 8 october 2009), para 49: restrictions on road access to the World economic forum in Davos.
  • from the ecthr case law, see eg Goodwin v UK app no 17488/90 (ecthr, 27 March 1996), para 39; Radio Twist as v Slovakia app no 62202/00 (ecthr, 19 December 2006), para 62; Sanoma Uitgevers BV v Netherlands app no 38224/03 (ecthr, 14 september 2010), para 50; see also Prosecutor v Brdjanin and Talic, case no IT-99–36-ar73.9 (IcTY, 11 December 2002), Decision on interlocutory appeal of jonathan randal, 11 December 2002, para 50. from legal scholarship, see, in particular, cc Monk, ‘evidentiary Privilege for journalists’ sources: Theory and statutory Protection' (1986) 51 Missouri Law Review 1, 4–5; DM abramowicz, 'calculating the Public Interest in Protecting journalists' confdential sources' (2008) 108 Columbia Law Review 1949; D carney, 'Theoretical Underpinnings of the Protection of journalists' confdential sources: Why an absolute Privilege cannot be justifed' (2009) 1 Journal of Media Law 97; eric barendt, ‘bad News for bloggers’ (2009) 2 Journal of Media Law 141, 146.
  • see eg art 9 of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/ec, oj l281/31, and art 5(3)(c) of the copyright Directive 2001/29/ec, oj l167/19.
  • Informationsverein Lentia and others v Austria app nos 13914/88, 15041/89, 15717/89, 15779/89, 17207/90 (ecthr, 24 November 1993), paras 32–34; TV Vest & Rogaland Pensjonistparti v Norway app no 21132/05 (ecthr, 11 December 2008), para 78. see also e Komorek, ‘Is Media Pluralism a human right? The european court of human rights, the council of europe and the Issue of Media Pluralism' [2009] European Human Rights Law Review 395.
  • see eg Özgür Gündem v Turkey app no 23144/93 (ecthr, 16 March 2000), paras 38 ff.
  • see art 21(4) subpara 2 of the ec Merger regulation 139/2004, oj l24/1; under UK law, see Part 5 chapter 2 of the communications Act 2003, ch 21. see also VGT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland (No 1) app no 24699/94 (ecthr, 28 june 2001), para 72.
  • see ecthr, Manole v Moldova app no 13936/02 (ecthr, 17 september 2009), para 109; Centro Europa 7 Srl and Di Stefano v Italy app no 38433/09 (ecthr, 7 june 2012), para 133; bezanson (n 5) 734.
  • see eg s (4)(a)(ii)(II) of the Us freedom of Information act, 5 Usc § 552, providing for the limitation of fees for FOIA requests by ‘a representative of the news media’; UN human rights committee, Gauthier v Canada app no 633/95 (UN human rights committee, 7 april 1999), para 13.4; German federal constitutional court, case 1 bvr 990/13 [2013] NSU trial: reservation of seats for media correspondents in a court trial; D anderson, ‘freedom of the Press’ (2001–2) 80 Texas Law Review 429, 432.
  • The Spiegel affair was a major political scandal in Germany involving the then federal Minister of Defence, franz josef strauß, and the magazine Der Spiegel. following a critical Spiegel article concerning the state of Germany's armed forces, strauß became involved in the search and seizure of the magazine's offce and the arrest of several Spiegel journalists. strauß eventually lost his offce, and the federal constitutional court issued a seminal ruling on freedom of the press; see German federal constitutional court, case 1 bvr 586/62, 610/63 and 512/64 [1966] Der Spiegel.
  • lord justice leveson (n 1) 455 ff.
  • see, for instance, C calvert and M Torres, 'Putting the shock value in first amendment jurisprudence: When freedom for the citizen-journalist Watchdog Trumps the right of Informational Privacy on the Internet' (2011) 23 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 323, 341; j curran and j seaton, Power Without Responsibility—Press, Broadcasting and the Internet in Britain (routledge, 7th edn 2010) 96–98, both works providing further references.
  • lord justice leveson lists many further ‘case studies’ in his report; see leveson (n 1) 539 ff.
  • see sl carter, 'Technology, Democracy, and the Manipulation of consent (1983–4) 93 Yale Law Journal 581, 600–7; P Garry, 'The first amendment and freedom of the Press: a revised approach to the Marketplace of Ideas concept' (1989) 72 Marquette Law Review 187, 189; leveson (n 1) 94 ff.
  • see l Durity, 'shielding journalist-”bloggers”: The Need to Protect Newsgathering Despite the Distribution Medium' (2006) 5 Duke Law & Technology Review 1; joseph s alonzo, 'restoring the Ideal Marketplace: how recognizing bloggers as journalists can save the Press' (2006) 9 NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy 751, 754; anonymous note, 'Developments in the law: The law of the Media' (2007) 120 Harvard Law Review 990, 996–8.
  • see anonymous note, Ibid, 1005; calvert and Torres (n 23) 344.
  • compare calvert and Torres (n 23) 344, with further references.
  • see high court of Ireland, Cornec v Morrice [2012] IEHC 376; KQ seelye, 'White house approves Press Pass for blogger', New York Times (7 March 2005), c5.
  • see N shachtman, 'With Incessant Postings, a Pundit stirs the Pot', New York Times (16 january 2003), G5.
  • leveson (n 1) 168.
  • see www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/google-autocomplete-former-german-frst-lady-defamation-case-a-856820.html; see also Dj solove, The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet (Yale University Press, 2007), who provides many examples throughout his book.
  • alonzo (n 26) 755.
  • curran and seaton (n 23) 286; calvert and Torres (n 23) 345.
  • see eg Dl lange, ‘The speech and Press clauses’ (1975) 23 UCLA Law Review 77; WW van alstyne, 'The hazards to the Press of claiming a “Preferred Position”' (1977) 28 Hastings Law Journal 761, 768–9; a lewis, ‘a Preferred Position for journalism?' (1978–9) 7 Hofstra Law Review 595; ce baker, 'Press Performance, human rights, and Private Power as a Threat' (2011) 5 Law & Ethics of Human Rights 219, 230; e volokh, 'freedom of the Press as an Industry, or from the Press as a Technology?' (2011–12) 160 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 459, 538–9.
  • compareh fenwick and G Phillipson, Media Freedom under the Human Rights Act (oxford University Press, 2006) 20. In addition, fenwick and Phillipson identify the ‘special privileges model’, the ‘differentiated privileges model’, and ‘a “variable geometry” of media freedom’.
  • compare bezanson (n 5) 755; Mj rooney, 'freedom of the Press: an emerging Privilege' (1983) 67 Mar-quette Law Review 34, 54.
  • volokh (n 35) 463.
  • Us supreme court, Mills v Alabama, 384 Us 214, 219 (1966); see also Estes v Texas, 381 Us 532, 539 (1965): 'The free press has been a mighty catalyst in awakening public interest in governmental affairs, exposing corruption among public offcers and employees and generally informing the citizenry of public events and occurrences.'
  • Us supreme court, Citizens United v FEC, 130 s ct 876, 905 (2010) (citations omitted). see, for instance, Us supreme court, Associated Press v United States, 326 Us 1, 7 (1945); Branzburg v Hayes, 408 Us 665, 704 (1972); Pell v Procunier, 417 Us 817, 834 (1974); Saxbe v Washington Post Co, 417 Us 843, 848–9 (1974); In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Miller, 397 f 3d 964 (Dc cir 2005), cert denied, 125 s ct 2977 (2005).
  • see the elaborate works of D anderson, ‘The origins of the Press clause’ (1982–3) 30 UCLA Law Review 455 and volokh (n 35) 459; see also lange (n 35) 88–99; lewis (n 35) 600.
  • Us supreme court, Citizens United v FEC, 130 s ct 876, 905 (2010) (scalia j concurring).
  • Us supreme court, Branzburg v Hayes, 408 Us 665, 704 (1972); compare lewis (n 35) 602–3; lange (n 35) 106; vD amar, 'from Watergate to Ken starr: Potter stewart's “or of the Press” a Quarter century later' (1999) 50 Hastings Law Journal 711, 714; ce baker, 'The Independent signifcance of the Press clause under existing law' (2007) 35 Hofstra Law Review 955, 1015.
  • see Chorherr v Austria app no 13308/87 (ecthr, 25 august 1993), para 24; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom app no 18139/91 (ecthr, 13 july 1995), para 35. The ‘lonely pamphleteer’ example originates from justice White in the Us supreme court decision Branzburg v Hayes, 408 Us 665, 704 (1972).
  • fundamentally stewart (n 5) 633; see also Mb Nimmer, 'Introduction—Is freedom of the Press a redundancy: What Does it add to freedom of speech?' (1974–5) 26 Hastings Law Journal 639, 640.
  • see F schauer, ‘Towards an Institutional first amendment’ (2004–5) 89 Minnesotta Law Review 1256, 1260; baker (n 43) 1016; West (n 5) 1048.
  • compare rooney (n 37) 55. see, for example, the first amendment to the Us constitution, arts 4, 8 and 9 of the German basic law, arts 9 and 11 ECHR, and arts 10 and 12 eUchfr. With regard to religion, see Us supreme court, Sherbert v Verner, 374 Us 398 (1963); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc v City of Hialeah, 508 Us 520 (1993); Swami Omkarananda and the Divine Light Zentrum v Switzerland app no 8118/77 (commission Decision, 19 March 1981); Pretty v UK app no 2346/02 (ecthr, 29 april 2002); German federal constitutional court, case 2 bvr 263/86 [1991] Bahai. With regard to assemblies, see case c-112/00 Schmidberger v Austria (ecj, 12 june 2003); German federal constitutional court, case 1 bvQ 28/01 and 1 bvQ 30/01 [2001] ‘Fuckparade’ and ‘Love Parade’; case 1 bvr 1402/06 [2010] Distinction assembly—crowd.
  • see General comment No 34, para 44.
  • see United states Dc circuit court of appeals, In re Grand Jury Subpoena, f 3d 397, 979–80 (2005) (sentelle j); West (n 5) 1058.
  • alonzo (n 26) 774.
  • Ibid, 775.
  • see eg appendix to recommendation No r (2000) 7 of the committee of Ministers of the council of europe to Member states on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information: 'for the purposes of this recommendation … the term “journalist” means any natural or legal person who is regularly or professionally engaged in the collection and dissemination of information to the public via any means of mass communication'; Sürek and Özdemir v Turkey app nos 23927/94 and 24277/94 (ecthr, 8 july 1999), para 63; Wizerkaniuk v Poland app no 18990/05 (ecthr, 5 july 2011), para 68; Kaperzy?ski v Poland app no 43206/07 (ecthr, 3 april 2012), para 70.
  • see Perrin v UK app no 5446/03 (ecthr, 18 october 2005); Willem v France app no 10883/05 (ecthr, 16 july 2009).
  • see erik Ugland, 'Demarcating the right to Gather News: a sequential Interpretation of the first amendment' (2008) 3 Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy 118, 137; West (n 5) 1068.
  • compare P Keller, European and International Media Law: Liberal Democracy, Trade, and the New Media (oxford University Press, 2011) 12; e barendt, Freedom of Speech (oxford University Press, 2nd edn 2005) 417; anderson (n 20) 469–70.
  • RH bork, 'Neutral Principles and some first amendment Problems' (1971) 47 Indiana Law Journal 1, 27–28.
  • see Mr chesterman, Freedom of Speech in Australian Law: A Delicate Plant (ashgate Publishing, 2000) 48.
  • A Meiklejohn, Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People (oxford University Press, 1960) 42; a Meiklejohn, ‘The first amendment is an absolute’ [1961] Supreme Court Review 245, 255–7; D Milo, Defamation and Freedom of Speech (oxford University Press, 2008) 63–64.
  • house of lords, Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others [2001] 2 ac 127, 220 (lord cooke); from legal scholarship, see Meiklejohn (n 58) 257; va blasi, 'The checking value in first amendment Theory' [1977] American Bar Foundation Research Journal 521, 559; f schauer, 'Must speech be special?' (1983–4) 78 Northwestern University Law Review 1284, 1303–4.
  • see Sunday Times v UK (No 1) app no 6538/74 (ecthr, 26 april 1979), para 65; Lingens v Austria app no 9815/82 (ecthr, 8 july 1986), para 41; stewart (n 5) 634; r scott comegys, 'Potter stewart: an analysis of his views on the Press as fourth estate' (1982–3) 59 Chicago-Kent Law Review 157, 158; TW Gleason, The Watchdog Concept: The Press and the Courts in Nineteenth Century America (Iowa state University Press, 1990) 7; la Powe, jr, The Fourth Estate and the Constitution: Freedom of the Press in America (University of california Press, 1991) 238.
  • see eg Lingens v Austria app no 9815/82 (ecthr, 8 july 1986), para 42; Oberschlick v Austria (No 1) app no 11662/85 (ecthr, 23 May 1991), para 58; Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v Austria app no 39394/98 (ecthr, 13 November 2003), para 30.
  • ecthr, ibid.
  • rooney (n 37) 58; Garry (n 25) 199.
  • The theory has its origins in the libertarian philosophies of j Milton, Areopagitica (elibron classics, 2006 [1644]) 35 and js Mill, On Liberty (oxford University Press edn, 2008 [1859]) 59; see also Us supreme court, Whitney v California, 274 Us 357, 375–8 (1927) (brandeis j concurring); house of lords, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 ac 115, 126, 131.
  • see ce baker, ‘scope of the first amendment freedom of speech' (1978) 25 UCLA Law Review 964, 967; s Ingber, 'The Marketplace of Ideas: a legitimizing Myth' (1984) 33 Duke Law Journal 1.
  • Us supreme court, Abrams v United States, 250 Us 616, 630 (1919) (brandeis j concurring). see also Gertz v Robert Welch Inc, 418 Us 323, 339–40 (1974): 'however pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction … on the competition of other ideas.'
  • see Us supreme court, Dennis v United States, 341 Us 494, 584 (1951) (Douglas j dissenting); alonzo (n 26) 762.
  • JS Nestler, 'The Underprivileged Profession: The case for supreme court recognition of the journalist's Privilege' (2005) 154 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 201, 211.
  • see barendt (n 55) 392–416. from the Us supreme court, see eg Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp v Public Service Commission, 447 Us 557 (1980); Dun & Bradstreet Inc v Greenmoss Builders Inc, 472 Us 749, 762 (1985). from the ecthr, see Markt Intern Verlag and Klaus Beermann v Germany app no 10572/83 (ecthr, 20 November 1989), para 33.
  • barendt (n 55) 230 ff; fenwick and Phillipson (n 36) 661 ff; Keller (n 55) 307 ff; see von Hannover v Germany (No 1) app no 59320/00 (ecthr, 24 june 2004), para 65; MGN Ltd v UK app no 39401/04 (ecthr, 18 january 2011), para 143; Mosley v UK app no 48009/08 (ecthr, 10 May 2011), para 114.
  • see art 20(2) IccPr, requiring that '[a]ny advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law'. see eg Ross v Canada app no 736/97 (UN human rights committee, 18 october 2000), para 11.5. from the ecthr, see eg Lehideux and Isorni v France app no 55/1997/839/1045 (ecthr, 23 september 1998), para 47; Norwood v UK app no 23131/03 (ecthr, 16 November 2004).
  • see P Mitchell, ‘The Nature of responsible journalism’ (2011) 3 Journal of Media Law 19; leveson (n 1) 81 ff; from ecthr case law, see, among many further decisions, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway app no 21980/93 (ecthr, 20 May 1999), para 65; Fressoz and Roire v France app no 29183/95 (ecthr, 21 january 1999), para 54; Bergens Tidende and others v Norway app no 26132/95 (ecthr, 2 May 2000), para 53.
  • Prager and Oberschlick v Austria app no 15974/90 (ecthr, 26 april 1995), para 37; Bergens Tidende and others v Norway app no 26132/95 (ecthr, 2 May 2000), para 58; mutatis mutandis, Flux v Moldova (No 6) app no 22824/04 (ecthr, 29 july 2008), para 29.
  • see Worm v Austria app no 83/1996/702/894 (ecthr, 29 august 1997), para 50; Du Roy and Malaurie v France app no 34000/96 (ecthr, 3 october 2000), para 43; News Verlags GmbH & Co. KG v Austria app no 31457/96 (ecthr, 11 january 2000), para 56.
  • Pedersen and Baadsgaard v Denmark app no 49017/99 (ecthr, 17 December 2004), paras 77 ff; Wizerka-niuk v Poland app no 18990/05 (ecthr, 5 july 2011), para 66.
  • see eg Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v France app no 21279/02 and 36448/02 (ecthr, 22 october 2007), para 66; Saaristo and others v Finland app no 184/06 (ecthr, 12 october 2010), para 65; Kaperzy?ski v Poland app no 43206/07 (ecthr, 3 april 2012), para 64; mutatis mutandis, Flux v Moldova (No 6) app no 22824/04 (ecthr, 29 july 2008), para 29.
  • Sürek v Turkey (No 1) app no 26682/95 (ecthr, 8 july 1999), para 63; Sürek v Turkey (No 2) app no 24122/94 (ecthr, 8 july 1999), para 36.
  • see eg arts 5 and 28 of the audiovisual Media services Directive 2010/13/eU, oj l95/1; Ediciones Tiempo SA v Spain app no 13010/87 (commission Decision, 12 july 1989).
  • compare MJ bossuyt, Guide to the ‘Travaux Préparatoires’ of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Martinus Nijhoff, 1987) 386.
  • house of lords, Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 ac 127, 205 (lord Nicholls). see also house of lords, Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2007] 1 ac 359, 383 (lord hoffmann); UKsc, Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKsc 11, [30] (lord Phillips).
  • compare blasi (n 59) 545; baker (n 65) 996; TM scanlon, 'freedom of expression and categories of expression' (1978–9) 40 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 519, 533 ff; Nestler (n 68) 211.
  • blasi (n 59) 553.
  • see Nimmer (n 45) 654; Nestler (n 70) 212; al fargo and lb alexander, 'Testing the boundaries of the first amendment Press clause: a Proposal for Protecting the Media from Newsgathering Torts' (2009) 32 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 1094, 1097.
  • see ll berger, 'shielding the Unmedia: Using the Process of journalism to Protect the journalist's Privilege in an Infnite Universe of Publication' (2003) 39 Houston Law Review 1371, 1411; baker (n 43) 976.
  • CR sunstein, ‘Pornography and the first amendment’ (1986) 35 Duke Law Journal 589, 605.
  • see eg Us supreme court, Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc, 418 Us 323, 246 (1974); Dun & Bradstreet, Inc v Greenmoss Builders, 472 Us 749, 761 (1985); Hustler Magazine v Falwell, 485 Us 46, 50 (1988); Bartnicki v Vopper, 532 Us 514, 528, 533–4 (2001); court of appeal of england and Wales, London Artists v Littler [1969] 2 Qb 375, 391 (lord Denning); house of lords, Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 ac 127, 205 (lord Nicholls); Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2007] 1 ac 359, 376 (lord bingham); UKsc, Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKsc 11, [24] (lord Phillips).
  • Us supreme court, Connick v Myers, 461 Us 138, 146 (1983).
  • see United states supreme court, Roth v United States, 354 Us 476, 484 (1957); New York Times v Sullivan, 376 Us 254, 269 (1964); Hustler Magazine v Falwell, 485 Us 46, 53 (1988); court of appeal of england and Wales, Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans [1984] 1 Wlr 526, 530; Francome v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [1984] 1 Wlr 892, 897; house of lords, Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 ac 127, 205 (lord Nicholls); von Hannover v Germany (No 1) app no 59320/00 (ecthr, 24 june 2004), para 65.
  • see eg barendt (n 55) 25–30; Keller (n 55) 194–5, 271–3, 293–5, 299–301, 310–12, 320–2, 328–30; c estlund, ‘speech on Matters of Public concern: The Perils of an emerging first amendment category' (1990) 59 George Washington Law Review 1; P Wragg, 'a freedom to criticise? evaluating the Public Interest in celebrity Gossip after Mosley and Terry' (2010) 2 Journal of Media Law 295; see also leveson (n 1) 85 ff, 1883 ff. With regard to public interest as a concept of political philosophy, see, for instance, js Mill, Considerations on Representative Government (oxford University Press edn, 2008 [1859]) 203; v held, The Public Interest and Individual Interests (basic books, 1970); j habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, vol 1: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society (beacon Press, 1984).
  • see eg Bowman v UK app no 141/1996/760/961 (ecthr, 19 february 1998), para 42; Jerusalem v Austria app no 26958/95 (ecthr, 27 february 2001), para 41; Filatenko v Russia app no 73219/01 (ecthr, 6 December 2007), para 40.
  • see eg De Haes and Gijsels v Belgium app no 19983/92 (ecthr, 24 february 1997), para 37; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v Denmark app no 49017/99 (ecthr, 17 December 2004), para 71; Perna v Italy app no 48898/99 (ecthr, 6 May 2003), para 39.
  • Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland app no 13778/88 (ecthr, 25 june 1992).
  • Fressoz and Roire v France app no 29183/95 (ecthr, 21 january 1999), para 50; Steel and Morris v UK app no 68416/01 (ecthr, 15 february 2005), para 89; see j oster, 'The criticism of Trading corporations and their right to sue for Defamation' (2011) 2 Journal of European Tort Law 255.
  • see eg Radio France and others v France app no 53984/00 (ecthr, 30 March 2004), para 34; Chauvy and others v France app no 64915/01 (ecthr, 29 june 2004), para 69; Monnat v Switzerland app no 73604/01 (ecthr, 21 september 2006), para 59; Karsai v Hungary app no 5380/07 (ecthr, 1 september 2009), para 35.
  • see White v Sweden app no 42435/02 (ecthr, 19 september 2006), para 29; Egeland and Hanseid v Norway app no 34438/04 (ecthr, 16 april 2009), para 58.
  • Sunday Times v UK (No 1) app no 6538/74 (ecthr, 26 april 1979); Bergens Tidende and others v Norway app no 26132/95 (ecthr, 2 May 2000), para 51; Selistö v Finland app no 56767/00 (ecthr, 16 November 2004), para 52.
  • Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway app no 21980/93 (ecthr, 20 May 1999); VGT Verein gegen Tierfab-riken v Switzerland (No 1) app no 24699/94 (ecthr, 28 june 2001), para 70.
  • Mosley v UK app no 48009/08 (ecthr, 10 May 2011), para 114; see eg von Hannover v Germany (No 1) app no 59320/00 (ecthr, 24 june 2004), para 65; Hachette Filipacchi Associés v France app no 12268/03 (ecthr, 23 july 2009), para 40; Eerikäinen and others v Finland app no 3514/02 (ecthr, 10 february 2009), para 62; Standard Verlags GmbH v Austria (No 2) app no 21277/05 (ecthr, 4 june 2009), para 52; MGN Ltd v UK app no 39401/04 (ecthr, 18 january 2011), para 143.
  • see von Hannover v Germany (No 1) app no 59320/00 (ecthr, 24 june 2004), para 61; von Hannover v Germany (No 2) app nos 40660/08 and 60641/08 (ecthr, 7 february 2012), para 96.
  • von Hannover v Germany (No 2) app nos 40660/08 and 60641/08 (ecthr, 7 february 2012), para 103; see eg von Hannover v Germany (No 1) app no 59320/00 (ecthr, 24 june 2004), para 59; Hachette Filipacchi Associés v France app no 12268/03 (ecthr, 23 july 2009), para 40.
  • von Hannover v Germany (No 1) app no 59320/00 (ecthr, 24 june 2004), para 77.
  • compare california court of appeal, O'Grady v Superior Court, 44 cal rptr 3d 72, 105; berger (n 84) 1412; West (n 5) 1067.
  • compare Éditions Plon v France app no 58148/00 (ecthr, 18 May 2004), para 43; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v France app no 21279/02 and 36448/02 (ecthr, 22 october 2007), para 47; cases 43/82 and 63/82 VBVB and VBBB (ecj, 17 january 1984); see also concluding observations on Kuwait, no ccPr/co/69/KWT (UN human rights committee, 27 july 2000), para 20.
  • see house of lords, Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 ac 127, 205 (lord Nicholls); UKsc, Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKsc 11, [24] (lord Phillips).
  • see special court for sierra leone, Prosecutor v Alex Tamba Brima, Decision on Prosecution appeal against decision on oral application for witness Tf1–150 to testify without being compelled to answer questions on grounds of confdentiality, case No scsl-2004–16-ar73 [2006] scsl 2 (26 May 2006) [33]: privileged relationship between a human rights offcer and his informants.
  • see J oster, 'The commission Proposal for amending the regulation on credit rating agencies' (2012) 19 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 206, 211.
  • Steel and Morris v UK app no 68416/01 (ecthr, 15 february 2005), para 89.
  • Mosley v UK app no 48009/08 (ecthr, 10 May 2011), para 131; resolution 1165 of the Parliamentary assembly of the council of europe on the right to privacy (1998), para 6. see also the seminal article by s Warren and l brandeis, ‘The right to Privacy’ (1890) 5 Harvard Law Review 193, 196.
  • anonymous note (n 26) 998. see also Mitchell (n 72) 19: 'compliance with the standards of responsible journalism is a prerequisite for any defendant (whether a journalist or not) …' (emphasis added).

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.