Journalism worthy of the name : freedom within the press and the affirmative side of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
著者
書誌事項
Journalism worthy of the name : freedom within the press and the affirmative side of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(The Raoul Wallenberg Institute human rights library, v. 21)
M. Nijhoff, 2005
大学図書館所蔵 全8件
  青森
  岩手
  宮城
  秋田
  山形
  福島
  茨城
  栃木
  群馬
  埼玉
  千葉
  東京
  神奈川
  新潟
  富山
  石川
  福井
  山梨
  長野
  岐阜
  静岡
  愛知
  三重
  滋賀
  京都
  大阪
  兵庫
  奈良
  和歌山
  鳥取
  島根
  岡山
  広島
  山口
  徳島
  香川
  愛媛
  高知
  福岡
  佐賀
  長崎
  熊本
  大分
  宮崎
  鹿児島
  沖縄
  韓国
  中国
  タイ
  イギリス
  ドイツ
  スイス
  フランス
  ベルギー
  オランダ
  スウェーデン
  ノルウェー
  アメリカ
注記
Based on the author's doctoral thesis from the Faculty of Law, Lund University, 2003
Includes bibliographical references (p. 537-553) and index
内容説明・目次
内容説明
The subject of this study is 'freedom within the press', the nature and limits of the protection afforded to the journalistic imparting process, which has been a neglected area of research. The analysis draws on the classical defenders of freedom of speech, Milton and Mill, to show that at the dawn of the 21st century the intertwined alliance between big business and public authorities resulting in the widespread phenomena of self-censorship within the media constitutes an almost insurmountable obstacle. Instead of enlightening the public and inspiring the individual the press may be contributing to an inert public and individual cowardice antithetical to the objectives of human dignity and democracy.
The core of the problem is that prima facie the infringement of freedom within the media is not exercised on legal premises and cannot therefore be solved within the legal framework. The operation of the press in society is conditioned by three types of regulation, legal regulation, market regulation and self-regulation. Legal regulation does not adequately presuppose the impact of the latter as it is based on the assumption that press freedom is mainly a negative liberty.
The book explores the affirmative side of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights to guarantee press freedom that is not merely illusory but practical and effective. Convention jurisprudence has not only influenced the domestic courts of the Contracting Parties but also the legislators of the Member States. In an era of globalization dominant media operators wield power in their own domestic markets to impede national regulators in adopting interventionist media policies to secure journalistic freedoms. The Convention jurisprudence represents a kind of European ius commune, which is here set in the context of an analysis reflecting the problems and values at issue and offering recommendations to alleviate a situation which threatens democratic ideals and public-spirited journalism.
目次
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- I Subject and Terminology
- II Method
- III Scope
- IV Purpose
- PART I THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION AND ITS PUBLIC WATCHDOG
- Introduction
- Chapter 1: Article 10 and the Press
- Chapter 2: The Democratic Right to Receive
- Chapter 3: Opinion, Journalism and Dignity
- Chapter 4: The Vital Role of Imparting
- PART II FREEDOM WITHIN THE MEDIA: THE DILEMMA OF AN 'IRON CAGE'
- Introduction
- Chapter 5: Self-Censorship in Journalism
- Chapter 6: The Proprietor's Position
- Chapter 7: The Political Nature of Advertising
- Chapter 8: Self-Regulation Contested
- PART III JOURNALISM WORTHY OF THE NAME
- Introduction
- Chapter 9: Affirmative Action on the Basis of Article 10
- Table of Cases
- Table of Legislation
- Bibliography
- Index.
「Nielsen BookData」 より