All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Expression Here and Abroad: A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's and the European Court of Human Rights' Commercial Speech Doctrines
Unformatted Document Text:  ICA 1-10808 29 93 Id at para. 45. 94 Id at para 36, 46-47. Once a seven judge panel has rendered judgment, only the parties can at this stage request that the case be referred to a Grand Chamber. 95 See Convention, supra note 3, at http://conventions.coe .int./treaty/EN/Treaties/html 96 Article 10(1) states: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television, or cinema enterprises. 97 Article 10(2) states: The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions, or penalties as prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. 98 See Dirk Voorhoof, Defamation and libel laws in Europe – the Framework of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 13 Trolley’s Journal of Media Law and Practice at p. 255 (1992). 99 Id at 255. 100 Id at 255. 101 See Paul Mahoney, Marvelous Richness of Diversity or Invidious Cultural Relativism? 19(1) Human Rights Law Journal 1 (1998). 102 See Voorhoof supra note 97 at 255. 103 See Mahoney supra note 100 at 2. 104 See Voorhoof supra note 97 at 255. 105 Id at 255. 106 See Soren Prebensen, The Margin of Appreciation and Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Convention, 19(1) Human Rights Law Journal 13 (1998). 107 Barthold v. F.R.G.1985 Eur Ct. H.R. HUDOC 8734/79 at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int . 108 Id at 6 of 28. 109 Id at 14 of 28. 110 Id at 16 of 28. 111 Id. 112 Id at 22 of 28. 113 Id at 23 of 28. 114 Voorhoof, supra note 98 at 256. 115 Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beerman v. F.R.G. 1988 Eur Ct. H.R. HUDOC 10572/83 at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int . 116 Id at 4 of 26. 117 Id at 5 of 26. 118 Id at 16 of 26. 119 Id at 13 of 26. 120 Id.

Authors: Hollerbach, Karie.
first   previous   Page 29 of 31   next   last



background image
ICA 1-10808 29
93
Id at para. 45.
94
Id at para 36, 46-47. Once a seven judge panel has rendered judgment, only the
parties can at this stage request that the case be referred to a Grand Chamber.
95
See Convention, supra note 3, at
http://conventions.coe
.int./treaty/EN/Treaties/html
96
Article 10(1) states: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas
without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not
prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television, or cinema
enterprises.
97
Article 10(2) states: The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions, or
penalties as prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests
of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or
crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights
of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
98
See Dirk Voorhoof, Defamation and libel laws in Europe – the Framework of
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 13 Trolley’s Journal of Media
Law and Practice at p. 255 (1992).
99
Id at 255.
100
Id at 255.
101
See Paul Mahoney, Marvelous Richness of Diversity or Invidious Cultural
Relativism? 19(1) Human Rights Law Journal 1 (1998).
102
See Voorhoof supra note 97 at 255.
103
See Mahoney supra note 100 at 2.
104
See Voorhoof supra note 97 at 255.
105
Id at 255.
106
See Soren Prebensen, The Margin of Appreciation and Articles 9, 10, and 11 of
the Convention, 19(1) Human Rights Law Journal 13 (1998).
107
Barthold v. F.R.G.1985 Eur Ct. H.R. HUDOC 8734/79 at
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int
.
108
Id at 6 of 28.
109
Id at 14 of 28.
110
Id at 16 of 28.
111
Id.
112
Id at 22 of 28.
113
Id at 23 of 28.
114
Voorhoof, supra note 98 at 256.
115
Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beerman v. F.R.G. 1988 Eur Ct. H.R.
HUDOC 10572/83 at
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int
.
116
Id at 4 of 26.
117
Id at 5 of 26.
118
Id at 16 of 26.
119
Id at 13 of 26.
120
Id.


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 29 of 31   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.