Communication Law and Policy Pub Date : 2021-10-22 , DOI: 10.1080/10811680.2021.1963132 Chris Wiersma
At the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), responding governments often argue that the right to “Freedom of expression” (Article 10) does not apply to cases because of journalists’ controversial methods of information gathering (such as wiretapping, secret recording, the use of aliases, and other methods). This article examines how the ECtHR’s international adjudication is a test of the boundaries of the freedom of journalism. It shows that it is a common human rights issue for the ECtHR to consider the justiciability of wide, principled freedoms about newsgathering. Through a conceptual, legal study of twenty-seven cases covering the past two decades, the analysis is focused on the criteria surrounding the scope of ECHR Article 10, paragraph 1, concerning the acts of a member state. It is argued that the way that the ECtHR is defining the contours of the freedom to conduct newsgathering and investigative journalism provides an undue challenge to legal certainty, because it is tending too much towards including a wide range of elements related to either journalistic ethics or “duties,” such as the lawfulness of journalists' conduct. The article advocates that a more human rights-based coverage under ECHR Article 10 is needed.
中文翻译:
界定记者在欧洲人权法院进行新闻采访的自由:迈向更基于人权的方法来覆盖欧洲人权法院第 10 条?
在欧洲人权法院 (ECtHR),作出回应的政府经常辩称,“言论自由”(第 10 条)的权利不适用于案件,因为记者收集信息的方法有争议(例如窃听、秘密录音、别名的使用和其他方法)。本文探讨了欧洲人权法院的国际裁决如何检验新闻自由的边界。它表明,欧洲人权法院考虑广泛的、有原则的新闻采集自由的可诉性是一个普遍的人权问题。通过对过去 20 年的 27 个案例进行概念性的法律研究,分析的重点是围绕 ECHR 第 10 条第 1 款关于成员国行为的范围的标准。有人认为,欧洲人权法院界定新闻采集和调查性新闻自由的轮廓的方式对法律确定性提出了不适当的挑战,因为它过于倾向于包括与新闻道德或“义务”,例如记者行为的合法性。该文章主张需要根据 ECHR 第 10 条进行更多基于人权的报道。