If combined with the introduction of a public interest defence against claims of invasion of privacy, and other legal breaches, it could be highly attractive – a similar system has been introduced in Ireland, and has drawn widespread support. The Desmonds of the world might stay outside but would risk becoming pariahs after Leveson.
如果还能对侵犯隐私(和其他违法行为)是否违反公众利益进行判断,这种仲裁机制将非常有吸引力,事实上,冰岛已实行了一套类似的制度,并已赢得广泛的支持。当然,全世界类似德斯蒙德之流可能不参与这套制度,不过经过了莱韦森调查这件事之后,他们这么做就要冒被社会抛弃的风险。
This would require a constitutional reform on the lines of the 2005 Act – a statute allowing courts to take into account the results of arbitration and enshrining the independence of the media from government as securely as that of the judiciary. The new structure should, as James Harding, editor of The Times, suggested this week, be monitored by judges rather than politicians.
可能还需要再次修宪,好像2005年那次一样。要将宪法修改为允许法庭将仲裁结果纳入自己的考量,并像保护司法独立那样确保媒体的独立性。正如《泰晤士报》(The Times)总编辑詹姆斯·哈丁(James Harding)上周建议的那样,这种新机制应该由法官来监督,而不是由政客监督。
【英国应重写资讯自由】相关文章:
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15