Search Results
Abstract
This article concerns the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the United Kingdom. The rhetoric of politicians who object to the Court and raise problems with the implementation of its judgments is contrasted with the reality of implementation. It is shown that the UK is a good international citizen which takes its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights seriously. Problems with implementation, such as those raised by the prisoner voting judgment, Hirst (No 2), are useful tools for politicians seeking to provoke anti-European sentiment. However, with this judgment now implemented, this strategy is no longer as successful as it once was.
Justifications for freedom of expression do, in the end, inevitably involve the conduct of the media and it is this that concerns our authors. This book is concerned with these issues as they affect the contemporary media, the practice of journalism and why imposed constraints and the extent of the freedoms attached to freedom of expression are managed, and why they may or may not be ultimately regarded as legitimate or not legitimate. It is the practical matter of contemporary journalism and freedom of expression that concerns us. Consequently this is not a philosophical work so much as a work concerned with the way that freedom of expression is evoked and applied and those arguments that support or refute such evocation and application, focussing on areas of tension between freedom of expression and other considerations. In short, this is a book concerned with what the various authors regard as good practice as well as what they regard as problematic and why.
Most of the chapters in this book assume a UK regulatory framework, which, influenced by the EU requirements, imposes a differentiated burden on the broadcast media by comparison with the press and, to some degree, content on the Internet.
Justifications for freedom of expression do, in the end, inevitably involve the conduct of the media and it is this that concerns our authors. This book is concerned with these issues as they affect the contemporary media, the practice of journalism and why imposed constraints and the extent of the freedoms attached to freedom of expression are managed, and why they may or may not be ultimately regarded as legitimate or not legitimate. It is the practical matter of contemporary journalism and freedom of expression that concerns us. Consequently this is not a philosophical work so much as a work concerned with the way that freedom of expression is evoked and applied and those arguments that support or refute such evocation and application, focussing on areas of tension between freedom of expression and other considerations. In short, this is a book concerned with what the various authors regard as good practice as well as what they regard as problematic and why.
Most of the chapters in this book assume a UK regulatory framework, which, influenced by the EU requirements, imposes a differentiated burden on the broadcast media by comparison with the press and, to some degree, content on the Internet.