The Is The Right Of Freedom Of Expression

This essay will explore the rights of children of celebrities or any other person’s child due to their parents vocation or occupation and how those rights affect the conduct of professional communicators. Professional communicators that are specifically affects are journalists in the field of photojournalism. The area of Media Laws that this essay will analyse is privacy laws, in particular The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Kingdom Human Rights Act, the common law of breach of confidence, the state 's child protection laws and Australians Privacy Amendment act (enhancing privacy protection), and it will provide some tips for mindful practice to keep within the laws. This essay will explore different cases in two different countries, namely the United Kingdom and Australia.

Murray v Express Newspapers , a case similar to that of Wellers also saw the lack of consent being a major flaw with the published article however as stated before article 8 is a qualified right and was balanced with that of article 10 where it was found that there nothing embarrassing or publicly detrimental to their public appearance and therefore article 10 was granted allowing them to freely be able to publish the story. It has been found that a celebrities’ right to privacy is also highly debated since it is not illegal to photograph a celebrity as long as it does not harm their public appearance, it is found that if they are in the public eye then it is not considered their private life since this is the life they signed up to when they become a celebrity . Therefore, suggesting that since it wouldn’t be detrimental to the Pitt family and Mr Evans may have some rights when producing the article. After balancing both articles 8 and 10 for the Brad Pitt case it suggests that although there are no suggestions of

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Whether or not on a college campus, people (especially college students) should have the right to speak freely. Everyone does have the right to speak freely, because it is one of the twenty-seven amendments. Colleges all around the United States are now home to many restrictions on free speech. For example, the idea and use of “free speech zones” has made its way to colleges everywhere. A “free speech zone” is a sidewalk sized place where students are allowed to speak their minds freely on college campuses. I know what you’re thinking. This sounds ridiculous. Why are there specific places for people to speak their minds? Aren’t colleges suppose to be a place where students speak their minds and learn new things? Universities should not be able to put any restrictions on free speech.

The interpretation of “privacy” under the PCC Code was considered in R (Ford) v Press Complaints Commission . The applicant was the well known television journalist, Anna Ford. She looked for authorization to apply for judicial review of the PCC choice dismissing her protest about distribution of photos of her and her accomplice on a disengaged yet open shoreline abroad. Silber J refused permission on the basis of the “broad discretion” given to media regulators and the “extended deference given by the courts” to their

The freedom of speech and of the press, does not protect an individual that may present

The right to freedom of speech as one of the fundamental human rights is enshrined in The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is consisted of the freedom to speak, think and express oneself without censorship. Freedom of speech constitutes the essential foundations of a democratic society and the basic conditions for its progress and for the development. One of most important functions of the right to freedom of speech is that decision-making at all levels is preceded by discussion and consideration of a representative range of views. It enables the public to participate in making decisions based on the free flow of information and ideas. A decision made after adequate consultation is likely to be a better one which less imperfectly reflects

'Article 13'; The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.'

There are cases in which in some countries, the authorities may prevent media outlets from reporting

In addition to this ethical and law considerations, Channel 9 and Trench need to consider privacy of the deceit. In particular considering the role of the media in determining when to pursue an issue into the privacy of another individual or group, and when the issue is not in the public interest and privacy should not be breached. In this case providing photo’s of the deceit, her home she shares with her husband, doesn’t seem to be in the public interest, for these photos to be broadcast without the consent of family. Further more Trench ethical consideration to publish the name of the deceit after channel 9 did, breaches the code 4,3,8, and does’t justify hime disclosing the name, when he was asked not to. Which can be considered a breach of privacy, as breach of confidence, and not to mention when looking at AMCA ethical codes, breaches code 4,3,9 discussed above. What also needs to be considered by Trench in particular, is the ethical issues of taking into consideration, in particular when getting footage and interviews of his own, that he thinks about the privacy of the people involved, as well as the feeling of any interviews, that may be the family of the

The ethical problem is whether to respect Arthur Ashe’s privacy or come out with the story based off the notion of the public’s ‘right to know’.

Third example is the famous author JK Rowling, she won ban photos on her son. The child of the Harry Potter creator JK Rowling and her husband, Dr. Neil Murray, won a court of appeal, the decision building up that the law shields the children of celebrities from the publication of unapproved photos, unless their parents have exposed them to publicity. Express Newspapers settled the evidence against it for invasion of security out of court however the office, Big Pictures, connected to a high court judge to have the case against it struck out. Mr. Justice Patten tossed out the guardians' case, saying that "the law does not in my judgment (as it stands) enable them to cut out a free press zone for their children in regard of completely everything".

“Many laws exist in Britain restraining the media. In 1992, the White Paper, Open Government, identified 251 laws outlawing information disclosure. Two years later the Guild of Editors listed 46 directly relating to journalists. The laws of libel, contempt, defamation, obscenity and ‘gagging’ injunctions to stop alleged breaches of confidence all act as restraints on the media.” (Keeble, Richard/ Ethics for Journalists)

  No matter how fervently someone believes in the justice of his cause, suppression of the free exchange of ideas is failure at best or downright wrong. The power or might behind an idea does not make the idea right. Many powerful people throughout history have been wrong. Few people, if any, would judge "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to be subversive or wrong. In 1939 Ambassador Kennedy was so caught up in the fears of the times that he was willing to use the power of his money to protect the world against a film. When people are caught up in the movements of their time, all people must be extra zealous to guard and encourage freedom of expression. Otherwise, a mob mentality reigns, and people

First of all, this is the definition of freedom of the press from lawbrain.com. Freedom of the press guarantees the rights, “to gather, publish, and distribute information and ideas without government restriction or restraint”. Also it is

Problems take place within the media when public interest is conflicted with human right and the right to privacy. You can easily validate publishing privet information as a form of public interest, but you however cannot justify the damages it may cause.