|
search / subscribe / upload / contact |
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| RSS-Feed Depeschen |  |
|
|
||
|
||
Date: 1998-07-18
Zensur/hochburg Oesterreich-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- Court of Human Rights" zum Thema "Redefreiheit" ist Österreich als einziges Land mit gleich drei Muster/fällen vertreten. Für .at wichtigster Satz: "A key ruling on political expression is found in Lingens v. Austria (1986)(15), in which the Court imported a concept from the US Supreme Court that politicians must expect and tolerate greater public scrutiny and criticism than average citizens." Die Lektüre wird nachdrücklich empfohlen. (c URL below) -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- Freedom of Expression on Trial: Caselaw under European Convention on human rights Sally Burnheim ... This essay will outline the scope and limitations of the right to freedom of expression as developed through the significant caselaw of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights, in the areas of political and artistic expression. .. Through its casework, the European Court of Human Rights has established the range and means of free expression protected under the European Convention - including political, artistic and commercial expression through the written and spoken word, television and radio, film and art. ... The Court has strongly established the importance of the media's role in being able to report freely on matters of public interest. As affirmed in the Handyside passage, freedom of expression extends to unfavourable information or ideas, as well as those that are popular or inoffensive.(7) .... A key ruling on political expression is found in Lingens v. Austria (1986)(15), in which the Court imported a concept from the US Supreme Court that politicians must expect and tolerate greater public scrutiny and criticism than average citizens. It stressed the media's crucial role in reporting matters of public interest. Freedom of the press provided the public with "one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of political leaders"(16). The Court stated: "More generally, freedom of political debate is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society which prevails throughout the Convention. The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual."(17) ... In both Lingens and a later case, Oberschlick v. Austria (1991)(18), the Court made it clear that freedom of expression was not limited to verifiable, factual data.(19) In other words, it was not 'necessary in a democratic society' for journalists to prove the truth of their opinions and value judgements about political figures, as these were impossible to prove anyway.(20) ... The Court seemed to undermine this reasoning in Otto-Preminger Institute v. Austria (1994)(46), in which it also found in favour of the state. However, unlike in the Müller case, the Institute had restricted the showing of a 'blasphemous' film to paying adults above 17 years of age. There was little risk that children would chance to see the film as it was to be screened late at night. Therefore, the Institute had taken precautions which seemingly precluded the need for the state to interfere 'for the protection of morals'. Despite stating that people with religious beliefs have to tolerate criticism and denial by others, the Court gave the state a very wide of margin of appreciation, accepting that its action was necessary in order to keep the peace. In contrast, the Commission had said that "very stringent reasons" were needed to justify the seizure of a film - "which excludes any chance to discuss its message" - and that these reasons were lacking.(47) ... ... "The punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person in an interview would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so."(51) ... Conclusion In keeping with its affirmation that freedom of expression is "one of the essential foundations of a [democratic] society", the Court has clearly shown a preference for political expression. This can be seen in its rulings in favour of political speech, largely through the media, when it has been balanced against other compelling interests, such as the administration of justice, confidence in national security services, and the protection of the rights or reputation of others. In matters involving artistic expression - especially that which has raised suggestions of obscenity or blasphemy - the Court has allowed states a greater margin of appreciation to determine the restrictions necessary for the protection of morals. ... References 15. Lingens v. Austria, Judgement of 8 July 1986, Series A, No.103; 8 EHHR 103 (1986). Peter Lingens, a magazine publisher in Vienna, published two articles critical of the Austrian Chancellor, Bruno Kreisky, and accusing him of protecting and assisting former members of the Nazi SS. The Chancellor brought private prosecutions for criminal defamation. Lingens was convicted and fined, and his magazine confiscated. He complained to the Commission that his rights under Article 10 had been violated. The Court agreed. .... 18. Oberschlick v. Austria, Judgement of 23 May 1991, Series A, No.204. This case concerned the publication in a periodical of a criminal summons laid against the Secretary-General of the Austrian Liberal Party in respect of remarks he had made during a general election campaign. The publication led to the conviction of the applicant for defamation. The Court upheld his complaint of a violation of Article 10. (Jacobs and White, p.228-229.) Full text http://www.derechos.org/koaga/i/burnheim.html relayed by Margarita Lacabe. -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- TIP Download free PGP 5.5.3i (Win95/NT & Mac) http://keyserver.ad.or.at/pgp/download/ -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- -.-.- --.- - -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- edited by published on: 1998-07-18 comments to office@quintessenz.at subscribe Newsletter - -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- 
|
|
|
 |
CURRENTLY RUNNING |
q/Talk 1.Juli: The Danger of Software Users Don't Control
|
|
|
!WATCH OUT! |
bits4free 14.Juli 2011: OpenStreetMap Erfinder Steve Coast live in Wien
|
|