• Login
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    Defining ‘journalism’ in the age of evolving social media: a questionable EU legal test 
    •   QMRO Home
    • School of Law
    • Centre for Commercial Law Studies
    • Defining ‘journalism’ in the age of evolving social media: a questionable EU legal test
    •   QMRO Home
    • School of Law
    • Centre for Commercial Law Studies
    • Defining ‘journalism’ in the age of evolving social media: a questionable EU legal test
    ‌
    ‌

    Browse

    All of QMROCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    ‌
    ‌

    Administrators only

    Login
    ‌
    ‌

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Defining ‘journalism’ in the age of evolving social media: a questionable EU legal test

    View/Open
    FLANAGANDefiningJournalism2012PREPT.docdoc (172Kb)
    Volume
    21
    Pagination
    1 - 30
    Publisher
    Oxford University Press
    Publisher URL
    http://www.oup.com/
    DOI
    10.1093/ijlit/eas021
    Journal
    International Journal of Law and Information Technology
    Issue
    1
    ISSN
    0967-0769
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Seeking to address how new media fall within the Article 9, Data Protection Directive's exemption for processing for ‘journalistic purposes’, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) formulated a test that is so broad that the boundaries of who is a journalist under the exemption remain unclear. The decision in Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy, (‘Satakunnan') however, was not dictated by the Court's prior jurisprudence or that of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 10 of the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Although different legal tests for ‘journalism' can exist for different purposes, within and across jurisdictions, where rights are purportedly premised on the same legal instruments, distinct legal tests can be problematic and present dualist compliance issues for national courts. This article considers the nature of the ‘journalistic purposes' test in Satakunnan. It examines the likely conflict of this test with European Court of Human Rights’ standards for press protections under Article 10 jurisprudence and standards in various EU Member States under both media law outside EU competence and the implementation of Article 9 of the Directive. It concludes that the ECJ's unwarranted exercise here was avoidable and that the test of journalism in an age of evolving media can be met by simple criteria which imbed Article 10 distinctions for the press.
    Authors
    FLANAGAN, A
    URI
    http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/3206
    Collections
    • Centre for Commercial Law Studies [374]
    Language
    English
    Twitter iconFollow QMUL on Twitter
    Twitter iconFollow QM Research
    Online on twitter
    Facebook iconLike us on Facebook
    • Site Map
    • Privacy and cookies
    • Disclaimer
    • Accessibility
    • Contacts
    • Intranet
    • Current students

    Modern Slavery Statement

    Queen Mary University of London
    Mile End Road
    London E1 4NS
    Tel: +44 (0)20 7882 5555

    © Queen Mary University of London.