Ograničenje slobode izražavanja u praksi Evropskog suda za ljudska prava i pojam dezinformacija
Ključne reči:
Ljudska prava, dezinformacije, lažne vesti, Evropski sud za ljudska prava, sloboda izražavanja, pandemija
Sažetak
Fenomen širenja dezinformacija je dobro poznat, međutim on se intenzivirao prvenstveno zbog napretka tehnologije. Osim toga, u okolnostima neizvesnosti i krize uvek postoji povećana želja za dodatnim informacijama. Neke države su čak pribegle nejasnim ili prestrogim zakonima ili derogacijama prava u slučaju vanrednog stanja u javnosti. Evropski sud za ljudska prava ne pridaje posebnu važnost terminu dezinformacija prilikom procene opravdanosti ograničenja slobode izražavanja. Ipak, mogu se razlikovati dva ključna elementa dezinformacija, istinitost informacija i namera autora. Prilikom utvrđivanja da li je mešanje u slobodu izražavanja opravdano, Evropski sud za ljudska prava ovim elementima daje određenu težinu, ali zajedno sa sveobuhvatnom analizom drugih relevantnih faktora koji su se razvili u njegovoj praksi, što je ujedno i ključno za očuvanje slobode izražavanja. Strah od širenja dezinformacija ne sme navesti vlasti da jednostavno usvoje stroge i/ili neodređene zakone, sa oštrim kaznama, koji možda neće ispuniti standarde zaštite slobode izražavanja. Međutim, izraz dezinformacija može imati vrednost u stvaranju politike koja je usmerena na podizanje nivoa verodostojnosti informacija uopšte.
Reference
References
Criminal Code of the Republic of Hungary, as amended by the Act C of 2012 on the Criminal Code, Magyar Közlöny, 2012-07-13, vol. 92, pp. 1-122.
Axel Springer AG v. Germany (2012). Application no. 39954/08, Grand Chamber judgment of 7 February.
Cannie H. and Voorhoof D (2011). The Abuse Clause and Freedom of Expression in the European Human Rights Convention: An Added Value for Democracy and Human Rights Protection? Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 29(1), 54–83.
Chang, L. Y. C., Mukherjee, S. and Coppel, N. (2021). We Are All Victims: Questionable Content and Collective Victimisation in the Digital Age. Asian Journal of Criminology, 16, 37–50.
Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France (2015). Application no. 40454/07, Grand Chamber judgment of 10 November.
Council of Europe Treaty Office (2020). Notification - JJ9014C Tr./005-226 - 18 March 2020 - Declaration related to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No. 5). https://rm.coe.int/16809cee30
Council of Europe (2020). Hands off press freedom: attacks on media in Europe must not become a new normal, Annual Report by the partner organizations to the Council of Europe Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists. https://rm.coe.int/annual-report-final-en/16809f03a9
Republic of Serbia Criminal Code (2019), translation of the original Law, Službeni glasnik. https://www.mpravde.gov.rs/files/Criminal%20%20%20Code_2019.pdf
Delfi AS v. Estonia (2018). Application no. 64569/09, Grand Chamber judgment of 28 June.
European Commission (2018a). Tackling online disinformation: a European Approach. COM (2018) 236 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0236
European Commission (2018b). EU Code of Practice on Disinformation. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-practice-disinformation
Gunatilleke G. (2021). Justifying Limitations on the Freedom of Expression. Human Rights Review, 22, 91–108.
Handyside v. The United Kingdom (1976). Application no. 5493/72, judgment of 7 December.
Hertel v. Switzerland (1998). Application No. 59/1997/843/1049, judgment of 25 August.
Hoboken J. at al. (2019). The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising Final report, Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law. https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Report_Disinformation_Dec2019-1.pdf
Hunt, A. and Gentzkow, M. (2016). Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31 (2), 211-36.
James H. F. (2004). Information: Does it Have To Be True? Minds and Machines, 14, 223–229.
Krivični zakonik (KZ) 2005, Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije, br. 85/05, 88/05 - ispravka, 107/05 - ispravka, 72/09, 111/09, 121/12, 104/13, 108/14, 94/16.
Magyar Jeti Zrt v. Hungary (2018). Application no. 11257/16, judgment of 4 December.
Milanovic, M. (April 2020). Viral Misinformation and the Freedom of Expression: Part II. EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/viral-misinformation-and-the-freedom-of- expression-part-ii/
Moyakine, E. and Tabachnik, A. (2021). Struggling to strike the right balance between interests at stake: The ‘Yarovaya’, ‘Fake news’ and ‘Disrespect’ laws as examples of ill-conceived legislation in the age of modern technology. Computer Law & Security Review, 40, 1-13.
Network Enforcement Act -Netzdurchsetzunggesetz, NetzDG (2017). Federal Law Gazette I, p. 3352 ff. Valid as from 1 October 2017. https://germanlawarchive.iuscomp.org/?p=1245
Perinçek v. Switzerland (2015). Application no. 27510/08, Grand Chamber judgment of 15 October.
Radio Twist a.s. v. Slovakia (2006). Application no. 62202/00, judgment of 19 December.
Report of the independent High-level Group on fake news and online disinformation (2018). A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation, European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6ef4df8b-4cea-11e8-be1d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
Romanov v. Ukraine (2020). Application no. 63782/11, judgment of 16 July.
Ruokanen and Others v. Finland (2010). Application no. 45130/06, judgment of 6 April.
Salov v. Ukraine (2005). Application no. 65518/01, judgement of 06 September.
Sardo, A. (2020). Categories, Balancing, and Fake News: The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 33 (2), 435-460.
Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and satamedia Oy v. Finland (2017). Application no. 931/13, Grand Chamber judgment of 27 June.
Shattock, E. (2021). Should the ECtHR Invoke Article 17 for Disinformation Cases? Blog of the European Journal of International Law. https://www.ejiltalk.org/should-the-ecthr-invoke-article-17-for-disinformation-cases/
Söderman v. Sweden (2013). Application no. 5786/08, Grand Chamber judgment of 12 November 2013.
Stojanović, Z. (2021). Komentar Krivičnog zakonika, Službeni Glasnik.
UN Human Rights Committee (2011). General comment no. 34 Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, CCPR/C/GC/34.
Urbina, F. J. (2014). Is it Really That Easy? A Critique of Proportionality and 'Balancing as Reasoning'. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 27 (1), 167-192.
Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria (2007). Application No. 68354/01, judgment of 25 January.
Waldman, A. E. (2018). The Marketplace of Fake News. Journal of Constitutional Law, 20 (4), 849-870.
Wardle, C. and Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information Disorder Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking. Council of Europe. https://edoc.coe.int/en/media/7495-information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-research-and-policy-making.html
Williamson v. Germany (2019), application no. 64496/17, admissibility decision of 08. January.
Criminal Code of the Republic of Hungary, as amended by the Act C of 2012 on the Criminal Code, Magyar Közlöny, 2012-07-13, vol. 92, pp. 1-122.
Axel Springer AG v. Germany (2012). Application no. 39954/08, Grand Chamber judgment of 7 February.
Cannie H. and Voorhoof D (2011). The Abuse Clause and Freedom of Expression in the European Human Rights Convention: An Added Value for Democracy and Human Rights Protection? Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 29(1), 54–83.
Chang, L. Y. C., Mukherjee, S. and Coppel, N. (2021). We Are All Victims: Questionable Content and Collective Victimisation in the Digital Age. Asian Journal of Criminology, 16, 37–50.
Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France (2015). Application no. 40454/07, Grand Chamber judgment of 10 November.
Council of Europe Treaty Office (2020). Notification - JJ9014C Tr./005-226 - 18 March 2020 - Declaration related to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No. 5). https://rm.coe.int/16809cee30
Council of Europe (2020). Hands off press freedom: attacks on media in Europe must not become a new normal, Annual Report by the partner organizations to the Council of Europe Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists. https://rm.coe.int/annual-report-final-en/16809f03a9
Republic of Serbia Criminal Code (2019), translation of the original Law, Službeni glasnik. https://www.mpravde.gov.rs/files/Criminal%20%20%20Code_2019.pdf
Delfi AS v. Estonia (2018). Application no. 64569/09, Grand Chamber judgment of 28 June.
European Commission (2018a). Tackling online disinformation: a European Approach. COM (2018) 236 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0236
European Commission (2018b). EU Code of Practice on Disinformation. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-practice-disinformation
Gunatilleke G. (2021). Justifying Limitations on the Freedom of Expression. Human Rights Review, 22, 91–108.
Handyside v. The United Kingdom (1976). Application no. 5493/72, judgment of 7 December.
Hertel v. Switzerland (1998). Application No. 59/1997/843/1049, judgment of 25 August.
Hoboken J. at al. (2019). The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising Final report, Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law. https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Report_Disinformation_Dec2019-1.pdf
Hunt, A. and Gentzkow, M. (2016). Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31 (2), 211-36.
James H. F. (2004). Information: Does it Have To Be True? Minds and Machines, 14, 223–229.
Krivični zakonik (KZ) 2005, Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije, br. 85/05, 88/05 - ispravka, 107/05 - ispravka, 72/09, 111/09, 121/12, 104/13, 108/14, 94/16.
Magyar Jeti Zrt v. Hungary (2018). Application no. 11257/16, judgment of 4 December.
Milanovic, M. (April 2020). Viral Misinformation and the Freedom of Expression: Part II. EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/viral-misinformation-and-the-freedom-of- expression-part-ii/
Moyakine, E. and Tabachnik, A. (2021). Struggling to strike the right balance between interests at stake: The ‘Yarovaya’, ‘Fake news’ and ‘Disrespect’ laws as examples of ill-conceived legislation in the age of modern technology. Computer Law & Security Review, 40, 1-13.
Network Enforcement Act -Netzdurchsetzunggesetz, NetzDG (2017). Federal Law Gazette I, p. 3352 ff. Valid as from 1 October 2017. https://germanlawarchive.iuscomp.org/?p=1245
Perinçek v. Switzerland (2015). Application no. 27510/08, Grand Chamber judgment of 15 October.
Radio Twist a.s. v. Slovakia (2006). Application no. 62202/00, judgment of 19 December.
Report of the independent High-level Group on fake news and online disinformation (2018). A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation, European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6ef4df8b-4cea-11e8-be1d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
Romanov v. Ukraine (2020). Application no. 63782/11, judgment of 16 July.
Ruokanen and Others v. Finland (2010). Application no. 45130/06, judgment of 6 April.
Salov v. Ukraine (2005). Application no. 65518/01, judgement of 06 September.
Sardo, A. (2020). Categories, Balancing, and Fake News: The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 33 (2), 435-460.
Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and satamedia Oy v. Finland (2017). Application no. 931/13, Grand Chamber judgment of 27 June.
Shattock, E. (2021). Should the ECtHR Invoke Article 17 for Disinformation Cases? Blog of the European Journal of International Law. https://www.ejiltalk.org/should-the-ecthr-invoke-article-17-for-disinformation-cases/
Söderman v. Sweden (2013). Application no. 5786/08, Grand Chamber judgment of 12 November 2013.
Stojanović, Z. (2021). Komentar Krivičnog zakonika, Službeni Glasnik.
UN Human Rights Committee (2011). General comment no. 34 Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, CCPR/C/GC/34.
Urbina, F. J. (2014). Is it Really That Easy? A Critique of Proportionality and 'Balancing as Reasoning'. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 27 (1), 167-192.
Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria (2007). Application No. 68354/01, judgment of 25 January.
Waldman, A. E. (2018). The Marketplace of Fake News. Journal of Constitutional Law, 20 (4), 849-870.
Wardle, C. and Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information Disorder Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking. Council of Europe. https://edoc.coe.int/en/media/7495-information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-research-and-policy-making.html
Williamson v. Germany (2019), application no. 64496/17, admissibility decision of 08. January.
