Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 1
MEDIA FREEDOM AND THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND
THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN EUROPE AND THE US
BY [NAME]
MCO 430 - International Mass Communication
ASU
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 2
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US
Introduction
The media houses across the United States of America, Europe and other parts of the
world have constantly been faced by the conflicting relationship that exist between the right to
privacy and the freedom of speech. Youm and Park (2016, p.273) asserts that this conflicting
relationship has led to constant court battles between media stations and celebrities among other
individuals whose claims are always on the invasion of their privacy. As a result of such
conflicts journalists are no longer able to carry out their activities as required of them in a normal
professional manner. Youm and Park (2016, p.273) adds that the conflict between the right to
privacy and the freedom of speech has curtailed their ability to access quality firsthand
information, reveal important details about various issues affecting the citizens as well as playing
their critical role of being the watchdog to the government activities and reporting effectively to
the people. This conflict has also led to the strained relations between media houses in Europe
and the US and the respective governments where the conflicts imposes in various sanctions on
the media houses for various privacy infringement whereas the media argues for the need of
freedom to speak as one of their rights in providing the people with reliable and useful
information. This aspect, therefore, makes the topic on the media in US and Europe and the
relationship between right to privacy and the freedom of speech an important topic of discussion.
Debates about media freedom and privacy, prevalent both in Europe and the United
States, have implications beyond the very subject matter and point to the same democratic
concerns. Phillipson (2016, p.136) says that while it is vital to have press freedom, the rights of
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 3
individuals to privacy should still be the foremost thing. A report in public interest is the one,
though, which most of the time is intruding into personal lives to be the justification. Exposing
corruption is a good example of this. However, it is frequently observed that celebrities and
officials keep saying that the media violates their privacy, dignity, and human rights when such
coverage happens. In Europe courts have moved towards employing proportionality
guaranteeing that issues of freedom of speech and privacy are considered in a balanced manner
(Oster, 2015, p.47). On the other hand, the United States has always put the emphasis on First
Amendment rights thus, giving the media more freedom to operate. Not only different legal
systems but also cultural disparities between the two sides of the Atlantic are mirrored in this
dissimilarity. Wacks (2013, p.88) states that the tensions, which are discussed here, are the
conflicts at the core of the issues of accountability and respect for individual autonomy.
Democratically, it is a matter of deciding which of the two human rights has to be given primacy
and in what way they can be balanced so that the systems designed are such that they reflect the
respect for individual dignity at the same time they allow for the transparency to be there.
Government control represents another angle of the same conflict and the possible impact
on the autonomy of the press is among the factors that lie ahead House (2015, p.241) says that
intensified surveillance laws limit the ability of journalists to obtain information in a free
manner. Usually, authorities distribute these laws under the pretext that they are vital for keeping
order and securing the rights of the citizens. Nonetheless, regulation of this kind may very well
become instruments to mute opponents and restrict the release of dissenting views. In such
circumstances, adequate safeguarding measures are required to avoid the wrongdoing of powers
that are entrusted to regulate authority. Wacks (2013, p.112) insists that the introduction of very
strict privacy laws might result in the weakening of the journalist accountability system, albeit
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 4
unintentionally. The public mood also twists the issue further, since the practice of scandalous
invasive exposes often leads to calls for tougher protection measures. The problem is to be
found in the era when such demands are likely to erode the watchdog function of the media. To
this point, Howie (2018, p.14) comments that international human rights standards should be the
guiding principles in national lawmaking in order to strike a balance between the two. In
essence, the balance is a matter of very careful adjustment, the one that not only ensures respect
for privacy but also does not undermine media freedom.
The First Amendment
The First Amendment in the United States of America stipulates that United States
Congress should not make any laws in respect to the establishment of religion or any laws that
prohibits the free exercise or curtailing the freedom of speech (Coates IV, 2015, p.223). This
amendment refers only to the restrictions that the government could apply through the use of the
law to curtail the freedom of speech among the people of the United States and the media.
Therefore, this means that if for instance, an employee is fired by an employer due to the
employee’s speech then; the case does not affect the first amendment. In the US, the legislators
sometimes ratify laws meant to protect the religious observers and speaker from any form of
retaliation by any private organizations (Abrams, 2016, p.47). For instance; the Title VII of the
Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 has banned discriminations based on religion even by any
private employers. In a similar manner, laws in various states in the country have prohibited
employers and private organizations from firing workers for any form of political activity done
by them out of duty. However, such prohibitions are normally imposed through the legislative
choice and not through the first amendment.
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 5
The First Amendment, therefore, ensures that the government may not impose any form
of tax on any speeches or expressions by individuals and the press on matters pertaining its
operations, religion or public interests issues. It is also not allowed to limit public demonstrations
that allow the demonstrators to express their views. Abrams (2016, p.47) articulates that it also
ensures that the government does not authorize any civil lawsuits that are based on the people’s
speech. This is so unless such speeches falls within the First Amendment exceptions those are
traditionally recognized. For instance, people may not be able to sue for any form of emotional
distress caused by any form of offensive articles from magazines, written specifically about
them, unless if such articles are not only offensive but also includes falsified information or it
falls within the category of defamation. According to Youm and Park (2016, p.273) the freedoms
to expression guarantees are also not limited to speeches on politics. These freedoms also cover
speeches on morality, religion, science, art, personal gossip and other social issues. However, it
does not give the press and other media related businesses additional rights that are beyond any
rights that most non-professional speakers enjoy.
One of the essential features of the First Amendment is the way it has changed through
the time by the court interpretations. The courts have always been the main actors who have been
deciding the extent as well as the limitations of the free speech. Harry (2018, p.422) points out
that the New York Times v. Sullivan decision was one of the landmark cases which basically
changed the core meaning of the First Amendment, most notably by the raising of the press
freedom watchdogs against defamation claims. Consistent with that, Kessler (2016, p.1920)
mentions that during the early years of the twentieth century, courts had used the Lochner-era
rationale to interpret the case which led to the favoring of corporate rights under the First
Amendment. The judicial enlargement of power was the main factor that highlighted the conflict
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 6
between the protection of civil rights and the regulation of the economic system. Balkin (2015,
p.1185) also provides the argument that the discussion over contemporary issues in the matter of
information custodians which is the point where he refers to the internet as the subject of the
First Amendment’s scope of rights continues to be the most prominent theme of the modern day.
This transformation indicates that the amendment changes constantly during the societal
transformations and technological advancements, rather than being fixed.
One of the essential features of the First Amendment is the way it has changed through
the time by the court interpretations. The courts have always been the main actors who have been
deciding the extent as well as the limitations of the free speech. Harry (2018, p.422) points out
that the New York Times v. Sullivan decision was one of the landmark cases which basically
changed the core meaning of the First Amendment, most notably by the raising of the press
freedom watchdogs against defamation claims. Consistent with that, Kessler (2016, p.1920)
mentions that during the early years of the twentieth century, courts had used the Lochner-era
rationale to interpret the case which led to the favoring of corporate rights under the First
Amendment. According to Harry (2018, p.444), the judicial enlargement of power was the main
factor that highlighted the conflict between the protection of civil rights and the regulation of the
economic system. Balkin (2015, p.1185) also provides the argument that the discussion over
contemporary issues in the matter of information custodians which is the point where he refers to
the internet as the subject of the First Amendment’s scope of rights continues to be the most
prominent theme of the modern day. This transformation indicates that the amendment changes
constantly during the societal transformations and technological advancements, rather than being
fixed.
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 7
First Amendment interaction with symbolic speech is another vital aspect, which deals
with such things as the burning of flags or the wearing of protest symbols. In fact, Ely (2018,
p.386) specifies that courts facing such situations have had to balance the rights of a person to
symbolic expression against the need to preserve public order. Take flag desecration cases to be
example, they show the problems of deciding whether those acts are merely a form of expression
or a kind of conduct that is illegal. According to Ribstein (2012, p.8), corporations that claim free
speech as their rights usually do their symbolic activities; like advertising, which, in turn, open
the issue of governance complexity. Besides this, Harry (2018, p.430) claims that instances of
symbolic expression provide the Court's readiness to utilize the balancing tests rather than simply
going by the strict categories. The First Amendment disputes these days do not relate only to
spoken or written words but also to expressive conduct that can be very powerful political or
social messages. According to Ribstein (2012, p.9), the acknowledgment of the symbolic speech
in the First Amendment case-law is a strong indication that the Court accepts different speech
forms as essential in the democratic participation process.
First Amendment also has a major impact on corporate governance and commercial
expression in the US. Ribstein (2012, p.12) refers to the fact that correspondents of the corporate
sector request the help of First Amendment in the case of governance and communication with
shareholders. Balkin (2015, p.1190) also acknowledges that the advent of digital platforms
makes matters even more complicated since corporations have control over many speech areas
freedom that influence public discourse. Kessler (2016, p.1932) believes that such developments
incline institutions to voices that are already powerful and at the same time weaken individuals.
This transformation challenges the traditional view of the First Amendment as mainly the
assurance of individual freedoms against the government. Now, the courts and lawmakers have
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 8
to manage the equilibrium between the provision of corporate communication and the prevention
of an unfair allocation of speech rights to the entities that are already powerful. These corporate
assertions are an example of the amendment’s growing impact on non-traditional political speech
areas, such as corporate governance and economic affairs.
Privacy as Europe’s first amendment and freedom of speech as the US’s First
Amendment
The universal principles’ protection varies from one continent to the other or even from
one country to the other. This is the case in the United States and Europe. What is quite
undisputed in the current society today is the United States’ free speech prominence. Wright and
Javid (2019 ) declares that in Europe, with the looming Brexit, it is now battling with the
experimentation of privacy as its constitutional i8dentity is a similar manner as the United States’
First Amendment on the freedom of expression. In the recent months, the General Data
Protection Regulation came into force in Europe as a way of balancing the digital freedoms with
the privacy rights of the citizens. It is the updated version of the European Data Protection
Directive of 1995. Craft and Davis (2016, p.412) asserts that it ensures that the European citizens
are empowered with the ability of controlling the data collected by digital media and other forms
of media about them. It also directs firms to allow citizens to see and analyze information
collected about them and if need arises, they are allowed to deleted what they do not intend to be
published.
There has been a great difference in the way that European nations and the US apply the
various approaches to the issue of free speech. Warren and Brandeis (2019, p.13) say that this
has affected how media operates in these countries to a greater extent. This difference in
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 9
approach is based on the historical situations among them. Warren and Brandeis (2019, p.13)
adds that in the wake of the thirteen colonies’ independence from the British colonial rule, led to
great skepticism en route for centralized political authority as well as the possibility for tyranny.
The Bill of Rights of 1789 and the first ten U.S constitution amendments swung in a heavy way
towards the explicit protection of the civil liberties from any form of interference from the
government.
One major point that most clearly separates Europe from the United States is the way
each system evaluates the role of collective interests versus individual rights. According to Oster
(2015, p.144), the European legal system often gives more weight to concepts such as human
dignity, privacy, and the safeguarding of social harmony, even if this means freedom of speech
to be lessened. This method is quite different from the American one, in which the First
Amendment allows even very controversial or offensive speech to be protected as it contributes
to the democratic pluralism safeguarded in the battery of rights (Harry, 2018, p.422). Practically
speaking, a European court would be more inclined to regulate hate speech or any extremist
views, while in the United States, those restraints would be considered illegal. House (2015,
p.167) emphasizes that the root of this difference is found in the distinct cultural and political
histories which have, among other things, led to Europe’s decision to concentrate on stability and
equality as the result of its twentieth-century ordeal with authoritarianism. Therefore, in Europe,
privacy and dignity are used as instruments for achieving a balance with free speech, while in the
U.S., free speech is still regarded as one of the closest to absolute principles of constitutional
identity.
The comparison areas of differences that most likely would be additionally pointed out
are digital technologies influence and corporate control over speech platforms. According to
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 10
Balkin (2015, p.1186), in the U.S., private enterprises like social media platforms have a great
deal of power over the way speech flows, but they are mostly out of the reach of constitutional
restrictions. Unlike that, European regulators, supported by tools like the General Data
Protection Regulation, implement more severe measures for corporations to ensure privacy and
prevent negative speech (Kessler, 2016, p.1922). In Ely's (2018, p.386) view, these regulatory
frameworks are the reflection of different constitutional priorities: the American law grants
maximum freedom to speech intermediaries, whereas the European law considers them as
entities with obligations to protect public and individual interests. The advent of the digital age
has thus deepened the differences between the U.S. free speech absolutism and the privacy-
focused models in Europe, which has a profound influence on the way both regions deal with
misinformation, online harassment, and surveillance.
A comparison of freedom of speech in USA and Europe
With various notable expectations, the United States, courts have for a long time
preferred the protection of speech over any other considerations. This is in a broad diversion
from Europe and even hate speech is time protected. For instance, Bleich (2014, p.284) claims
that in one of the landmark cases of 1969, the United States’ Supreme Court made a decision to
reverse the conviction of Brandenberg Clarence due to his Klu Klux Klan rally speech. This
court’s decision set a very high bar through the prohibition of speech, making to an imminent
action of lawlessness. However, Kiska, (2012, p.147) contrasts that a couple of decades later the
same Supreme Court upheld his right to hate speech through the right to burning of crosses. On
the other hand, in Europe, the Nazism history has played a key ro9le in shaping ideas and
policies about free speech across the continent. The Babelsplatz Memorial in Berlin reminds the
European people that at some point in their history, the freedom of speech were not a status quo.
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 11
The European Convention on Human Rights was drafted by the Council of Europe in 1950 and it
was, according to numerous human rights scholars drafted based on the WWII atrocities (Bleich,
2014, p.285). The article 10 of this convention, however, guaranteed the people of the freedom
of expression which was limited to certain conditions such as the protection of other peoples’
rights or national security.
To many Europeans, the approach founded on the “free marketplace of idea” adopted the
Americans, seems quite strange. Fiss (2018, p.76) articulates that hate speech victims in the US
normally have little recourse because it is hard for them to get justice unless he or she has been
discriminated actively in a legal way. For instance, in Europe, a baker may not refuse to bake a
cake for a gay wedding, nevertheless, the same baker would freely post any form of homophobic
slogans at the bakery. Or even denying that the Holocaust ever occurred, which to most
Europeans governments cannot be tolerated since it is a significant event that had a great bearing
in shaping European and national laws.
In the US, According to the Guardian (2019), hate speech is normally defined as slurs,
insults or epithets that a person directs to another person within a given group of people. This
group should be based on specific characteristics such as religion, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation or any form of disability. For instance, in 1952, the Beauharnais v. Illinois case was
upheld by the Supreme Court because it was a form of group libel. The court forbade the
portrayal of criminality, depravity, and lack of virtue or unchastely to a class of citizens based on
their race, creed, color or religion. The Supreme Court said that it was a form of speech that fell
outside the First Amendment’s protection. In Europe, this is quite different because there is no
guidance of the free speech issues based on the European Convention of Human Rights giving
the countries in this region margin of appreciation (O'Fathaigh & Voorhoof, 2019, p.7) For
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 12
instance, in the Handyside v. United Kingdom, the court said the article 10 was applicable not
only to the ideas and information but also to any information that causes shock, disturbs or
offends the state.
Freedom of speech in media
In the same way as individuals, media houses and media personalities have the right to
the freedom to free speech. The media has the right to freely express thoughts, opinions and
ideas without any form of restriction which guarantees it the need to be independent and
objective (Craft and Davis, 2016, p.415). This is so unless the restrictions imposed on them are
desirable such as when they are exercising their rights, such rights infringes on the rights of other
groups or individuals or where their exercises infringes national security.
The mass media, having the obligation to cover events, spread information and gather
information as well as controlling the state deserves the right to freedom of speech. However,
Craft and Davis (2016, p.419) contrasts that in doing this, it has the responsibility carry out their
duties without infringing on the rights of others. In Europe today, the press freedom of speech
has become more fragile than it was before. There has been various media freedom of speech
violations of varying degrees. According to Kahn, (2013, p.253) there have been arguments that
media freedom of speech should be more respected in Europe. This is because the media plays a
key role in the provision of information to the viewers, readers and listeners which play a key
role in ensuring that they actively participate in matters such as political democracy. Therefore,
the arguments justify the need of extending the free speech to the media. However, such
extensions should not mean that the media stations or specific programs will become immune
from necessary legal restrictions.
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 13
The conflict between media privacy and freedom of speech
The conflicting relation between media privacy and freedom of speech has been an issue
of debate under the Human Rights Act of 1988. According to Rosen (2011, p345), various
decisions are currently underway among judges to determine how the privacy rights under article
(8) impacts on the right to freedom of speech in article (10). This conflicting relationship has led
to continued confusion among media personalities in balancing the two in the course of their
duties. This is because they have the obligation to defend their rights as well as exercise their
freedom of speech by informing the society without restrictions.
Media privacy is growing phenomena in the contemporary society. With today’s
technological advancements, and an economy driven by consumers’ interests, there is no doubt
that media stations need to have privacy. Felcher and Rubin (2017, p.1577) say that there has
been a problem with the cheap nature of the media materials coupled with other issues such as
imitations that copy the nature of most media contents across Europe and the United States. One
of the most common media privacy in Europe and the USA is the video privacy where piracy of
media content has been a major problem. According to the Guardian (2019) the problem with
piracy has been that most consumers need new content but at a lower price. This and other issues
have led to the need for media privacy. The media also has an obligation to protect interviewees
or informants of confidential information. However, this has not been easier due to the rise in
crimes such as hacking that has invaded most media stations across Europe and USA.
When it comes to the conflict between privacy and freedom of speech, there have been
various cases where media has found itself in trouble for publishing information deemed to
invade the privacy of the involved subjects. Such cases have made it hard for the press to balance
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 14
the need for the two. For instance, the case between Catherine Zeta-Jones, Micheal Douglas and
the OK! Magazine against the Hello! Magazine where Hellos! Magazine was accused of
publishing the couple’s unofficial wedding photographs indicates how these two impact aspects
conflict with one another (O'Fathaigh & Voorhoof, 2019, p.8). Hello! Magazine allegedly
invaded the privacy of the couples. However, an injunction meant to stop its publication was
overruled by the court. There are other cases where celebrities have sued media houses for
publishing information that to them invaded their privacy. One of them include the case where
Tony Blair, the Prime Minister complained that the press had published young children’s
pictures. Such cases have constantly affected how media operates because in most cases, the
publishing of such information or the alleged infringement of the right to privacy is necessitated
by the media’s need to exercise their freedom of expression (Wright H & Javid, 2019) Also, the
issues of piracy, patent infringements are forces brought by the consumer-driven market that
leads to the infringement of media privacy but such forces allows other media outlets to express
themselves and compete with other media.
A further issue in combining media privacy with freedom of speech is the extent of
corporate influence upon the flow of information. Ribstein (2012, p.6) points out that
technological and media companies are at the root of the corporate control over digital platforms
and, hence, the way privacy and speech are safeguarded. In their decisions regarding censorship,
content removal, and the use of personal data, they set the borderline between the public interest
and individual rights. Sopinka (1997, p.173) also notes that in the era of information,
corporations are frequently freed from the restraints of the constitution and this makes the
regulation inconsistent. These corporations vigorously support their publishing activities under
free speech provisions, thereby compounding the paradox in which they simultaneously claim
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 15
rights similar to those of individuals and exercise disproportionate power. Barendt (2006, p.17)
further points out that such corporate behavior is indicative of the ease with which privacy
safeguards can be violated, especially if priority is given to public access to information rather
than to the maintenance of personal dignity. The dynamic here demonstrates that the conflict
between free speech and privacy is not just among individuals and governments but also among
powerful corporate structures.
The conflict between speech and privacy has been influenced, among other things, by
cultural and technological changes. Barendt (2006, p.15) quite accurately states that the
application of privacy law is mostly a reactionary one, whereby the response is given only after
cases with controversies become visible due to the inadequacies of the protections in place. As a
result of celebrity culture and personal branding that thrives on the internet, the private lives of
people are now more exposed than ever, a fact that has made it exceedingly difficult for judges to
ensure at the same time the protection of both integrity and freedom of expression. Ribstein
(2012, p.9) further supports this argument by stating that corporations use the exposure of
individuals to their advantage which, in turn, leads to the more significant risk of their personal
areas being intruded. Besides that, Sopinka (1997, p.174) notes that the occurrence of events that
results in privacy breaches will become more frequent if there are technological changes only
because information will be shared quicker on more than one channel. It is, therefore, almost
impossible to take back what has been already distributed digitally at the same time the damages
that the persons exposed may suffer are being multiplied. Under such circumstances, the law
traditional framework that has been in vogue faces great challenges and this is the reason why
the judges are called upon at such times to determine the extent of free speech rights that are
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 16
consistent with the new cultural and digital practices. The balance between the two, open
expression and individual privacy, has become more complicated as societies continue to evolve.
Social media adds new complexities to the privacy versus free speech debate. Segado-Boj
and Díaz-Campo (2020, p.236) maintain that these networks are simultaneously pillars of free
speech and major violators of privacy on a large scale. Users are incentivized to disclose
sensitive information. Unfortunately, some platforms take the data and release it without the
user's consent. Sopinka (1997, p.176) states that the risk of reputational harm is increased by the
vulnerabilities in the information age which however occur at the global level. On the other
hand, Barendt (2006, p.19) indicates that the media's intense focus on private minutiae in social
channels makes the line between allowed reporting and illegal disclosure thin. In consequence,
courts receive challenging instructions on how to combine public interest reporting with the
protection of personal dignity in online spaces. The worldwide reach of these social networks,
unlike traditional media, makes regulation more complicated as different legal systems find it
hard to enforce privacy in a consistent manner. Such a digital setting makes the conflict between
free expression and privacy rights even more palpable.
The media and the Chilling Effect
Even though the First Amendment and the European Convention on Human Rights
guarantee the freedom of expression and interferences of media activities, this has not been
entirely the case in Britain and the United States. Bradshaw (2017, p.334) enunciates that the
conflicting relationship between the right to privacy and the freedom of speech has led to the
chilling effect in the media industry. The media in both Europe and the US have been
constrained in the process of covering public issues and political issues. According to Bradshaw
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 17
(2017, p.334) currently, journalists have been threatening in the course of their activities by
being jailed at such an increasing number. This has been the work of authoritarian political
administrations as well as governments in countries with nature. Therefore, journalists are never
safe as they no longer have pride in their work because they work under surveillance and threats.
Stoycheff, et al. (2019, p.602) suggests that the ultimate absurdity when it comes to the issue of
the chilling effect is that the extraordinary systems of communication such as the media that
were meant to liberating people from oppressive governments and dictatorial regimes since the
invention of the printing press are facing oppressive forms of censorship. The chilling effect is
defined a phenomenon where group of people or individuals are forced to refrain from the
engagement in expression due to the fear of being criminalized or running afoul of regulations or
the law (Bradshaw, 2017, p.334). This normally happens when the law in a country or a region is
either too vague or too broad such that the person or the individual is not aware of where the law
might find them wrong based on their actions.
The media has been limited by laws imposed by government regimes limiting their
ability to effectively gather and relay information. Therefore, Bradshaw (2017, p.335) declares
that media personalities have always steered far clear in regard to their duties to ensure that they
are far from the reaches of the law. The reason why this is the case is because most of them fear
prosecution, punitive action or retaliation from the government based on their actions. According
to Justice Frankfurter Felix, the chilling effect, in concurring with the case of Wieman v.
Updegraff of 1952, which involved the imposition of a loyalty oath on teachers made a very
important statement (Bradshaw, 2017, p.334). He said that such loyalty oaths have the ability to
create a chilling effect that chills the free play of the teachers’ spirit which in turn creates a
practice and cultivates a culture of fear. This has been the case in the media stations in Europe
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 18
and US. The vague laws have produced the chilling effect because journalists and media stations
are not aware of how exact to express themselves in their lines of duty in a way that will not
cross the lines of the law (Stoycheff, et al., 2019, p.602) For instance, in the United States, the
two provisions of the CDA; the Communications Decency Act does not define its criminalization
of online transmission of indecency and patently offensive The Supreme Court has not been able
to distinctively explain these aspects making it hard for journalists to keep their boundaries
against their violation.
In Europe, vagueness of the European Convention on Human Rights on the freedom of
speech in the press has led to various problems to the press activities. It is not only the vagueness
of the free speech laws but also the mass surveillance of the press in Europe has led to the
chilling effect. The case of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism v. the UK government brought
major concerns on the issue of monitoring of journalistic duties and works (Stoycheff, et al.,
2019, p.603). In this case, the issue was that the intelligence agencies and the GCHQ
surveillance of journalists had led to the spread of fears among journalists in their activities.
There has been an inadequate safeguard that could ensure that the press freedom is safeguarded
which is unlawful. Additionally, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism cites various other issues
that have led to the chilling effect among journalists. It includes the rampant cases where
journalists have been murdered in the course of their duties.
Conclusion
It is clear that the media has faced intense problems from the conflict between privacy
and the need to exercise their freedom of speech. The First Amendment in the United States
stipulates that United States Congress should not make any laws in respect to the establishment
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 19
of religion or any laws that prohibits the free exercise or curtailing the freedom of speech. It also
covers the freedom of the press or the peoples’ rights to assemble peacefully as well as to
petition the US government for redress of the various grievances affecting them. In Europe, the
European Convention of Human Rights provides for the protection of the freedom of speech and
privacy. However, it is clear that such protections have been infringed in various ways. The
chilling effect that has made journalists fear to carry their duties freely indicates that the media
freedom to gather, educate and inform the people has been curtailed. The conflict between the
need to maintain privacy and the need for media stations to inform the people brings more limits
to the media in Europe and the US. Therefore, the media needs the privacy that most individuals
need as well as the freedom guaranteed into individuals to function in the desired way.
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 20
References
Abrams, F., 2016. Free Speech under Fire: The Future of the First Amendment. JL & Pol'y, 25,
p.47.
Balkin, J.M., 2015. Information fiduciaries and the first amendment. UCDL Rev., 49, p.1183.
Barendt, E., 2006. Privacy and freedom of speech. New dimensions in privacy law: international
and comparative perspectives, pp.11-31.
Bleich, E., 2014. Freedom of expression versus racist hate speech: Explaining differences
between high court regulations in the USA and Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 40(2), pp.283-300.
Bradshaw, P., 2017. Chilling Effect: Regional journalists’ source protection and information
security practice in the wake of the Snowden and Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
(RIPA) revelations. Digital Journalism, 5(3), pp.334-352.
Coates IV, J.C., 2015. Corporate Speech & the First Amendment: History, Data, and
Implications. Const. Comment., 30, p.223.
Craft, S. and Davis, C.N., 2016. Principles of American journalism: An introduction. Routledge.
Ely, J.H., 2018. Comment: Flag Desecration: A Case Study in the Roles of Categorization and
Balancing in First Amendment Analysis. In Freedom of Speech (pp. 381-407).
Routledge.
Felcher, P.L. and Rubin, E.L., 2017. Privacy, Publicity, and the Portrayal of Real People by the
Media. The Yale Law Journal, 88(8), pp.1577-1622.
Fiss, O., 2018. Liberalism Divided: Freedom of speech and the many uses of state power.
Routledge.
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 21
Harry, K., 2018. The New York Times case: A note on “the central meaning of the First
Amendment”. In Constitutional Law (pp. 415-446). Routledge.
House, F., 2015. Freedom in the World 2015: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil
Liberties. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
Howie, E., 2018. Protecting the human right to freedom of expression in international
law. International journal of speech-language pathology, 20(1), pp.12-15.
Kahn, R.A., 2013. Flemming Rose, the Danish cartoon controversy, and the new European
freedom of speech. Cal. W. Int'l LJ, 40, p.253.
Kessler, J.K., 2016. The Early Years of First Amendment Lochnerism. Columbia Law Review,
pp.1915-2004.
Kiska, R., 2012. Hate speech: A comparison between the European Court of Human Rights and
the United States supreme court jurisprudence. Regent UL Rev., 25, p.107.
O'Fathaigh, R. and Voorhoof, D., 2019. Activist’s conviction for hooliganism over “obscene”
protest violated Article 10 ECHR. Strasbourg Observers Blog, (23 January).
Oster, J., 2015. Media freedom as a fundamental right (Vol. 30). Cambridge University Press.
Phillipson, G., 2016. Press freedom, the public interest and privacy. Comparative defamation
and privacy law, 32, p.136.
Ribstein, L., 2012. The First Amendment and Corporate Governance. Georgia State University
Law Review, 27(4), p.6.
Rosen, J., 2011. Free speech, privacy, and the web that never forgets. J. on Telecomm. & High
Tech. L., 9, p.345.
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 22
Segado-Boj, F. and Díaz-Campo, J., 2020. Social media and its intersections with free speech,
freedom of information and privacy. An analysis. Revista ICONO14. Revista científica de
Comunicación y Tecnologías emergentes, 18(1), pp.231-255.
Smet, S., 2018. Free Speech versus Religious Feelings, the Sequel: Defamation of the Prophet
Muhammad in ES v Austria. European Constitutional Law Review, Forthcoming.
Sopinka, J., 1997. Freedom of speech and privacy in the information age. The Information
Society, 13(2), pp.171-184.
Stoycheff, E., Liu, J., Xu, K. and Wibowo, K., 2019. Privacy and the panopticon: Online mass
surveillance’s deterrence and chilling effects. New Media & Society, 21(3), pp.602-619.
The Guardian. 2019. Gomorra writer faces jail threat in libel battle with Italy’s deputy PM. The
Guardian.com. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/31/roberto-saviano-gomorra-libel-battle-
matteo-salvini
Wacks, R., 2013. Privacy and media freedom. Oxford University Press.
Warren, S. and Brandeis, L., 2019. The right to privacy. Litres.
Wright H, & Javid MP. 2019. UK to introduce world first online safety laws. GOV.UK.
Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-introduce-
world-first-online-safety-laws
Youm, K.H. and Park, A., 2016. The “right to be forgotten” in European Union law: Data
protection balanced with free speech?. Journalism & mass communication quarterly,
93(2), pp.273-295.
Media Freedom and the Conflict between the Right to Privacy and the Freedom of Speech in
Europe and the US 23
