No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Redefining ‘media’ using a ‘media-as-a-constitutional-component’ concept: an evaluation of the need for the European Court of Human Rights to alter its understanding of ‘media’ within a new media landscape
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
Abstract
This paper considers the impact of new media on freedom of expression and media freedom within the context of the European Convention on Human Rights and European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. Through comparative analysis of US jurisprudence and scholarship, this paper deals with the following three issues. First, it explores the traditional purpose of the media, and how media freedom, as opposed to freedom of expression, has been subject to privileged protection, within an ECHR context at least. Secondly, it considers the emergence of new media, and how it can be differentiated from the traditional media. Finally, it analyses the philosophical justifications for freedom of expression, and how they enable a workable definition of the media based upon the concept of the media-as-a-constitutional-component.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2017
Footnotes
*
The author would like to thank Professors Alastair Mullis and Ian Cram and Dr Paul Wragg (University of Leeds), Professor Robin Barnes (Global Institute for Freedom and Awareness) and Legal Studies’ anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Aspects of this paper were presented at the Amsterdam Privacy Conference 2015, University of Amsterdam, in October 2015. The usual disclaimer applies.
References
1. Coe, P ‘The social media paradox: an intersection with freedom of expression and the criminal law’ (2015) 24(1) Info & Comm Tech L 16–40 at 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Human Rights Committee General Comment 34: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression, CCPR/C/GC/34 (GC 34) 12 September 2011 at [15]; see also O'Flaherty, M ‘Freedom of expression: Article 19 of the Iccpr and Human Rights Committee's General Comment No 34’ (2012) 12 Hum Rts L Rev 627 Google Scholar.
3. ‘Un highlights role of press freedom as catalyst for social and political change’, UN News Centre, available at http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41911&Cr=journalist&Cr1 (accessed 28 April 2014).
4. House of Lords Select Committee on Communications 1st Report of Session 2013–14, Media Plurality 4 February 2014, pp [46]–[52].
5. New York v Harris, 2012 Ny Misc. Lexis 1871 *3, note 3 (Crim Ct City of NY, NY County, 2012).
6. Stewart, DR (ed) Social Media and the Law (London: Routledge, 2013) p viii Google Scholar; Shirky, C Here Comes Everybody (London: Allen Lane, 2008) p 17 Google Scholar.
7. Van Dijck, J The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) p 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Lord Justice Leveson An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press (London: Stationery Office, November 2012) pp 168–177, 736–737 (hereinafter ‘Leveson Inquiry’). The Inquiry refers to ‘… blogs, online news aggregators, publishers, social network sites and online hosts’ [4.1].Google Scholar
9. Coe, above n 1, at 21–24.
10. In relation to blogs, Leveson Lj refers to Guido Fawkes that, according to its founder, Paul Staines, can, when big stories are being broken, be visited by up to 100,000 people per hour. The Inquiry also makes specific reference to the usage of social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter. See Leveson Inquiry, above n 8, p 168 at [4.3]–[4.4], p 173 at [5.2], respectively.
11. Ibid, p 736 at [3.2].
12. Ibid, p 171 at [4.20]. Leveson Lj does acknowledge that the Huffington Post Uk is unique in having (at the time) voluntarily subscribed to the Press Complaints Commission and abided by the Editors’ Code of Practice.
13. Ibid, pp 174–177.
14. See generally Oster, J ‘Theory and doctrine of “media freedom” as a legal concept’ (2013) 5(1) J Media L 57–78 at 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barendt, E Freedom of Speech (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 22nd edn, 2005) pp 417–419.Google Scholar
15. However, despite a specific free press clause, the US position is very different, and is discussed below.
16. See eg Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway (2000) 29 EHRR 125 at [59]; Bergens Tidande v Norway (2001) 31 EHRR 16 at [48]; Busuioc v Moldova (2006) 42 EHRR 14 at [64]–[65]; Jersild v Denmark (1995) 19 EHRR 1; Janowski v Poland (No 1) (2000) 29 EHRR 705 at [32].
17. See eg Perna v Italy (2004) 39 EHRR 28.
18. The Observer and The Guardian v United Kingdom (1991) 14 EHRR 153 at [59]; Goodwin v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 123 at [39]; Thorgeirson v Iceland (1992) 14 EHRR 843 at [63]; Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway (2000) 29 EHRR 125 at [62].
19. Lingens v Austria (186) 8 EHRR 103 at [26]; Oberschlick v Austria (No 1) (1991) 19 EHRR 389 at [58]; Castells v Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 445 at [43]; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland (1992) 14 EHRR 843; Jersild v Denmark (1995) 19 EHRR 1 at [31].
20. Sunday Times v United Kingdom (1979) 2 EHRR 245 at [65]; Fressoz and Roire v France (2001) 31 EHRR 2 at [51]; Bergens Tidande v Norway (2001) 31 EHRR 16 at [52].
21. Stewart, PJ ‘Or of the press’ (1975) 26 Hastings L J 631 at 633 Google Scholar; Bezanson, RP ‘The new free press guarantee’ (1977) 63 Va L Rev 731 at 733 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; West, SR ‘Awakening the Press Clause’ (2011) 58 UCLA L Rev 1025 at 1032. The US position is discussed in more detail below.Google Scholar
22. Oster, above n 14, at 59.
23. Vejdeland and others v Sweden [2012] ECHR 242.
24. Ibid, per Judge Vucancic at [12].
25. Jersild v Denmark (1995) 19 EHRR 1 at [31]; Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway (2000) 29 EHRR 125 at [63]; Bergens Tidande v Norway (2001) 31 EHRR 16 at [57].
26. Prager and Oberschlick v Austria (1995) 21 EHRR 1 at [38]; Thoma v Luxembourg (2003) 36 EHRR 21 at [45]–[46]; R Clayton QC and H Tomlinson QC Privacy and Freedom of Expression (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 22nd edn, 2010) p 271 [15.254].Google Scholar
27. Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland (1992) 14 EHRR 843 at [67]; Oberschlick v Austria (No 2) (1998) 25 EHRR 357 at [33]; Oster, above n 14, at 59.
28. Jersild v Denmark (1995) 19 EHRR 1.
29. Oster, above n 14, at 60.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid, at 60–61.
32. Halis Dogan and others v Turkey Application no 50693/99 (ECtHR 10 January 2006) at [24].
33. Gsell v Switzerland [2009] ECHR 1465.
34. Goodwin v United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 16 at [39]; Radio Twist as v Slovakia [2006] ECHR 1129 at [62]; Sanoma Uitgevers BV v Netherlands [2010] ECHR 1273 at [50].
35. See eg Art 9 Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, OJ L281/31; Art 5(3)(c) Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC, OJ L167/19.
36. Informationsverein Lentia and others v Austria [1993] ECHR 57 at [32]–[34]; TV Vest & Rogaland Pensjonistparti v Norway [2008] ECHR 1687 at [78].
37. Ozgur Gundem v Turkey [2000] ECHR 104 at [38ff].
38. Article 21(4)(2) EC Merger Regulation 139/2004, OJ L24/1; Pt 5 Ch 2 Communications Act 2003 ch 21.
39. Manole v Moldova [2009] ECHR 1292 at [109]; Centro Europa 7 Srl and Di Stefano v Italy App no 38433/09 (ECtHR 7 June 2012) at [133].
40. See generally Nimmer, MB ‘Introduction – is freedom of the press a redundancy: what does it add to freedom of speech?’ (1975) 26 Hastings L J 631 Google Scholar; Baker, CE Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) chs 10–11 Google Scholar; Bezanson, RP ‘Whither freedom of the press?’ (2012) 97 Iowa L Rev 1259 Google Scholar. See also Dyk, TB ‘Newsgathering, press access, and the First Amendment’ (1992) 44 Stan L Rev 927 at 931–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Horwitz, P ‘Universities as First Amendment institutions: some easy answers and hard questions’ (2007) 54 UCLA L Rev 1497 at 1505Google Scholar; West, above n 21, at 1027–1029. For judicial argument, see J Stewart, above n 21, at 634.
41. See the dissenting judgments of Stevens J in Citizens United v FEC 130 S Ct 876 at 951 n 57 (2010); J Powell in Saxbe v Wash Post Co 417 US 843 at 863 (1974); J Douglas Branzburg v Hayes 408 US 665 at 721 (1972).
42. Volokh, E ‘Freedom for the press as an industry, or the press as a technology? from the Framing to today’ (2012) 160 U Pa L Rev 459.Google Scholar
43. See the majority decision in Citizens United v FEC 130 S Ct at 905; See also Volokh, above n 42, at 506–510 for a summary of other Supreme Court cases that have held the same.
44. R v Shipley (Dean of Saint Asaph's Case) (1784) 21 How St Tr 847 (KB); R v Rowan (1794) 22 How St Tr 1033 (KB); R v Burdett (1820) 106 ER 873 (KB) at 887; 4 B & Ald 95 at 132; see generally Volokh, above n 42, at 484–489.
45. See eg Lange, DL ‘The Speech and Press Clauses’ (1975) 23 UCLA L Rev 77 Google Scholar; van Alstyne, WW ‘The hazards to the press of claiming a “preferred position”’ (1977) 28 Hastings L J 761 at 768–769Google Scholar; Lewis, A ‘A preferred position for journalism’ (1978–1979) 7 Hofstra L Rev 595Google Scholar; Baker, CE ‘Press performance, human rights, and private power as a threat’ (2011) 5 Law & Ethics Hum Rts 219 at 230; Volokh, above n 42, at 538–539.Google Scholar
46. Bezanson, above n 40.
47. Volokh, above n 42, at 462–463.
48. See Anderson, D ‘The origins of the Press Clause’ (t) 30 UCLA L Rev 455 Google Scholar; Volokh, above n 42; Lange, above n 45, at 88–99; Lewis, above n 45, at 600; Bezanson, above n 40.
49. Republica v Oswald 1 Dall. 319 at 325 (Pa 1788); Commonwealth v Freeman, HERALD OF FREEDOM (Boston), 18 March 1791 at 5 (Mass. 1791); In re Fries 9 F Cas 826 at 839 (Justice Iredell, Circuit Judge, CCD Pa 1799) (no 5126); Runkle v Meyer 3 Yeates 518 at 519 (Pa 1803); see generally Volokh, above n 42, at 465–468.
50. Mills v Alabama 384 US 214 at 219 (1966); see also Estes v Texas 381 US 532 at 539 (1965).
51. Citizens United v FEC 130 S Ct 876 at 905 (2010); Associated Press v United States 326 US 1 at 7 (1945); Branzburg v Hayes 408 US 665 at 704 (1972); Pell v Procunier 417 US 817 at 834 (1974); Saxbe v Washington Post Company 417 US 843 at 848–849; In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Miller 397 F3d 964 (DC Cir 2005), cert denied 125 S Ct 2977 (2005).
52. Citizens United v FEC 130 S Ct 876 (2010).
53. See eg Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v Greenmoss Builders, Inc. 472 US 749 at 781 (1985).
54. Citizens United v FEC 130 S Ct 876 at 905 (2010) (Scalia J concurring).
55. However, the model is not immune to criticism and opposing views, from both US Supreme Court judges and legal scholars. Generally, see eg Bartnicki v Vopper 532 US 514 (2001); Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v Minn. Comm'r of Revenue 460 US 575 at 592–593 (1983); Gertz v Robert Welch Inc 418 US 323 (1974); see the dissenting judgments in Citizens United v FEC 130 S Ct 876 (2010) (in particular, Stevens J at 951 n 57); Powell J's dissenting judgment in Saxbe v Washington Post Company 417 US 843 at 863 (1974); Douglas J's dissenting judgment in Branzburg v Hayes 408 US 665 at 721 (1972); Stewart J, above n 21, at 634; Dyk, above n 40, at 931–932; Horwitz, above n 40, at 1505; West, above n 21, at 1027–1029. See also Bezanson's rejoinder to Volokh's paper: Bezanson, above n 40.
56. Oster, above n 14, at 61–62.
57. See section 4(a) of this paper.
58. Observer and Guardian v UK (1992) 14 EHRR 153 at [59].
59. A-G v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109 at 183 per Sir John Donaldson MR; see also Barendt, above n 14, p 418.
60. See generally Bruns, A Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage (New York: Peter Lang, 2008).Google Scholar
61. See generally Van Dijck, above n 7, pp 3–23.
62. Leveson Inquiry, above n 8, pp 455–470.
63. Oster, above n 14, at 62.
64. Leveson Inquiry, above n 8, pp 455–470.
65. Numerous examples are provided by the Leveson Inquiry at pp 539–591.
66. See section 4(c) below.
67. See eg Calvert, C and Torres, M ‘Putting the shock value in first amendment jurisprudence: when freedom for the citizen–journalist watchdog trumps the right of informational privacy on the Internet’ (2011) Vand J Ent & Tech L 323 at 341Google Scholar; Curran, J and Seaton, J Power without Responsibility – Press, Broadcasting and the Internet in Britain (London: Routledge, 77th edn, 2010) pp 96–98 Google Scholar; Cashmore, E Celebrity Culture (London: Routledge, 22nd edn, 2014).Google Scholar
68. Carter, SL ‘Technology, democracy, and the manipulation of consent’ (1983–1984) Yale L J 581 at 600–607Google Scholar; Garry, P ‘The First Amendment and freedom of the press: a revised approach to the marketplace of ideas concept’ (1989) 72 Marq L Rev 187 at 189Google Scholar; See also Leveson LJ's assessment of the commercial pressures on the press: Leveson Inquiry, above n 8, pp 93–98.
69. This criticism is advanced by Barendt with regard to the marketplace of ideas theory (dealt with at section 4(c) below): Barendt, above n 14, p 12. See also N Davies Flat Earth News (New York: Vintage, 2009); C Cook ‘More Telegraph writers voice concern’ BBC News Online 19 February 2015, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31529682 (accessed 19 May 2015).
70. See generally Rowbottom, J ‘To rant, vent and converse: protecting low level digital speech’ (2012) 71(2) Camb L J 355–383 at 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
71. Oster, above n 14, at 63.
72. See generally Webster, F Theories of the Information Society (London: Routledge, 44th edn, 2014) p 20 Google Scholar; Barron, I and Curnow, R The Future with Microelectronics: Forecasting the Effects of Information Technology (London: Pinter, 1979)Google Scholar; Mulgan, G Communication and Control: Networks and the New Economies of Communication (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1991).Google Scholar
73. See eg ‘Rupert Murdoch will decide Sun stance on Brexit, says its ex-political editor’ The Guardian Online 16 March 2016, available at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/16/rupert-murdoch-sun-brexit-eu-referendum-trevor-kavanagh?CMP=twt_a-media_b-gdnmedia (accessed 16 March 2016).
74. See eg Cook, above n 69; see also Barendt, above n 14, p 12.
75. Benkler, Y The Wealth of Networks (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006) p 212.Google Scholar
76. See generally Wellman, B ‘Physical place and cyberplace: the rise of personalised networking’ (2001) 25(2) Int'l J Urb & Reg Res 227–251; Coe, above n 1, at 21–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
77. C Haughney ‘Newspapers post gains in digital circulation’ New York Times 30 April 2014, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/business/media/digital-subscribers-buoy-newspaper-circulation.html (accessed 19 May 2015).
78. New York Times Media Kit, available at http://perma.cc/B5KA-VMGC (accessed 12 September 2014).
79. Statistics YouTube, available at http://perma.cc/S8W5-ZRM4 (accessed 19 May 2015).
80. Ammori, M ‘The “new” New York times: free speech lawyering in the age of Google and Twitter’ (2014) 127 Harv L Rev 2259–2295 at 2266.Google Scholar
81. See https://wordpress.com/about/ (accessed 17 March 2016).
82. See https://about.twitter.com/company (accessed 17 March 2016).
83. See https://blog.twitter.com/2013/new-tweets-per-second-record-and-how (accessed 9 January 2015).
84. Ammori, above n 80, at 2266.
85. Ibid, at 2272.
86. J Yarow ‘The truth about Tumblr: its numbers are significantly worse than you think’ Business Insider 21 May 2013, available at http://www.businessinsider.com/tumblrs-active-users-lighter-than-expected-2013-5 (accessed 19 May 2015).
87. See https://newsroom.fb.com/key-Facts (accessed 17 March 2016).
88. See http://instagram.com/press/#; UK Social Media Statistics for 2014, available at http://socialmediatoday.com/kate-rose-mcgrory/2040906/uk-social-media-statistics-2014 (accessed 19 May 2015).
89. See http://instagram.com/press/# (accessed 17 March 2016).
90. See https://press.linkedin.com/about-linkedin (accessed 17 March 2016).
91. In 2011–2012, Pinterest had approximately 200,000 users in the UK. By the summer of 2013, this had grown to over 2 million: http://socialmediatoday.com/kate-rose-mcgrory/2040906/uk-social-media-statistics-2014 (accessed 19 May 2015).
92. In February 2016, it was announced that WhatsApp had reached 1 billion active monthly users: ‘WhatsApp reaches a billion monthly users’, BBC News Online 1 February 2016, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35459812 (accessed 17 March 2016).
93. Coe, above n 1, at 24.
94. See generally Durity, L ‘Shielding journalist–“bloggers”: the need to protect newsgathering despite the distribution medium’ (2006) 5 Duke L & Tech Rev 1 Google Scholar; Alonzo, JS ‘Restoring the ideal marketplace: how recognizing bloggers as journalists can save the press’ (2006) 9 NYU J Legis & Pub Pol'y 751 at 754 Google Scholar.
95. See generally Kim, Y and Lowrey, W ‘Who are citizen journalists in the social media environment?’ (2015) 3(2) Digital Journalism 298–314 at 301CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Allan, S Online News: Journalism and the Internet (New York: McGraw-Hill International, 2006)Google Scholar; Gillmor, D ‘We the media: the rise of citizen journalists’ (2004) 93(3) Nat'l Civic Rev 58–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, S ‘“If you had been with us”: mainstream press and citizen journalists jockey for authority over the collective memory of Hurricane Katrina’ (2009) 11(5) New Media & Soc 795–814 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thurman, N ‘Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user generated content initiatives by online news media’ (2008) 10(1) New Media & Soc 139–157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tremayne, M Blogging, Citizenship and the Future of Media (London: Routledge, 2006).Google Scholar
96. Cram, I Citizen Journalists (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2015) p 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
97. See eg the comments of Joe Trippi, cited in Hindman, M The Myth of Digital Democracy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009); Cram, above n 96.Google Scholar
98. Cram, above n 96, pp 3–4.
99. Volokh, E ‘Cheap speech and what it will do’ (1995) 104 Yale L J 1805 at 1833CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Schwartz, P ‘Privacy and democracy in cyberspace’ (1999) 52 Vand L Rev 1609 Google Scholar; J Rowbottom ‘Media freedom and political debate in the digital era’ (2006) 69(4) Mod L Rev 489.
100. Reno v ACLU (1997) 521 US 844.
101. Ibid, at 862.
102. Council of Europe Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on the Protection of Freedom of Expression and Information and Freedom of Assembly and Association with Regard to Internet Domain Names and Name Strings (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 September 2011) para 3, available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835805 (accessed 17 March 2016).
103. Oster, above n 14, at 63; Calvert and M. Torres, above n 67, at 344.
104. See section 4(e) below.
105. B Shelter ‘How the Bin Laden announcement leaked out’ New York Times 1 May 2011, available at http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/how-the-osama-announcement-leaked-out/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 (accessed 19 May 2015).
106. Ammori, above n 80, at 2265.
107. N Gaouette ‘Assad on Instagram vies with rebel videos to seek support’ Bloomberg 19 September 2013, available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-19/assad-on-instagram-vies-with-rebel-videos-to-seek-support.html (accessed 19 May 2015).
108. Benkler, above n 75, p 348.
109. See the High Court of Ireland case of Cornec v Morrice [2012] IEHC 376; see also KQ Seelye ‘White House approves press pass for blogger’ New York Times 7 March 2005, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/technology/07press.html?_r=0 (accessed 19 May 2015).
110. S Glover ‘Who guards the Guardian?’Prospect, April 2016, at 40–44.
111. Oster, above n 14, at 63.
112. According to Ofcom's report, ‘The Communications Market 2013’, at [1.9.7], 23% of people use social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, for news: see http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr13/UK_1.pdf (accessed 19 May 2015). For a US perspective, see the following Pew Research Centre reports: ‘In changing news landscape, even television is vulnerable’, 27 September 2012, available at http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/in-changing-news-landscape-even-television-is-vulnerable/; ‘The 2016 presidential campaign – a news events that's hard to miss’, 4 February 2016, available at http://www.journalism.org/2016/02/04/the-2016-presidential-campaign-a-news-event-thats-hard-to-miss/; ‘News habits on Facebook and Twitter’, 14 July 2015, available at http://www.journalism.org/2015/07/14/news-habits-on-facebook-and-twitter/ (all accessed 16 March 2016).
113. Oster, above n 14, at 63.
114. Indeed, in April 2014 Facebook emailed its users to inform them that the messages function would be moved out of the Facebook application, due to its Messenger application enabling users to reply 20% faster than using Facebook.
115. Leveson Inquiry, above n 8, p 168 [4.3].
116. Alonzo, above n 109, at 755.
117. Rowbottom argues for a high- and low-level distinction for speech that is based on the context within which the expression is made, as opposed to a value-based distinction deriving from the content of the expression: Rowbottom, above n 70, at 371.
118. See section 4(b) below.
119. See section 4(c) below.
120. Oster, above n 14, at 57–78, 64; Calvert and M. Torres, above n 67, at 345; Curran and Seaton, above n 67, p 286.
121. See generally Oster, above n 14, at 64–68.
122. See generally Volokh, above n 42.
123. Ibid, at 463.
124. Citizens United v FEC 130 S Ct 876 at 905 (2010).
125. Branzburg v Hayes 408 US 665 at 704 (1972).
126. Ibid.
127. Oster, above n 14, at 65.
128. Baker, CE ‘The independent significance of the Press Clause under existing law’ (2007) 35 Hofstra L Rev 955 at 1013–1016.Google Scholar
129. Amar, VD ‘From Watergate to Ken Starr: Potter Stewart's “Or of the press” a quarter century later’ (1999) 50 Hastings L J 711 at 714–715.Google Scholar
130. Ibid; Oster, above n 14, at 65.
131. Muller v Switzerland (1991) 13 EHRR 212; Otto Preminger v Austria (1995) 19 EHRR 34; IA v Turkey (2007) EHRR 30.
132. Markt Intern v Germany (1989) 12 EHRR 161 at [33].
133. Oster, above n 14, at 65–66.
134. See section 1 above.
135. J Stewart, above n 21, at 633; Bezanson, above n 40, at 1261–1262. See also Nimmer, above n 40, at 640.
136. Houchins v KQED Inc. 438 US 1 at 17 (1978).
137. West, above n 21, at 1069–1070.
138. See section 2(b) above.
139. Bezanson, above n 40, at 1267.
140. See section 2(b) above.
141. Schauer, F ‘Towards an institutional First Amendment’ (2004–2005) 89 Minn L Rev 1256 at 1260Google Scholar. See also Baker, above n 128, at 1016; West, above n 21, at 1048.
142. Oster, above n 14, at 66.
143. This concept is discussed in greater detail throughout the remainder of this paper.
144. Anderson, DA ‘Freedom of the press’ (2002) 80 Tex L Rev 429 at 442.Google Scholar
145. UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No 34 (CCPR/C/GC/34), 12 September 2011, para 44; Oster, above n 14, at 66–67.
146. By way of example, at the time of writing, Cristiano Ronaldo has 37.1 million followers on Twitter alone. Also, on Twitter, Lewis Hamilton has 2.8 million, Rory McIlroy has 2.5 million and Roger Federer and Andy Murray have 3.2 million followers each.
147. Oster, above n 14, at 65; Baker, above n 128.
148. See section 2(b) above.
149. Oster, above n 14, at 67.
150. For example, see Appendix to Recommendation No R (2000) of the Committee of Minsters of the Council of Europe to Member States on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information; Surek and Ozdemir v Turkey App nos 23927/94 and 24277/94 (ECtHR 8 July 1999) para 63; Wizerkaniuk v Poland App no 18990/05 (ECtHR 5 July 2011) para 68; Kaperzynski v Poland App no 43206/07 (ECtHR 3 April 2012) para 70.
151. Perrin v UK App no 5446/03 (ECtHR 18 October 2005).
152. Willem v France App no 10883/05 (ECtHR 16 July 2009).
153. NY CIV. RIGHTS LAW 79-h (a)(6) (2007).
154. For a detailed discussion of US shield laws, see generally Ugland, E ‘Demarcating the right to gather news: a sequential interpretation of the First Amendment’ (2008) 3 Duke J Const L & Pub Pol'y 118.Google Scholar
155. Oster, above n 14, at 65.
156. Ugland, above n 154, at 136–137.
157. See generally McGoldrick, D ‘The limits of freedom of expression on Facebook and social networking sites: a Uk perspective’ (2013) 13(1) Hum Rts L Rev 13 at 125–151.Google Scholar
158. See generally Barnes, RD Outrageous Invasions: Celebrities’ Private Lives, Media and the Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
159. See above n 74; Barendt, E ‘The First Amendment and the media’ in Loveland, I. (ed) Importing The First Amendment Freedom of Speech and Expression in Britain, Europe and the USA (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1998) p 29 at pp 30–31.Google Scholar
160. Oster, above n 14, at 68.
161. In Handyside v United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHRR 737 the ECtHR referred, at least implicitly, to these theories, when it stated, at para 49: ‘Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man.’ Fenwick, H and Phillipson, G Media Freedom under the Human Rights Act (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) p 39.Google Scholar
162. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115.
163. Lord Steyn's judgment has been referred to numerous times within domestic jurisprudence. For a recent example, see R (On the application of Lord Carlisle of Berriew QC and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 60 per Lord Kerr at [164].
164. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 at 126.
165. Mill, JS On Liberty and Other Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Mill, JS On Liberty, Essays on Politics and Society , in Robson, JM (ed) Collected Works of John Stuart Mill (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977)Google Scholar. Other Millian essays are of importance to the theory. When required, they are cited in the footnotes.
166. Robson, above n 165, pp 225–226; P Wragg ‘Mill's dead dogma: the value of truth to free speech jurisprudence’ (2013) Pub L (April) 363–385 at 365; Fenwick and Phillipson, above n 161, p 14.
167. Robson, above n 165, p 229.
168. Ibid, p 220.
169. Ibid.
170. Ibid, p 219.
171. Ibid, pp 219–220; Wragg, above n 166, at 365.
172. Wragg, above n 166, at 365; the importance of truth is discussed in more detail below.
173. Ibid, at 365.
174. Schauer, F Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982) p 25.Google Scholar
175. Gray, J Mill on Liberty: A Defence (London: Routledge, 22nd edn, 1996) p 110.Google Scholar
176. Schauer, above n 174, p 20; this is discussed in relation to problems with the justifications below.
177. Robson, above n 165, pp 217–223.
178. See generally Barendt, above n 14, p 8; Robson, ibid, p 258.
179. Robson, ibid, p 229.
180. Ibid, p 258.
181. Ibid.
182. Ibid; see also Wragg, above n 166, at 365.
183. Barendt, above n 14, at 243, 258.
184. Wragg, above n 166, at 365; see also Fenwick, H Civil Liberties and Human Rights (London: Routledge Cavendish, 44th edn, 2007) p 302.Google Scholar
185. Robson, above n 165, p 226.
186. Wragg, above n 166, at 365.
187. Robson, above n 165, pp 233–234; see also O'Rourke, KC John Stuart Mill and Freedom of Expression: The Genesis of a Theory (London: Routledge, 2001) p 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
188. Schauer, above n 174, p 17; see also Feinberg, J Social Philosophy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973) p 26.Google Scholar
189. L'Oreal SA v Bellure NV [2010] EWCA Civ 535.
190. Article 19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Art 19(2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Art 10(1) European Convention on Human Rights; Art 11(1) Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union: [2010] EWCA Civ 535 at [10].
191. L’Oreal SA v Bellure NV [2010] EWCA Civ 535 at [10].
192. For commentary criticising the argument from truth in relation to pornography, see MacKinnon, C Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987) p 166; Fenwick and Phillipson, above n 161, pp 309–407.Google Scholar
193. Schauer, above n 174, p 15.
194. Wragg, above n 166, at 372.
195. For further analysis, see Coe, above n 1, at 13–14.
196. Prior to the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 coming into force, a number of criminal offences and civil causes of action were applied to revenge porn: see Coe, above n 1, at 13–14.
197. Barendt, above n 14, p 8.
198. Abrams v United States 250 US 616 (1919).
199. Ibid, at 630–631; see also Gitlow v New York 268 US 652 (1925) at 673 per Justice Holmes.
200. Whitney v California 274 US 357 (1927) at 375–378.
201. United States v Dennis 181 F2d 201 (2d Cir 1950); Dennis v United States 341 US 494 at 584 (1951).
202. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v NLRB 181 F2d 34 (2d Cir 1950).
203. Dennis v United States 341 US 494 (1951) at 546–553.
204. See generally Oster, above n 14, at 70; Alonzo, above n 109, at 762.
205. Schauer, above n 174, p 16; see also Alonzo, ibid.
206. Williams, B Truth and Truthfulness (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002) pp 214–215; See also Barendt, above n 14, p 12.Google Scholar
207. Barendt, above n 14, p 12.
208. Oster, above n 14, at 70–71; Nestler, JS ‘The underprivileged profession: the case for Supreme Court recognition of the journalist's privilege’ (2005) 154 U Pa L Rev 201 at 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
209. Oster, above n 14, Nestler, above n 208.
210. Barendt, above n 14, p 12; see also Barendt, above n 159, pp 43–46.
211. For a comprehensive critique of the theory, see Barendt, above n 14, p 12.
212. Ibid, p 12.
213. Abel, R Speech and Respect (London: Stevens & Son, 1994) p 48; D Milo Defamation and Freedom of Speech (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) p 57.Google Scholar
214. Ingber, S ‘The marketplace of ideas: a legitimizing myth’ [1984] Duke L J 1; J Skorupski John Stuart Mill (London: Routledge, 1991) pp 371–372.Google Scholar
215. Barendt, above n 14, p 12.
216. This criticism reflects those levelled at Mill's theory above; in particular, Schauer's argument that there is not necessarily a causal link between freedom of expression and the discovery of truth. See section 4(b) above.
217. Barendt, above n 14, p 12.
218. See section 2(b) above.
219. Ibid.
220. Nicol, A QC, Millar, G QC and Sharland, A Media Law and Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 22nd edn, 2009) p 4 at [1.07].Google Scholar
221. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 at 126.
222. Handyside v United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHRR 737 at [49]. See also Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway (2000) 29 EHRR 125 at [59]; Bergens Tidande v Norway (2001) 31 EHRR 16 at [48].
223. Procunier v Martinez 416 US 396 at 427 (1974); see also Whitney v California 274 US 357 (1927) in which Brandeis J held at 375 that ‘… the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties … [liberty is valued] both as an end and as a means’.
224. Oster, above n 14, at 73; Baker, CE ‘Scope of the First Amendment freedom of speech’ (1978) 25 UCLA L Rev 964 at 996Google Scholar; Blasi, V ‘The checking value in First Amendment theory’ (1977) 2(3) Law & Soc Inquiry 521 at 545CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scanlon, TM ‘Freedom of expression and categories of expression’ (1978–1979) 40 U Pitt L Rev 519 at 533ff; Nestler, above n 208, at 211.Google Scholar
225. Redish, M ‘The value of free speech’ (1982) 130 U Pa L Rev 591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
226. Milo, above n 213, p 78.
227. Richards, DAJ Free Speech and the Politics of Identity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) p 23 Google Scholar; Richards, DAJ Toleration and the Constitution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986) p 169.Google Scholar
228. Baker, above n 40, pp 68–69.
229. Nimmer, above n 40, at 654; Nestler, above n 208, at 212; Fargo, AL and Alexander, LB ‘Testing the boundaries of the First Amendment Press Clause: a proposal for protecting the media from newsgathering torts’ (2009) 32 Harv J L & Pub Pol'y 1094 at 1097.Google Scholar
230. Blasi, above n 224, at 553.
231. Oster, above n 14, at 73–74.
232. Schauer, above n 174, p 48.
233. Scanlon, T ‘A theory of freedom of expression’ (1972) 1(2) Phil & Pub Aff 223 Google Scholar. See also Schauer, above n 174, p 69; Barendt, above n 14, pp 15–17.
234. Schauer, above n 174, pp 71–72.
235. Ibid.
236. Barendt, above n 14, p 18; See eg Whitney v California 274 US 357 (1927) per Brandeis J at 375–378 (1927); the ECtHR cases of, for instance, Lingens v Austria (1986) A 103 at [42]; Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway (2000) 29 EHRR 125 at [59]; Bergens Tidande v Norway (2001) 31 EHRR 16 at [48].
237. See generally Sir J Laws ‘Meiklejohn, the First Amendment and free speech in English law’ in Loveland, above n 159, pp 123–137; Nicol et al, above n 220, p 3 [1.06]; Barendt, above n 14, p 18.
238. Oster, above n 14, at 69.
239. Bork, RH ‘Neutral principles and some First Amendment problems’ (1971) 47 Ind L J 1 at 27–28.Google Scholar
240. Oster, above n 14, at 69.
241. Ibid; Milo, above n 213, pp 63–64.
242. Chesterman, MR Freedom of Speech in Australian Law: A Delicate Plant (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000) p 48 Google Scholar. See also A Kenyon ‘Defamation and critique: political speech and New York times v Sullivan in Australia and England’ (2001) 25 Melbourne U L Rev 522 at 539; R Gilson and M Leopold ‘Restoring the “central meaning of the First Amendment”: absolute immunity for political libel’ (1986) 90 Dickinson L Rev 559 at 574.
243. Nicol et al, above n 220, p 3 [1.06].
244. Meiklejohn, A Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People (New York: Oxford University Press, 1960) p 42 Google Scholar; Meiklejohn, A ‘The First Amendment is an absolute’ [1961] Sup Ct Rev 245 at 255–257Google Scholar; Milo, above n 213, pp 63–64; Oster, above n 14, at 69.
245. Meiklejohn, Political Freedom, above n 244, p 79.
246. An advocate of this approach is CR Sunstein. See generally Sunstein, CR Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech (New York: The Free Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Sunstein, CR The Partial Constitution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
247. Milo, above n 213, pp 62–63.
248. Meiklejohn, ‘The First Amendment’, above n 244, at 255.
249. Ibid, at 257, 263; For judicial application of this wider interpretation of the theory, see: Reynolds v Times Newspapers Limited [2001] 2 AC 127, (HL) per Lord Cooke at 220; Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2007] 1 AC 359, (HL) per Baroness Hale at [158].
250. Lingens v Austria App no 9815/82 (ECtHR 8 July 1986) para 42; Oberschlick v Austria(No 1) App no 1162/85 (ECtHR 23 May 1991) para 58; Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v Austria App no 39394/98 (ECtHR 13 November 2003) para 30.
251. Oster, above n 14, at 71–72.
252. Barendt, above n 14, pp 392–416; From a US Supreme Court perspective, see Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp v Public Service Commission 447 US 557 (1980); Dun & Bradstreet Inc v Greenmoss Builders Inc 472 US 749 at 762 (1985). For ECtHR jurisprudence, see Markt Intern Verlag and Klaus Beerman v Germany App no 10572/83 (ECtHR 20 November 1989) para 33.
253. Barendt, above n 14, p 230; Fenwick and Phillipson, above n 161, p 661; Keller, P European and International Media Law: Liberal Democracy, Trade and the New Media (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) p 307CrossRefGoogle Scholar; von Hannover v Germany (No 1) App no 59320/00 (ECtHR 24 June 2004) para 65; MGN Ltd v UK App no 39401/04 (ECtHR 18 January 2011) para 143; Mosley v UK App no 48009/08 (ECtHR 10 May 2011) para 14.
254. Article 20(2) ICCPR states ‘Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.’ For example, see Ross v Canada App no 736/97 (UN Human Rights Committee, 18 October 2000) para 11.5. For ECtHR jurisprudence, see: Lehideux and Isorni v France App no 55/1997/839/1045 (ECtHR 23 September 1998) para 47; Norwood v UK App no 23131/03 (ECtHR 16 November 2004).
255. Oster, above n 14, at 72–73; these duties and responsibilities are particularly significant when applied as factors of the qualified privilege defence, as defined by Lord Nicholls in Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127 at 205 (see also Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2007] 1 AC 359 at 383 per Lord Hoffmann; Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11 at [30] per Lord Phillips), and now enshrined within s 4 of Defamation Act 2013.
256. Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221.
257. Ibid, para 34.
258. Ibid, para 36.
259. Ibid, para 54.
260. Ibid.
261. Ibid, paras 54, 65.
262. Ibid, para 74.
263. For instance, compare Oster and Ugland for definitions from a European and US perspective respectively: Oster, above n 14, at 74; Ugland, above n 154, at 138.
264. Oster, ibid.
265. Editions Plon v France App no 58148/00 (ECtHR 18 May 2004) para 43; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v France App no 21279/02 and 36448/02 (ECtHR 22 October 2007) para 47.
266. Berger, LL ‘Shielding the unmedia: using the process of journalism to protect the journalist's privilege in an infinite universe of publication’ (2003) 39 Hous L Rev 1371, 1411; Baker, above n 128, at 976.Google Scholar
267. Sunstein, CR ‘Pornography and the First Amendment’ (1986) 35 Duke L J 589 at 605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
268. See eg Gertz v Robert Welch Inc 418 US 323 at 246 (1974); Dun & Bradstreet Inc v Greenmoss Builders 472 US 749 at 761 (1985); Hustler Magazine v Falwell 485 US 46 at 50 (1988); Bartnicki v Vopper 532 US 514 at 528, 533–534 (2001); London Artists v Littler [1969] 2 QB 375 at 391 (CA) (per Lord Denning); Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 at 205 (per Lord Nicholls); Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2007] 1 AC 359 at 376 (per Lord Bingham); Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11 at [24] (per Lord Phillips).
269. Connick v Myers 461 US 138 at 146 (1983).
270. Roth v United States 354 US 476 at 484 (1957); New York Times v Sullivan 376 US 254 at 269 (1964); Hustler Magazine v Falwell 485 US 46 at 53 (1988); Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans [1984] 1 WLR 526 at 530; Francome v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 892 at 897; Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 at 205 (per Lord Nicholls).
271. Grant v Torstar Corporation 2009 SCC 61, para 105.
272. For a more comprehensive list, see Oster, above n 14, at 75.
273. Bowman v UK App no 141/1996/760/961 (ECtHR 19 February 1998) para 42; Jerusalem v Austria App no 26958/95 (ECtHR 27 February 2001) para 41; Filatenko v Russia App no 73219/01 (ECtHR 6 December 2007) para 40.
274. De Haes and Gijsels v Belgium App no 19983/92 (ECtHR 24 February 1997) para 37; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v Denmark App no 49017/99 (ECtHR 17 December 2004) para 71; Perna v Italy App no 48898/99 (ECtHR 6 May 2003) para 39.
275. Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland App no 13778/88 (ECtHR 25 June 1992).
276. Fressoz and Roire v France App no 29183/95 (ECtHR 21 January 1999) para 50; Steel and Morris v UK App no 68416/01 (ECtHR 15 February 2005) para 89; Oster, J ‘The criticism of trading corporations and their right to sue for defamation’ (2011) 2 J Eur Tort L 255.Google Scholar
277. Mosley v UK App no 48009/08 (ECtHR 10 May 2011) para 114; von Hannover v Germany (No 1) App no 59320/00 (ECtHR 24 June 2004) para 65; Hachette Filipacchi Associes v France App no 12268/03 (ECtHR 23 July 2009) para 40; Eerikainen and others v Finland App no 3514/02 (ECtHR 10 February 2009) para 62; Standard Verlags GmbH v Austria (No 2) App no 21277/05 (ECtHR 4 June 2009) para 52; MGN Ltd v UK App no 39401/04 (ECtHR 18 January 2011) para 143.