La liberté d’expression face aux mémoires blessées
The right of reply inherently generates multiple conflicts of rights. The approach of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has long lacked clarity regarding the articulation of the different purposes of the right of reply—ensuring public access to appropriate information and protecting the res...
Tallennettuna:
| Päätekijät: | , |
|---|---|
| Aineistotyyppi: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Kieli: | Français |
| Julkaistu: |
2024
|
| Linkit: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Yhteenveto: | The right of reply inherently generates multiple conflicts of rights. The approach of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has long lacked clarity regarding the articulation of the different purposes of the right of reply—ensuring public access to appropriate information and protecting the respondent’s personal rights—within its control framework. Although European case-law still lacks substance today, there seems to be a progressive erosion of the democratic dimension of the right of reply, favoring its purely "personal" aspect. In a Europe marked by the rise of illiberal democracies and increasing disinformation, this narrowing of European control to solely protect reputation raises questions. |
|---|