FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W22453524> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W22453524 startingPage "531" @default.
• W22453524 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION On January 25, 1990, Gorden Kaye, a well-known English actor, was in automobile accident in which he sustained substantial head injuries.(1) While recovering from brain surgery in the hospital, journalists gained unauthorized access to his private room and interviewed and photographed him in his debilitated state.(2) Kaye asked for an interlocutory injunction to prevent publication [of the article and pictures,] alleging malicious falsehood, libel, passing off and trespass to the person.(3) He was granted the injunction,(4) but on appeal, Judge Glidewell replaced the lower court's injunction with one less restrictive. He said: It is well-known that in English law there is no right to privacy, and accordingly there is no right of action for breach of a person's privacy. The facts of the present case are a graphic illustration of the desirability of Parliament considering whether and in what circumstances statutory provision can be made to protect the privacy of individuals.(5) Currently there is no domestic legal recourse in the United Kingdom for a person in Kaye's circumstances,(6) but this state of affairs is soon to change. On November 9, 1998, Parliament passed The Human Rights Act of 1998,(7) which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)(8) into domestic law.(9)The ECHR guarantees individuals a general right to privacy,(10) as well as the right to freedom of expression.(11) Although originally meant to protect individual's human rights from violations by the State, the ECHR could be interpreted to protect the individual's rights from violations by nongovernmental entities such as the press.(12) This interpretation would give a person in Kaye's situation a legal remedy.(13) The untimely death of Princess Diana led to the public condemnation of the press for their alleged role in the accident.(14) This tragedy cemented the public's view that the press had grossly overstepped its bounds for invading a person's privacy for no other reason than its own financial profit.(15) Diana's death and the incorporation of the ECHR into UK domestic law mean that the right to privacy will most likely result in the development of laws governing invasive intrusions on individuals by nongovernmental entities such as the press.(16) It is far from settled, however, what shape this law will take.(17) The first part of this Comment discusses whether the ECHR rights embodied in the Human Rights Act should have a higher, more protected status than other statutory rights. A brief description of the origins and structure of the ECHR is given, detailing the provisions of the right to privacy and freedom of expression. The paper then examines two models that other countries used to establish their own versions of the rights embodied in the ECHR, and analyzes the impact of each model on the citizens, government, and legal systems of the United Kingdom. This section concludes by observing how future changes to the international ECHR might impact domestic UK law. The issue of whether a right to privacy exists, especially from invasions by the press, is the subject of the second part of this Comment. The unjustified invasion of a person's right to privacy by the press is a growing and important problem.(18) In fact, some aspects of a privacy right have been recognized and protected by UK law, although different terminology and legal constructs have been used.(19) However, case law, such as Kaye v. Robertson, illustrates that the existing remedies for violation of this right to privacy do not adequately protect the individual from unjustified, invasive journalistic tactics.(20) Recognizing the need for adequate remedy, this Comment addresses whether laws implementing this new right to privacy should be established by the British Parliament or courts. After examining the difficulties in defining the broad concept of a right to privacy, the Comment analyzes the present stances of the press, government, and judiciary as well as the arguments for and against the protection of privacy interests in each of these arenas. …" @default.
• W22453524 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W22453524 creator A5074710961 @default.
• W22453524 date "1999-03-22" @default.
• W22453524 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W22453524 title "The Right to Privacy Is Coming to the United Kingdom: Balancing the Individual's Right to Privacy from the Press and the Media's Right to Freedom of Expression" @default.
• W22453524 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W22453524 type Work @default.
• W22453524 sameAs 22453524 @default.
• W22453524 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W22453524 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W22453524 hasAuthorship W22453524A5074710961 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C102938260 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C123201435 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C141972696 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C14587133 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C158129432 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C18414002 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C2776040635 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C2778449503 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C2781440851 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C61326887 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C77527283 @default.
• W22453524 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C102938260 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C123201435 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C141972696 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C144024400 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C14587133 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C158129432 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C169437150 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C17744445 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C18414002 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C199539241 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C2776040635 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C2778449503 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C2781440851 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C61326887 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C77527283 @default.
• W22453524 hasConceptScore W22453524C94625758 @default.
• W22453524 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W22453524 hasLocation W224535241 @default.
• W22453524 hasOpenAccess W22453524 @default.
• W22453524 hasPrimaryLocation W224535241 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W104718664 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W1591316976 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W2057964320 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W2074101168 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W2079433772 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W2112015350 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W2300658016 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W233650813 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W2491238251 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W2625783631 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W278647188 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W2996882363 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W3021184654 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W3139698955 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W3157210026 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W32159365 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W323836996 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W757451800 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W2186797869 @default.
• W22453524 hasRelatedWork W256097256 @default.
• W22453524 hasVolume "21" @default.
• W22453524 isParatext "false" @default.
• W22453524 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W22453524 magId "22453524" @default.
• W22453524 workType "article" @default.