Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFLANAGAN, Aen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-01-15T15:57:45Z
dc.date.issued2012-12-22en_US
dc.identifier.issn0967-0769en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/3206
dc.descriptionThis article explores an ECJ decision involving a question of first impression, the meaning of journalistic purposes under the Data Protection Directive. The article critiques the ECJ's approach as overly broad, beyond the scope of ECHR jurisprudence to date, and without regard to impact on Member State law both within data protection regimes and other media law/constitutional traditions that are not within EU competence.en_US
dc.descriptionThis is an electronic version of an article published in Int J Law Info Tech (2012) doi: 10.1093/ijlit/eas021 First published online: December 22, 2012
dc.description.abstractSeeking 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.en_US
dc.format.extent1 - 30en_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_US
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Law and Information Technologyen_US
dc.subjectData Protectionen_US
dc.subjectjournalistic purposesen_US
dc.subjectnew mediaen_US
dc.subjectArticle 8, ECHRen_US
dc.subjectECJen_US
dc.subjectTietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oyen_US
dc.titleDefining ‘journalism’ in the age of evolving social media: a questionable EU legal testen_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ijlit/eas021en_US
pubs.issue1en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden_US
pubs.publisher-urlhttp://www.oup.com/en_US
pubs.volume21en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record