The topic of the master thesis Protection of Personality Rights in Relation to Media is the conflict between two constitutional rights - protection of personality and freedom of speech. Both of these rights are stated in the Constitutional Act No. 2/1993 thus they have an equal level of legal protection. However, conflicts can arise between the two. The thesis evaluates and analyses these two crucial rights and their conflicts. This thesis is divided into four main chapters, which are the following: Protection of personality, Freedom of speech as a main principle of media law, Protection of personality versus freedom of speech in the practice of the Constitutional Court, and Media development and its influence on the protection of personality. The first and the second part of the thesis analyse protection of personality and freedom of speech. The aim of the first two chapters is to present the sources of these rights, to define basic concepts, meanings and limits of these rights and to describe their possible restrictions. The third part of the thesis discusses general principles according to which possible conflict between the two rights should be solved. It also examines selected Czech court cases. Finally, the fourth chapter outlines media development since the 1970s with special emphasis on the...

in English The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the development of its interpretation The aim of the paper is to analyze the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The main reason for my research is my long-term personal interests in the fields of law which are covered by the First Amendment. The thesis is composed of an introduction, six chapters and a conclusion. The study begins with the introduction where it is discussed methodology, my motives for choosing this topic, importance of the topic and potential contribution of this thesis to the Czech legal science. Chapter One examines historical roots of the First Amendment's rights and freedoms. It focuses on their development both in the England and in its American colonies. It tries to find main tendencies contributing to reasons for adopting rights and freedoms embodied in the First Amendment. Chapter Two concentrates on the main political and legal events involving adopting the First Amendment, and then it attempts to find a proper interpretation of the First Amendment using both historical and teleological approach. The second chapter also discusses the scope of the First Amendment. The chapter ends with the examination how external factors (such as legal philosophy or politics) influenced the decision making...

Proclamée de manière expresse ou tacite par bon nombre d’Etats, la liberté d’information a fait l’objet d’une reconnaissance dans plusieurs textes internationaux et constitue l’un des fondements de la démocratie, dans laquelle les médias doivent être libres. Les nouvelles technologies permettent aux journalistes et aux médias d’être au plus prochedes conflits mais ils ne sont pas toujours aussi libres qu’ils ne le devraient lorsqu’ils ont à aborder ces sujets touchant à la sécurité. La défense de la politique gouvernementale prime parfois sur le droit du public à une information objective. De même, dans leur guerre contre le terrorisme, les autorités peuvent prendre des décisions qui limitent directement ouindirectement la liberté d’expression et d’information. De la guerre du Vietnam, en passant par la censure des Malouines, à la guerre du Golfe, l’information dans les conflits armés a fortement évolué. (Partie I). Mais le 11 septembre a constitué une rupture et la guerre contre le terrorisme fait naître de nouvelles incertitudes en la matière. (Partie II). De nouvelles responsabilités pèsent sur les médias dans leur traitement de ce phénomène, qui semble être un acte de communication, voire de manipulation. / Proclaimed in an express and tacit way by many states, liberty of information has been recognized in several international texts and sets up the basis of democracy in which the media must be free. New technologies enable journalists and media to be closer to the conflicts but they are not as free as they should be when they have to tackle issues dealing with security. Defending the governmental policy sometimes prevails over the right for the public to objective information. In the same way, in their war against terrorism, authorities can make decisions directly or indirectly limitating freedom of speech and of information. From Vietnam war, censorship in the Falklands Islands to the Gulf war, information in the armed conflicts has strongly evolved (part I). But September 11th has played the role of a breaking off and the war against terrorism has made new uncertainties regarding freedom of information appear (part II). The media have to take new responsibilities in their treatment of this phenomenon, which seems to be an action of communication or even manipulation.

Objetivo: A pesquisa avalia as transformações nas instâncias de controle da liberdade de expressão após a redemocratização brasileira e o veto constitucional à censura, em 1988. Esse reposicionamento do controle estatal reforça a persistente preponderância da proteção a interesses privados, fora do escrutínio público, que resiste à regulação pública. Com o bloqueio das propostas no legislativo (em simbiose com produtores midiáticos), restou o apelo ao judiciário nos casos que demandam controle comunicativo em conflitos inerentes às novas liberdades conquistadas com a abertura. Assim, um debate político é reduzido e canalizado ao embate legal, o que deixa o público privado da sua influência sobre a delimitação da liberdade de expressão devido ao caráter hermético das discussões judiciárias - em um processo em que o público se posiciona não como agente, mas como plateia dos debates feitos em seu nome. Métodos: Parte-se de uma análise das entidades de regulação da comunicação, avaliando-se como sua recente formação (ou abandono) foi afetada pelo processo de abertura democrática. A pesquisa avalia como o judiciário ocupou o espaço de controle comunicativo, analisando casos que tratam de proibição de expressões públicas. A análise foca como são delimitados os sentidos do termo tabu \"censura\" nos acórdãos dos julgamentos do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). Resultados: A proposta de classificação sistêmica dos debates no STF aponta preponderância de argumentos liberais contrários ao controle do Estado, mas uma ponderação mais conservadora na colisão de direitos entre indivíduos. A análise evidencia disputas sobre o contraste ou continuidade de práticas autoritárias do passado nos novos tempos democráticos, além de dissenso sobre os significados e limites do que se entende como censura e sua problemática harmonização ou dissonância com uma estrutura legal que, explicitamente, veta esse cerceamento, mas mantém brechas legais que permitem esse controle. / This research evaluates how censorship mechanisms have changed after the end of Brazil\'s military dictatorship and the constitutional prohibition of censorship, in 1988. State control has shifted to a new role that stimulates the persistent dominance of private interests over public scrutiny, resisting government regulation. A symbiosis between media owners and congress representatives frequently blocks new law proposals. The judiciary, however, is still an option to appeals demanding communicative control concerning conflicts regarding new liberties that are now available because of the return of democracy. Court appeals reduce a political debate to a legal dispute, which deprives the public from its influence on how to determine the limits to free speech due to the hermetic characteristics of judicial rulings - in a way that the public is not a player, but an audience during the debates made on its behalf. Methods: This research analyzes entities that regulate communication practices, evaluating how their recent formation (or abortion) relates to democratic reforms after the dictatorship. This work evaluates how the judiciary occupied the space of communicative control, analyzing cases that deal with public expression and its repression. The analysis focus on how the rulings of Brazilian Supreme Court (\"Supremo Tribunal Federal\" - STF) delimit the meaning of \"censorship\", a democratic taboo. Results: The proposed systemic classification of debates in STF points to a dominance of liberal arguments against State control, but a more conservative ponderation in individual rights collisions. The analysis reveals a dispute on the contrast or continuity of past authoritarian practices in new democratic times. There is dissent on the meanings and limits concerning what is understood as censorship and its problematic harmonization or dissonance in a legal structure that explicitly forbids this prohibition, while, at the same time, legal loopholes that allow this kind of control still remain.

Thesis advisor: Dale Herbeck / Websites counseling dangerous activity such as suicide represent uncharted legal territory. To date, most legal scholarship regarding these sites considers whether they incite imminent lawless action. As an alternative to incitement, this paper argues that these websites are more productively characterized as instruction manuals that aid and abet unlawful activity. In support of this approach, this paper proposes a three-tiered legal test for distinguishing between protected and unprotected instruction manuals under the First Amendment. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2010. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Communication Honors Program. / Discipline: Communication.

Is social media a human right? The first of July 2018 the Ugandan government implemented a new tax on social media, called “Over-The-Top” tax which includes over 60 social media platforms. The tax needs to be paid before entering the social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and Whatsapp. The tax can be paid through a daily, weekly, monthly or through a fee every year. The reason for the tax according to the president Yoweri Museveni is to boost the government revenue and to end “lugambo”, gossip on social media. The aim of this thesis is to analyze whether the tax is violating human right and specially freedom of speech. The hypothesis of the thesis is that the OTT-tax is a cumbrance to people’s right to freedom of speech. The thesis concludes that freedom of speech is a negative right which means freedom from state influence. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights(ACHPR) and the Banjul charter is defining freedom of speech such as every individual shall have the right to receive information, right to expression and to disseminate his opinion. ACHPR has also chosen to get inspiration from the UN which has established that internet is included in freedom of speech, rights which exists offline shall also exists online. Social media has served as an important tool throughout different occasion such as the #Metoo campaign, Arabic spring and through domestic´s events in Uganda as “Save Mabire” and #FreeBobiWine. Through argumentation analysis are the arguments for and against OTT-tax reviewed to verify or falsify the thesis hypothesis and the question formulation. The thesis concludes that the president´s arguments are neither solid or evidence-based and can thereby not falsify the hypothesis. The arguments against the OTT-tax are however solid and evidence-based and gets support from international law, therefore confirms the thesis hypothesis. The thesis concludes that there is a restriction on freedom of speech due to the OTT-tax since less people are able to access social media after the introduction of the tax.

A implementação de políticas públicas de comunicação social sobre empresas midiáticas em países da América Latina neste início de século tem sido objeto de intensos debates acerca de suas implicações na efetividade do direito à liberdade de expressão. Em tal contexto, o presente trabalho desenvolveu estudo comparado e interdisciplinar das políticas governamentais realizadas na Venezuela e no Brasil, configuradoras de casos extremos de, respectivamente, ação e omissão oficial. De um lado, considerou a situação venezuelana, cujo atual governo é acusado de obstar a liberdade de expressão por executar medidas contundentes no campo da comunicação social, especialmente na não renovação da concessão da emissora de televisão RCTV. De outro lado, considerou a realidade brasileira, cujo governo não tem sido alvo de críticas semelhantes, mas que não combate frontalmente os meios de comunicação oligopolistas. A partir dessas situações opostas, o estudo investigou os efeitos da implementação de políticas públicas positivas para a efetividade da liberdade de expressão como direito essencial à democracia. Ao final, constatou a legitimidade de a atuação estatal sobre a mídia e a nocividade de a omissão oficial. / In Latin America, the implementation of public policies of social communication over media companies has been the subject of intense debate over its implications in regards to its effectiveness on freedom of speech in the new century. In this context, the present work exposed an interdisciplinary and comparative study of government policies in Venezuela and Brazil. Both countries represent, respectively, extreme cases of state action and state omission. On the one hand, the work considered the situation in Venezuela, which current government is accused of impeding free speech by performing strong control measures in the media field, especially in the case of the non-renewal of the broadcast license of RCTV. On the other hand, the work considered the Brazilian context, which current government does not combat media oligopolies and it is not subject to similar criticism like those suffered by the government of Venezuela. In such opposite situations, the study investigated the effects of implementation of positive policies for the effectiveness of freedom of speech as an essential right to democracy system. It verified the legitimacy of state action over the media structure and also verified the harmful effect of the government omission.

A implementação de políticas públicas de comunicação social sobre empresas midiáticas em países da América Latina neste início de século tem sido objeto de intensos debates acerca de suas implicações na efetividade do direito à liberdade de expressão. Em tal contexto, o presente trabalho desenvolveu estudo comparado e interdisciplinar das políticas governamentais realizadas na Venezuela e no Brasil, configuradoras de casos extremos de, respectivamente, ação e omissão oficial. De um lado, considerou a situação venezuelana, cujo atual governo é acusado de obstar a liberdade de expressão por executar medidas contundentes no campo da comunicação social, especialmente na não renovação da concessão da emissora de televisão RCTV. De outro lado, considerou a realidade brasileira, cujo governo não tem sido alvo de críticas semelhantes, mas que não combate frontalmente os meios de comunicação oligopolistas. A partir dessas situações opostas, o estudo investigou os efeitos da implementação de políticas públicas positivas para a efetividade da liberdade de expressão como direito essencial à democracia. Ao final, constatou a legitimidade de a atuação estatal sobre a mídia e a nocividade de a omissão oficial. / In Latin America, the implementation of public policies of social communication over media companies has been the subject of intense debate over its implications in regards to its effectiveness on freedom of speech in the new century. In this context, the present work exposed an interdisciplinary and comparative study of government policies in Venezuela and Brazil. Both countries represent, respectively, extreme cases of state action and state omission. On the one hand, the work considered the situation in Venezuela, which current government is accused of impeding free speech by performing strong control measures in the media field, especially in the case of the non-renewal of the broadcast license of RCTV. On the other hand, the work considered the Brazilian context, which current government does not combat media oligopolies and it is not subject to similar criticism like those suffered by the government of Venezuela. In such opposite situations, the study investigated the effects of implementation of positive policies for the effectiveness of freedom of speech as an essential right to democracy system. It verified the legitimacy of state action over the media structure and also verified the harmful effect of the government omission.

Australian debates about racial vilification legislation have been dominated by mainstream American First Amendment jurisprudence and popular American notions of 'free speech' to the exclusion of alternative Europeans models. This can be seen from notions of Australian racial vilification legislation as inconsistent with 'free speech' rights as well as the influence of some of the basic assumptions of First Amendment jurisprudence on political speech cases in the Australian High Court. Despite the widespread existence of legislation that penalises racial vilification at State and Federal levels, there has been a rise in Australia over the past 10 years of divisive 'race' politics. Against that background, this thesis considers the scope and limits of racial vilification legislation in Australia. It is argued that First Amendment jurisprudence is inadequate in the Australian context, because it is heavily dependent upon economic metaphors, individualistic notions of identity and outdated theories of communication. It assumes that 'free speech' in terms of lack of government intervention is essential to 'democracy'. It ignores the content, context and effect of harmful speech, except in extreme cases, with the result that socially harmful speech is protected in the name of 'free speech'. This has narrowed the parameters within which racial vilification is understood and hindered the development of a broader discourse on the realities of racist harms, and the mechanisms necessary for their redress. The author calls for the development of an Australian jurisprudence of harmful speech. Failing an Australian Bill of Rights, that jurisprudence would be grounded upon the implied constitutional right of free political speech, informed by an awareness that modern structures of public speech favour a very limited range of speech and speakers. The jurisprudence would take advantage of the insights of Critical Race Theory into the connections between racial vilification and racist behaviour, as well as the personal and social harms of racial vilification. Finally, it is argued that the concepts of human dignity and equality, which underpin European discrimination legislation and notions of justice, provide a way forward for Australian jurisprudence in this area.

Australian debates about racial vilification legislation have been dominated by mainstream American First Amendment jurisprudence and popular American notions of 'free speech' to the exclusion of alternative Europeans models. This can be seen from notions of Australian racial vilification legislation as inconsistent with 'free speech' rights as well as the influence of some of the basic assumptions of First Amendment jurisprudence on political speech cases in the Australian High Court. Despite the widespread existence of legislation that penalises racial vilification at State and Federal levels, there has been a rise in Australia over the past 10 years of divisive 'race' politics. Against that background, this thesis considers the scope and limits of racial vilification legislation in Australia. It is argued that First Amendment jurisprudence is inadequate in the Australian context, because it is heavily dependent upon economic metaphors, individualistic notions of identity and outdated theories of communication. It assumes that 'free speech' in terms of lack of government intervention is essential to 'democracy'. It ignores the content, context and effect of harmful speech, except in extreme cases, with the result that socially harmful speech is protected in the name of 'free speech'. This has narrowed the parameters within which racial vilification is understood and hindered the development of a broader discourse on the realities of racist harms, and the mechanisms necessary for their redress. The author calls for the development of an Australian jurisprudence of harmful speech. Failing an Australian Bill of Rights, that jurisprudence would be grounded upon the implied constitutional right of free political speech, informed by an awareness that modern structures of public speech favour a very limited range of speech and speakers. The jurisprudence would take advantage of the insights of Critical Race Theory into the connections between racial vilification and racist behaviour, as well as the personal and social harms of racial vilification. Finally, it is argued that the concepts of human dignity and equality, which underpin European discrimination legislation and notions of justice, provide a way forward for Australian jurisprudence in this area.