• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8

This essay will discuss what is meant by Human Rights and go on to explain both the rights of privacy and the freedom of expression individually and then identify if both of these work well together.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐Question: ?Human rights simultaneously claim to protect freedom of expression and the right to privacy.? (Clapham, A. (2007) Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p.114) Evaluate this statement using the examples of the law on privacy you have studied in Unit 21. Is the current balance between a right to privacy and a right to freedom of expression appropriate? This essay will discuss what is meant by Human Rights and go on to explain both the rights of privacy and the freedom of expression individually and then identify if both of these work well together. From the explanations, identification will be made as to why if some of the rights conflict with each other. It will look at the nature of the Human Rights legislation focusing on the laws surrounding privacy and freedom of expression and assess both the strengths and weaknesses of this legal methodology. In order to examine the laws surrounding Human Rights it is first essential to understand what they are and how they have developed over time into the legal framework used to support them. Human rights are those rights that every individual on the planet is entitled to. Human rights are entitled to every individual regardless of race, gender, s****l orientation, disability, age, whether the individual is a criminal or not, working class or social status. These rights are automatically assigned to an individual the moment they are born, and they cannot be infringed upon by anyone whether in the family or a position of authority. ...read more.

Middle

Article 8 of the Human rights Act states that there should be: ?respect for everyone?s private and family life, home and correspondence?. This means the right to get on with life without undue interference. Article 10 of the Act provides the right to pass information to others and the rights to express opinions and ideas. Until 2000 when the Act came into force, there was no right to privacy under English Law, however the laws surrounding Breach of Confidence had been used to protect certain private matters. Reading 7: The Human Rights Act, Community Legal Services Direct Information Leaflet 7 (2005), The Human Rights Act, Legal Services Commission, p44 and p45 describe both Articles 8: Right to respect for private and family life and Article 10: Freedom of expression in more detail. The private life part of Article 8 has been used to challenge the Government for holding information about people. For example someone who was in care has used it to get information about his childhood. Article 8 has been used by people to challenge the police or secret services bugging their homes. Article 8 is a ?qualified right?. Basically this means that in certain circumstances it can be breached. The Government or the public authority that has breached the right must show that there was a clear legl basis for the breach. It also has to show that reaching the right was ?necessary and proportionate? in that it was done for a good reason and went no further than it needed to. ...read more.

Conclusion

Reading 9: Privacy and human rights 2004: Overview p.52 and p53 looks at Article 8 in more detail. It states that of all the human rights in the international catalogue privacy is perhaps the most difficult to define. In Reading 13 in the Case of Campbell v MGN Ltd, The House of Lords ruled that the Mirror Newspaper breached supermodel Naomi Campbell’s right to privacy in a case that could have a far reaching impact on celebrity reporting. Lady Hale, Lord Hope and Lord Carswell allowed the appeal , with Lord Nicholls and Lord Hoffman dissenting. The Lords reinstated Ms Campbell’s £3500 compensation, and awarded costs in her favour. The competing nature of the laws, together with the nature of their wording, have created a lack of certitude among many who are subject to them. As shown by the Campbell case, there is no clear dividing line between the rights of privacy and those of freedom of expression. It is hard to justify the statement that Human Rights ensure basic rights and freedoms as they currently stand. Although they can arguably have enhanced the ability to defend ones rights within the courts, the competing nature of conflicting rights and the large areas of uncertainty that currently exist would suggest that the legislation falls far short of ensuring them. In Conclusion although the individual has freedom of expression and rights to privacy these come under conflict under certain circumstances. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Human Rights Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Human Rights Law essays

  1. This essay will be divided into four sections. In the first section, the issue ...

    In the final section, it will exam whether the satiric cartoon of Muhammad and the David Irving's denial of the use of gas chamber in Holocaust form a hate speech. I.Tolerance or intolerance? According to John Horton, toleration is the idea that any expression of beliefs, actions or practices which the tolerator prefers not to exist, is permissible1.

  2. The common law of defamation is structured around Article 10 of the European Convention ...

    An Internet Service Provider is entitled to use this defence as they do not fall within the definition of a publisher.13 However where an ISP receives a notification of a defamatory statement they will be liable and held responsible they fail to remove.14 This can be seen in the case of Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd (1999)

  1. human rights

    The HRA only incorporates the rights in Articles 2 to 12 and in Article 14 of the Convention, plus those in the First and Sixth Protocols. The incorporated rights are set out in the First Schedule to the HRA and are referred to as 'Convention rights'.

  2. The Human RIghts Act Has Revolutionised the Way Judges Interpret Statutes. Discuss.

    1998 came into effect and the second, whether a reverse burden provision in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971(MDA 1971) is compatible with the presumption of innocence article in the HRA 1998. The retrospective effect of the Act was witnessed when the House answered the first question in the affirmative

  1. What kind of responsibility do some states have for the rights of the subjects ...

    First idea is that people have the right to self-government from outside intervention. Second idea is that the rights of the sovereign people to life and liberty must be secured. Possible conflict between these two ideas is perhaps all clearly observed in the so-called "quasi-states" that emerged from the process of decolonization.

  2. Human Rights - Articles 6 and 8 applied to fictitious cases.

    In Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 All ER 908 the court recognized that the newspapers were not a public authority, but the court as a public authority itself must comply with the Convention, and as a result Article 8 was applied against a private body, giving the right a new horizontal effect.

  1. Advise Jon regarding whether or not Raila can be prevented from publishing his face ...

    to give evidence in relation to criminal incidents, this may eventually lead to a decrease in crime rate. Unfortunately this is a very vague view and also not the intention of Raila. Thus showing Jon?s identity would be unreasonable and in-proportionate to Raila?s aim.

  2. Over the last 25 years, there has been a significant movement towards more open ...

    jury, they must focus only on any harm that may have been caused. This position was supported in the case of R v Shaylor where a secret service agent divulged confidential information relating to the interception of communications and the warrants issued under section 2 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work