Ana səhifə

Workshop 1: Press freedom and freedom of speech Justifications for free speech


Yüklə 22.17 Kb.
tarix13.06.2016
ölçüsü22.17 Kb.
Workshop 1: Press freedom and freedom of speech



  1. Justifications for free speech

E. Barendt, Freedom of Speech (2nd ed., Oxford, OUP, 2005), 1-39.


H. Fenwick, G. Phillipson, Media Freedom under the Human Rights Act (Oxford, OUP, 2006), 12-19.
O. O’Neil, ‘Regulating for Communication’, www.fljs.org, 24 July 2013.



  1. Press freedom and freedom of speech

E. Barendt, Freedom of Speech (2nd ed., Oxford, OUP, 2005), 419-424.


H. Fenwick, G. Phillipson, Media Freedom under the Human Rights Act (Oxford, OUP, 2006), 20-33.



  1. Press freedom and the courts




    1. ECHR


Axel Springer AG v Germany [2012] ECHR 227
Von Hannover v Germany (No. 2) (2012) 55 EHRR 15
Stoll v Switzerland (2008) 47 EHRR 59
Von Hannover v Germany (No. 1) (2005) 40 EHRR 1
3.2 UK
Douglas v Hello! [2005] EWCA Civ 595
Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22

Workshop 2: Press regulation in a comparative perspective


  1. The UK




    1. Before Leveson

J. Coad, ‘The Press Complaints Commission – are we safe in its hands?’ (2005) 16 (7) Entertainment Law Review 167.


B. Jordan, ‘Self-regulation and the British press’ (2011) 22 (8) Entertainment Law Review 242.


    1. After Leveson

G. Brock, ‘The Leveson Inquiry: There’s a bargain to be struck over media freedom and regulation’ (2012) 13 (4) Journalism 519


P. Charnley, ‘Hack-gate: examining the phone-hacking scandal and its repercussions for press regulation in the UK’ (2012) 7 (3) Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 211.
S. Fengler, ‘From media self-regulation to crowd criticism: Media accountability in the digital age’ (2012) 2 Central European Journal of Communication 175, http://ptks.pl/cejc/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/CEJC_Vol5_No2_Fengler.pdf, 24 July 2013.
A. Higgins, ‘Legal Lessons from the News of the World phone hacking scandal’ (2012) 31 (3) Civil Justice Quarterly 274.
C. Potter, ‘Press Regulation: All you need to know’ (2013) 24 British Journalism Review 15-23.
P. Wragg, ‘Time to end the tyranny: Leveson and the failure of the fourth estate’ (2013) Communications Law 11.


  1. Germany

A. Czepek, M. Hellwig, E. Nowak, ‘Pre-Conditions for Press Freedom in Germany’ in A. Czepek, M. Hellwig, E. Nowak (eds), Press Freedom and Pluralism in Europe. Concepts and Conditions (Intellect, Bristol, 2009), www.intellectbooks.co.uk, 3 July 2013.


L. Fielden, ‘Regulating the Press: A Comparative Study of International Press Councils’, April 2012, https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/Publications/Working_Papers/Regulating_the_Press.pdf, 24 July 2013, p. 35-36; 108-109.
S. Müller, C. Gusy, Background information report. Media policies and regulatory practices in a selected set of European countries, the EU and the Council of Europe: The case of Germany, 2010, http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/publication/1958177, 24 July 2013, p.
H. Sousa, W. Trützschler, J. Fidalgo, M. Lameiras (eds.), Media Regulators in Europe: A cross-country comparative analysis, March 2013, http://www.comunicacao.uminho.pt/cecs/, 24 July 2013, p.
C. Witteman, ‘Constitutionalising Communications: The German Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence of communications freedom’ (2010) 33 (95) Hastings Int’l and Comp. L. Rev. 95.



  1. Ireland

A. Deil, Privacy and Press Freedom of Ireland, 2012, http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/195690/privacy-and-press-freedom-of-ireland, 5 September 2013.


L. Fielden, ‘Regulating the Press: A Comparative Study of International Press Councils’, April 2012, https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/Publications/Working_Papers/Regulating_the_Press.pdf, 24 July 2013, p. 36-37; 114-115.
W. Gore, J. Horgan, ‘Maintaining freedom with responsibility. The evolving role of non-statutory press councils in a changing media landscape’ (2004) 4 (4) Journalism Practice 523.
Press Council of Ireland, A new Charter for the press and people in Ireland, 2007, www.presscouncil.ie, 5 September 2013.


  1. Australia

L. Fielden, ‘Regulating the Press: A Comparative Study of International Press Councils’, April 2012, https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/Publications/Working_Papers/Regulating_the_Press.pdf, 24 July 2013, p. 37-38; 116-117.


T. Flew, A. Swift, ‘Regulating journalists? The Finkelstein review, the Convergence review, and news media regulation in Australia’ (2013) 2 (1) Journal of Applied Journalism and Media Studies 181.
J. Given, ‘Australia’s Convergence Review’ (2012) 3 (3) International Journal of Digital Television 293.

Workshop 3: Convergence between press and broadcasting



  1. Is the special regulation of broadcasting justified?

E. Barendt, Freedom of Speech (2nd ed., Oxford, OUP, 2005), 444-449.


D.W. Vick, ‘Regulatory convergence?’ (2006) 26 Legal Studies 26.


  1. Convergence between press and broadcasting

EPRA, ‘Plenary session – Content regulation and new media : Exploring regulatory boundaries between traditional and new media’, 26-27 May 2011, http://epra3-production.s3.amazonaws.com/attachments/files/102/original/Ohrid_session1_revised.final.pdf, 5 September 2013.


D. Mac Síthig, ‘Co-regulation, video-on-demand and the legal status of audiovisual media’ (2011) 2 (1) International Journal of Digital Television 51.
Select Committee on Communications, Media Convergence, 2nd Report of Session 2012-13, HL Paper 154, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldcomuni/154/154.pdf, 9 September 2013.


  1. The Sun Video case

Ofcom, Sun Video decision http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/vod-services/sunvideo.pdf, 5 September 2013


S. Lawde, O. Wells, ‘ATVOD determined to do better’ (2012) 18 (4) Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 102.
N. Pimlott, D. Lewis, ‘Regulation of video on demand services following the “Sun Video” appeal’ (2012) 23 (3) Entertainment Law Review 65.

  1. The Tiroler Tageszeitung case

Kommunikationsbehörde Austria, Bescheid, 9 October 2012, https://www.rtr.at/en/m/KOA195012048/KOA_1.950-12-048.pdf, 5 September 2013 (in German).


Bundeskommunikationssenat, Bescheid, 13 December 2012, http://www.bundeskanzleramt.at/DocView.axd?CobId=49930, 5 September 2013 (in German).


  1. The Tagesschau.app case

Landgericht Koeln, Urteil, 27 September 2012, http://openjur.de/u/536575.html, 5 September 2013 (in German).


K. Schmidtmann, ‘Die neue “heute”-App des ZDF – ein presseähniches Angebot? – Zugleich eine Auseinandersetzung mit den Voraussetzungen des §11d Abs. 2 Nr. 3 RStV’ (2013) 7 Zeitschrift für Urheber-und Medienrecht 536 (in German).


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©kagiz.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət