Human Rights Act in the UK - Essay Example

?Running Head: Human Rights Act in UK Human Rights Act in UK [Institute’s Human Rights Act in UK The Human Rights Act in UK is a predefined set of codes and rights that provide immense privileges to the inhabitants of the nation. These rights provide the people with protection, safety, and security with respect to their issues and concerns that has come under provision by the state. However, the freedom of speech and privacy are the two very critical, vital, and serious matters that have a dissimilar and diverse definition for different people in the contemporary world of today. However, for quite a few countries that incorporate the UK, it has come under reflection that for an independent and egalitarian society, it is essential and indispensable to have freedom of speech. This is because freedom of speech permits or facilitates an individual to have a complete and dynamic role in the aspects of politics and public life. Moreover, how a person views himself and others profoundly depends upon his attitude to free speech (Barendt, pp. 230-245, 2005). While on the other hand, the subject matter of privacy, it can come under communication that the concept, perception and notion of privacy over the period have witnessed a vital and intense change across the cultures. Privacy is a condition that an individual do not intend to share or disclose in public that comes under relation to his or her identity, autonomy, or dignity. In other words, privacy is a situation or circumstance where the person wants to be uninterrupted, unaccompanied or with no public attention and can have the freedom from interference of others. Moreover, privacy has a connection with the concept and idea of secrecy that can be noteworthy, momentous or worth mentioning events or occurrences in the life of an individual (Barendt, pp. 230-245, 2005). On a generic and widespread basis, every individual has a different perception about what things people want to share in public and what they want to keep it on a personally or private. It has come under observation that several people are not in favor to appear in public, therefore, they intend to keep their private lives as their own, while on the other hand, few people in order to get fame or money express or overdramatize themselves publically. The ideas, way of thinking and philosophies of people are the key features that leads to what sort of life that an individual wants to have, which entirely depends upon his or her attitudes to view the factors of privacy and publicity. Moreover, the ways that a person wants to symbolize or represent him in front of public also leads to the person’s attitude to privacy and publicity (Mayes, pp. 2-9, 2002). The records of contemporary society disclose the verity that numerous people in order to survive and make their livelihood, they publicize themselves. These personalities include the famous celebrities, television stars, pop stars, sports personalities, and several others. However, with this publicity, the concern of invasion to private lives has been the most critically raised issue. The records make the information public that the decades of 1980 and 1190 has been two most critical years for the journalist, as they have come under severe criticism by the politicians for the invasion of private lives of the renowned people (Sanders, pp. 77-80, 2003). Nevertheless, the recurrently analyzed current trends of the twenty first century reveal the piece of information that private disclosure or exposure about the personal lives of few people that includes politicians or celebrities has progressively become the basis for public conversations or discussions. It has also come to an examination on recent times that the celebrities and the public figures have been increasingly making complaints regarding their private lives that have come under offensive attack by the media. Furthermore, it has also come under observation that apart from the public figures, the normal people who are not in the public watch have also made such complaints about the media that is invading in their private lives (Mayes, pp. 2-9, 2002). Moreover, the allegation that has come from such people is that the publicity of their private lives either by images or by words has been a source of emotional distress, offense, damage, or harm to them through the media exposure or hype. Consequently, the safety and security of a person’s privacy particularly from the media has augmented this grave issue on the contrary, despite the fact that private and personal matters of the individuals has become the primary source for the public channel of communication (Mayes, pp. 2-9, 2002). Whereas looking at the other end of the spectrum, it has come to observation that abundance of people that even includes the public figures or celebrities that give open invitations to the media to broadcast their interviews and themselves voluntarily make the media invade their private lives. This complicates the issue of privacy to an extreme level (Mayes, pp. 2-9, 2002). A new concept and outlook to the liberated or free speech and privacy rights has emerged, materialized, and ascended in the modern times in order to come up with a solution to such dilemmas. The studies expose the fact that the new privacy rights has come under approval and acknowledgement with the interest that inhabitants of the nations necessitate to have a law by the state that provided them protection for their private lives from appearing as a public discourse. Moreover, this privacy rights also came under authorization with the fact that this issue that the person under discussion might feel hurt or offended. On the contrary, the postulation or the assumption that people had in their minds was that the privacy rights relied on the fact that people require safeguard and shield by the state for their private lives from being interfered by the public (Mayes, pp. 2-9, 2002). Therefore, the perception of open expression and privacy rights are the relatively two unprejudiced and evenhanded themes, against each other, of dispute or quarrel that came under performance for the new privacy rights. In other words, the balancing in privacy rights eradicates the two aspects of free speech and privacy. However, according to the new definition, the right to privacy covers the public discourse free of hurtful discussion under the protection by the state; and the right to free speech came under redefinition as quality and confined speech. As a result, the judge is the prime person that decides about what can come under articulation in public regarding the individual’s personal life (Mayes, pp. 2-9, 2002). Quite the opposite, the history of freedom of speech in UK provides with evidence that journalists and media were permissible to be present in all court cases. Whereas, the public did not have the rights to be present in the all of the court hearings that included in case of youth courts, family proceedings in magistrates’ court and adult courts. Moreover, the British government had given the power to the media to publish and be disaster-prone, as the media was free to make news in public. Furthermore, according to few of the authors, the law of England came under consideration to be the law of liberty with all the freedom of speech (Robertson & Nichol, pp. 17-19, 2002). History also reveals the fact that the government of UK had no direct control over the press with respect to their freedom of speech. The government also had to approach the court to grant a command or restriction to the media to stop any news from broadcasting. This is due to the reason that even government did not have any privileges over other complainants (Robertson & Nichol, pp. 26-29, 2002). However, the subject matter freedom of expression with respect to human rights acts in UK has come under several debates, discussions, and arguments with respect to its primary and elementary democratic values and the personal feelings that a person possesses (Mayes, pp. 2-9, 2002). The times gone by in the UK expose the information that after few major incidents of public exposure of few of the celebrities emerged the need that agreed to substantial changes in the code of practice in order to protect the privacy of the people. According to the new changes to the code of privacy, it became important to identify that every individual comes under obligation to respect for the privacy of others. Moreover, the captured images of people without their consent or from constant tracking down came under prohibition for publishing that do not meet the standards of the code. In addition, few other clauses also became a part of the privacy code (Sanders, pp. 81-85, 2003). The records and statistics provide with evidence that the modern Human Rights Act of UK that came under designing in the latter years of the decade 1990 have tabulated the two contradictory and disagreeing rights of free expression and privacy. In addition, this Human Rights Act has completely come into practice from the beginning of the twenty first century where the judges became the arbitrator or the authority to come up to decisions about the rights to free speech and rights to privacy is permissible for the people. The records also enlightens with the information that this Act with new powers given to the judges came under complete support by the politicians, although the media controllers or supervisory body and several other individuals disagreed and disputed over the privacy protection of people (Mayes, pp. 2-9, 2002). The Human Rights Act of UK clarifies the fact that all individual has the privileges to defend his or her rights and that all the public organizations are liable to treat all people with equality, fairness, dignity, and respect. Moreover, according to one of the article that states about the rights to respect the private and family life article “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home, and his correspondence” (Betten, pp. 283, 1999). Furthermore, according to “the Article of Right to Freedom of Expression, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to perceive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers” (Betten, pp. 284, 1999). While looking at the perspective of the media law, it is vital and imperative to understand and emphasize the freedom of media, principally those matters that develop interest to the public, as the quick glimpse of media law give the impression that press comes under some limitations with respect to their freedom. Moreover, in the liberal and noninterventionist culture and society, the media that consists of newspapers, broadcasters and others should be permissible to perform their fundamental role in the domain of politics and social (Barendt & Hitchens, pp. 1-3, 2000). According to the Human Rights Acts of UK, although the media had the freedom of expression pertaining to their opinions and viewpoints, yet, they also had the restriction or limitation of broadcasting only those ideas, standpoints or information that should come under favorable acceptance or come under the consideration as inoffensive or harmless (Barendt & Hitchens, pp. 4-6, 2000). The print media that take account of books, newspapers, or magazines according to the Human Rights Act do not come under exposure to licensing; therefore, their freedom of expression comes under the limitation to the criminal and civil laws. Whereas, the broadcasters are subject to quite a few limitations that include licensing as well according to the Human Rights Act (Barendt & Hitchens, pp. 8-10, 2000). It has come under observation that on having a program banned or prohibited does not only mean that the freedom of speech of the journalist or editors comes under damage but also the freedom of media comes under equal accusation and incrimination. This is due to the reason that both freedom of speech and freedom of media comes under close association and alliance to each other. However, in several cases due to the complexity of media, this perception might fall short or fail to do fair dealing with the media (Barendt & Hitchens, pp. 14-16, 2000). The records also enlightens with the piece of information that the print media, predominantly the newspapers have the advantage that they do not come under provision to official censorship. However, it is only the court or the judge who in various circumstances can grant or take a decision of restricting or ban the publication based on violating the contempt of court. Moreover, according to some schools of thought, materializing truth is noticeably one of the prime and essential elements of the free speech and expression. Therefore, few things should come under publications that are of public concern, in order to make the truth appear in front of everyone so that fair comments can come under performance by the public (Barendt & Hitchens, pp. 18-21, 2000). Censorship is another prevalent regulation that has come under deep definition in the Human Rights Act of UK for broadcasting with reference to freedom of speech. Films, videos, and broadcasting all come under the act of censorship and are liable to exercise the censorship act. Since the concept of theaters have moreover eradicated, therefore the theater censorship came under elimination. However, the recently viewed videos on television and films are subject to the act of censorship and the responsible authorities that classifies the films according to the age group of viewers. Nevertheless, the effect of censorship has come under several disputes as they come under the view as objectionable (Barendt & Hitchens, pp. 23-25, 2000). However, the amendments in the laws and codes with respect to privacy came under design in order to promote the new demands of censorship for the media. The facts and information also divulge that the development in the Human Rights Act has not only proved to be alarming and disturbing but it is also complicated and distant from simple and undemanding. However, the significant concern of what a fee speech, privacy, and rights ought to signify or indicate has continued over the time until the current epoch to be a controversial issue (Mayes, pp. 2-9, 2002). Moreover, it has come under surveillance that both of the rights that are free speech and privacy have consequence in a negative and unconstructive manner due to being in competition with each other. The studies make the fact apparent and simple that from the time the Human Rights Act came into alterations, the advantage of human rights protection have appeared to be more apparent, obvious, transparent and propinquity that UK has obtained. Moreover, the practice of such freedom of expression although carries “duties and responsibilities with it, yet, it depends upon certain formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties that come under approval by the law” (Betten, pp. 277-280, 1999). It can come under well conclusion that the meaning of free speech and privacy have come under modification and variation over the period of time with respect to the response or reaction of the people to the modern and present-day culture. Besides, the difference or the dissimilarity between the public and private arenas of life is now coming under articulation as confusion with respect to protecting the emotions or feelings of a person as an outcome of free speech, predominantly with the incursion of an individual’s privacy (Mayes, pp. 30-34, 2002). However, according to the new Human Rights Act of UK, every individual has the right or the freedom to express and say as long as the other person does not feel emotionally hurt or distressed and his or her private lives do not come under invasion. This is due to the reason that the state through the Human Rights Act exist to provide protection to the private lives of the people. References Barendt, E.M. 2005. Freedom of speech. Oxford University Press. Barendt, E. & Hitchens, L. 2000. Media Law: Cases and Materials. Longman. Betten, L. 1999. The Human Rights Act 1998: what it means: the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into the legal order of the United Kingdom. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Mayes, T. 2002. “Restraint or Revelation? Free Speech and Privacy in a Confessional Age.” Spiked Reports (www.spiked-online.com). pp. 2-9 & 30-34. Retrieved on October 19, 2011: http://www.spiked-online.com/pdf/spiked_RestraintOrRevelation.pdf Robertson, G. & Nichol, A. 2002. Media Law: Fourth Edition. London: Penguin. Sanders, K. 2003. Ethics and Journalism: London. SAGE. Read More