4 ms·

I am not sure how most countries in the EU handle the press, but without digging into this too much, it seems like this ruling greatly limits the freedom of pre

I am not sure how most countries in the EU handle the press, but without digging into this too much, it seems like this ruling greatly limits the freedom of press. What if a scandal is uncovered regarding a political leader or someone closely related with them? Does that person have the "right" to kill the right that the free press has to go public with the information? I really don't think something like this would stand up in the US at all, but I'm unfamiliar with press laws in most of Europe.

SEMW 12y ago
"What do we do when fundamental right X of person A conflicts with fundamental right Y of person B" is a question courts have been asking and answering for a very long time. There's a hell of a lot of ECtHR and CJEU case law on how to balance competing rights. I don't imagine it's any different in the US. The US may draw the line a little further towards the direction of freedom of the press and away from privacy etc. than Europe does, but it's not like it's an unqualified right on either side of the pond.
- magicalist 12y ago
  "I'm sure there's case law that establishes some kind of balance" isn't really any kind of answer to the GP's questions...
  - SEMW 12y ago
    ..What would you consider an answer? GP asked what would happen. Answer: a balancing exercise. If you want some examples (from the UK, as that's where I live), try Campbell v MGN [2003], or In Re S (A Child) [2005]. From the latter: "First, neither article [8 (privacy) nor 10 (freedom of speech)] has as such precedence over the other. Secondly, where the values under the two articles are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary. Thirdly, the justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account. Finally, the proportionality test must be applied to each." If you want my prediction on what'd happen if "a scandal is uncovered regarding a political leader... [can they stop the press going public using EU data protection legislation]", I'd say: no. Like, that's not even close to the borderline. Data protection legislation isn't even relevant to press reporting current events, anyway - more relevant for a (UK) political leader would be better off trying to stop a story is defamation law, which is subject to a whole other set of controls and defences.

SEMW 12y ago

"What do we do when fundamental right X of person A conflicts with fundamental right Y of person B" is a question courts have been asking and answering for a very long time. There's a hell of a lot of ECtHR and CJEU case law on how to balance competing rights. I don't imagine it's any different in the US. The US may draw the line a little further towards the direction of freedom of the press and away from privacy etc. than Europe does, but it's not like it's an unqualified right on either side of the pond.

magicalist 12y ago
"I'm sure there's case law that establishes some kind of balance" isn't really any kind of answer to the GP's questions...
- SEMW 12y ago
  ..What would you consider an answer? GP asked what would happen. Answer: a balancing exercise. If you want some examples (from the UK, as that's where I live), try Campbell v MGN [2003], or In Re S (A Child) [2005]. From the latter: "First, neither article [8 (privacy) nor 10 (freedom of speech)] has as such precedence over the other. Secondly, where the values under the two articles are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary. Thirdly, the justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account. Finally, the proportionality test must be applied to each." If you want my prediction on what'd happen if "a scandal is uncovered regarding a political leader... [can they stop the press going public using EU data protection legislation]", I'd say: no. Like, that's not even close to the borderline. Data protection legislation isn't even relevant to press reporting current events, anyway - more relevant for a (UK) political leader would be better off trying to stop a story is defamation law, which is subject to a whole other set of controls and defences.