Use this url to cite ETD: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/124951
Options
Ar asmens teisė į saviraiškos laisvę leidžia viešai reikšti nuomonę, nepagrįstą faktais?
Field of Science
Teisė / Law (S001)
Type of publication
type::text::thesis::master thesis
Title
Ar asmens teisė į saviraiškos laisvę leidžia viešai reikšti nuomonę, nepagrįstą faktais?
Other Title
Does the human right to freedom of expression allow in public express opinion which is not grounded on facts?
Author
Pakštytė, Vilma |
Advisor
Extent
44 p.
Date Issued
2009-06-19
Abstract
Teisė į saviraiškos laisvę suteikia žmogui galimybę reikšti savo turimus įsitikinimus ir idėjas. Nors šiai teisei suteikiama ypatinga teisinė apsauga tiek Lietuvos, tiek tarptautiniuose teisiniuose dokumentuose, ji nėra absoliuti ir gali būti ribojama, siekiant apsaugoti kitų žmonių teises ir laisves bei kitus svarbius interesus. Pusiausvyros suradimas tarp kitų įstatymų saugomų vertybių ir nuomonės reiškimos laisvės yra svarbus kiekvienos valstybės teisinės sistemos uždavinys. Šio uždavinio įgyvendinime yra svarbu nustatyti tam tikrų nuomonės reiškimo laisvės sąlygų ribojimo būtinumą demokratinėje visuomenėje. Dažnai žmonės viešai reikšdami savo nuomonę pateikia tam tikrų faktų ir dalykų vertinimą, bet savo vertinimui nepateikia įrodymų, faktų, kad kiti žmonės galėtų įsitikinti jų vertinimų teisingumu. Jeigu tokia nuomonė nepažeidžia kitų įstatymuose saugomų vertybių, ji yra leidžiama. Nuomonių ir idėjų pliuralizmo egzistavimas visuomenėje yra ypač svarbus išreiškiant politinę kritiką, todėl nuomonių ribojimas, reikalaujant jas pagrįsti faktais, kliudytų išlaikyti demokratijos tęstinumą, nes žmonės vengtų reikšti savo nuomonę svarbiais visuomeninio gyvenimo klausimais. Nuomonės yra subjektyvūs vertinimai ir kurioms, skirtingai nei žiniai, nėra taikomas tiesos kriterijus. Kadangi nuomonės yra nepatikrinamos ir nuomonių įrodinėti nėra privaloma, negalima reikalauti ir jų paneigimo. Reikalavimas nuomonę pagrįsti faktais ar kitais įrodymais būtų saviraiškos laisvės suvaržymas, kuris netoleruotinas šiuolaikinėje visuomenėje ir nepateisintų tikslo apsaugoti kitas įstatymų saugomas asmenų teises.
Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental human rights. People can express themselves not only in private, but also in public and social life. This right is guaranteed in the constitutions of many states, international human rights and other legal documents. Exceptional legal protection for freedom of expression is justified because of it’s importance for maintaining stability of democracy. One of the main element of freedom of expression is the right to hold opinions without interference. The right to hold opinions allows people to express their views, beliefs and ideas verbally or in writing. Journalists, politicians and other society members can realize this right especially in the media, where their opinions reach many people. It is important that person who realizes his/her right in public to hold opinions, would not violate the rights of other people. When people express their opinions in public, they mostly express value – judgements about some facts. Often they don’t explain, why do they think so, don’t give some facts that could prove truth of their statements. Can always be allowed the opinion that is not grounded on facts? The main goal of this work is to establish, weather the human right to freedom of expression allows in public to express opinion that is not grounded on facts. Freedom of expression, as the right to hold opinions, is not absolute. Because of the conflict between the right to hold opinions and other rights, the right to hold opinions can be limited. Some other rights can have supremacy over the right to hold opinions, for example, in order to protect health or morals, human right to privacy, right to honour and dignity or maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. In order to protect previous mentioned rights opinions under some circumstances can be limited. It reveals analysis of scientific works, Lithuanian and international legal documents and legal practice. The right to hold opinions is closely related to human right to honour and dignity. It is important to find a balance between the right to hold opinions and human right to honour and dignity. When person in public express his/her opinion which is not grounded on facts, he/she can easily violate rights of other people. For example, when they express some affirmations about person’s values, character, appearance or actions. Value – judgements are not verified, but such statements sometimes can be treated as violation of the freedom of expression. If person express his/her opinion in „bad faith”, express it dishonestly or unethical, opinion can be limited. When opinion is grounded on some facts, it is important that those facts would be true. It can emerge indirect violation of the human right to honour and dignity when one person violates another person’s right to privacy. When person in public express opinion which grounds on facts about another person’s personal life, sometimes disclosure of such information can infringe another person honour and dignity. But, under such sircumstances, person can not ask person, who infringed his/her honour or dignity, deny his/her opinion because opinions are not verified. The limits for judicial criticism is rather strict. As one of the reasons why the right to hold opinions can be limited, is necessary for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. An opinion that is not grounded on facts can be allowed, but it must meet some requirements and does not violate rights of other people, in this instance - judges. But, because the courts must enjoy public confidence, even opinions that are grounded on facts, not always are allowed and the authority and impartiality of the judiciary sometimes can take priority. The right to hold opinions allows people to express in public their opinions about politicians, their actions or said statements. Political criticism is often negative, but it is allowed because the right to hold opinions is not just for positive opinions, but also for those that can schock or disturb. People express their subjective opinions about facts which are known in public and often don’t prove their value – judgements. Wide political criticism limits are explained because of the importance of variety of opinions in democratic society. The requirement to verify an opinion with facts or other arguments would limit variety of ideas and opinions, because people would avoid express their opinions and herewith would be infringed their right to freedom of expression. If they want, persons can to ground their opinions on facts but it can not be mandatory. Nothwithstanding wide political criticism limits, the opinions that are not grounded on facts must be expressed honestly and ethical and don’t infringe personal politician’s rights. Political criticism can’t proceed to personal criticism. With reference to national and international law acts, practice of the courts, can come to a conclusion that human right to freedom of expression allows in public express opinion not grounded on facts but such opinion can’t infringe the rights of other people.
Language
Lietuvių / Lithuanian (lt)
Defended
Taip / Yes
Access Rights
Atviroji prieiga / Open Access