Conflict of Rights and Interests

Conflict of rights and interests

International human rights law suggests a “balance of rights” approach to assess the legitimacy of state restriction to freedom of expression. The resources on this Module survey the application of this test to various areas of conflict, such as defamation and national security. Readings cover various national practices, and jurisprudence, along with academic critiques.

3 items found, showing 41 - 3

Privacy

Author: Media Legal Defense Initiative
Media Type Icon

"The MLDI Training Manual on Digital Rights and Freedom of Expression Online is designed to assist lawyers represent web-based journalists, bloggers and other online media. It comprises a comprehensive overview of international and comparative law on access to the internet, digital privacy and online data protection as well as specific types of speech-related offences online."

Media Legal Defense Initiative.Training Manual on Digital Rights and Freedom of Expression Online: Litigating digital rights and online freedom of expression in East, West and Southern Africa (2018)

Author: Media Legal Defence Initiative
Media Type Icon

"This manual has been produced as a resource material for training workshops on media and freedom of expression law. It contains resources and background material to help trainers prepare and participants to understand the issues being discussed [...] The manual and training presentations are aimed at an audience of lawyers, with experience of litigation, but not necessarily of media, freedom of expression or human rights law. It covers international and comparative law only, and should be supplemented with relevant national law standards for the country in which they are being used.” 

Media Legal Defence Initiative. Training Manual on international and comparative media and freedom of expression law (2013).

Author: Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, Robert Gorwa, and Madeleine de Cock Buning
Media Type Icon

“In this report, [the authors] identify some policy options available for the European Commission and for European Union member states should they wish to create a more enabling environment for independent professional journalism going forward. Many of these options are relevant far beyond Europe and demonstrate what democratic digital media policy could look like. [They] argue that, to thrive, independent professional journalism needs freedom, funding, and a future. To enable this, media policy needs (a) to protect journalists and media from threats to their independence and to freedom of expression, (b) to provide a level playing field and support for a sustainable business of news, and (c) to be oriented towards the digital, mobile, and platform-dominated future that people are demonstrably embracing – not towards defending the broadcast and print-dominated past. The report identifies a number of real policy choices that elected officials can pursue, at both the European level and at the member state level, all of which have the potential to make a meaningful difference and help create a more enabling environment for independent professional journalism across the continent while minimising the room for political interference with the media. [It is hoped that] it can serve as a useful starting point for a discussion of the role of media policy in European democracy (and beyond) going forward and thus help ensure we develop twenty-first- century media policies for a twenty-first-century media environment.”

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, Robert Gorwa, and Madeleine de Cock Buning. “What Can Be Done? Digital Media Policy Options for Strengthening European Democracy”. Reuters Institute Report 2019. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-11/What_Can_Be_Done_FINAL.pdf