David Erdos – författare

The tension between freedom of expression and European personal data protection regulation is unmistakable. Nowhere is this more apparent than in its interface with professional journalism and other traditional publishers including artists, writers and academics. This book systematically explores how that tension has been managed across thirty-one European States from the 1970s through to the 2010s including under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It is found that, notwithstanding confusing laws, data authorities have regulated journalism through contextual rights balancing. However, they have struggled to establish a clear standard of strictness or ensure consistent enforcement. Their stance regarding other publishers has been more confused - whilst academics have been subject to onerous restrictions developed for medical and related research, other writers and artists have been largely ignored. This book suggests that contextual rights balancing should be extended to all traditional publishers and systematically developed through robust co-regulation that draws on the strength of both statutory control and self-regulation.

The tension between freedom of expression and European personal data protection regulation is unmistakable. Nowhere is this more apparent than in its interface with professional journalism and other traditional publishers including artists, writers and academics. This book systematically explores how that tension has been managed across thirty-one European States from the 1970s through to the 2010s including under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It is found that, notwithstanding confusing laws, data authorities have regulated journalism through contextual rights balancing. However, they have struggled to establish a clear standard of strictness or ensure consistent enforcement. Their stance regarding other publishers has been more confused - whilst academics have been subject to onerous restrictions developed for medical and related research, other writers and artists have been largely ignored. This book suggests that contextual rights balancing should be extended to all traditional publishers and systematically developed through robust co-regulation that draws on the strength of both statutory control and self-regulation.

The tension between freedom of expression and European personal data protection regulation is unmistakable. Nowhere is this more apparent than in its interface with professional journalism and other traditional publishers including artists, writers and academics. This book systematically explores how that tension has been managed across thirty-one European States from the 1970s through to the 2010s including under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It is found that, notwithstanding confusing laws, data authorities have regulated journalism through contextual rights balancing. However, they have struggled to establish a clear standard of strictness or ensure consistent enforcement. Their stance regarding other publishers has been more confused - whilst academics have been subject to onerous restrictions developed for medical and related research, other writers and artists have been largely ignored. This book suggests that contextual rights balancing should be extended to all traditional publishers and systematically developed through robust co-regulation that draws on the strength of both statutory control and self-regulation.

Delegating Rights Protection explores bill-of-rights outcomes in four "Westminster" countries - Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom - whose development exhibit an interesting combination of both commonality and difference. Comparative analysis of some thirty-six democracies demonstrates that the historic absence of a bill of rights in Westminster countries is best explained by, firstly, the absence of a clear political transition and, secondly, their strong British constitutional heritage. Detailed chapters then explore recent and much more diversified developments. In all the countries, postmaterialist socio-economic change has resulted in a growing emphasis on legal formalization, codified civil liberties, and social equality. Pressure for a bill of rights has therefore increased. Nevertheless, by enhancing judicial power, bills of rights conflict with the prima facie positional interests of the political elite. Given this, change in this area has also required a political trigger which provides an immediate rationale for change. Alongside social forces, the nature of this trigger determines the strength and substance of the bill of rights enacted. The statutory Canadian Bill of Rights Act (1960), New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (1990), and the Human Rights Act (UK) (1998) were prompted politically by a relatively weak and backward-looking 'aversive' reaction against perceived abuses of power under the previous administration. Meanwhile, the fully constitutional Canadian Charter (1982) had its political origins in a stronger, more self-interested and prospective need to find a new unifying institution to counter the destabilizing, centripetal power of the Québécois nationalist movement. Finally, the absence of any relevant political trigger explains the failure of national bill of rights initiatives in Australia. The conclusionary section of the book argues that this Postmaterialist Trigger Thesis (PTT) explanation of change can also explain the origins of bills of rights in other internally stable, advanced democracies, notably the Israeli Basic Laws on human rights (1992).