Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34689
Type of publication: Magistro darbas / Master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law
Author(s): Kalčenko, Greta
Title: Ar Lietuvos teisinis reglamentavimas įgalina atriboti šmeižimą nuo saviraiškos laisvės?
Other Title: Whether Lithuanian legal regulation enables delimitate between libel and freedom of expression?
Extent: 58 p.
Date: 2-Jun-2017
Event: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Teisės fakultetas
Keywords: Šmeižimas;Saviraiškos laisvė;Garbė ir orumas;Atribojimas;Libel;Freedom of expression;Honor and dignity;Delimitate
Abstract: Saviraiškos laisvė yra viena iš svarbiausių asmens prigimtinių teisių, kuri įtvirtinta tiek Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucijoje, tiek Europos žmogaus teisių ir laisvių apsaugos konvencijoje. Saviraiškos laisvė yra plati sąvoka, kurią sudaro teisė turėti ir reikšti savo nuomonę, informacijos laisvė bei spaudos laisvė. Nors kiekvienas asmuo ir turi teisę skleisti ir gauti informaciją, reikšti savo nuomonę, tačiau ši laisvė nėra absoliuti ir gali būti apribota. Vienas iš tokių apribojimų gali būti, siekiant apsaugoti kitas vertybes, tokias kaip žmogaus garbę ir orumą. Kiekvieną kartą susidūrus šioms dvejoms vertybėms, svarbu surasti tinkamą pusiausvyrą. Tyrimo objektas - šmeižimo ir saviraiškos laisvės atribojimo kriterijai Lietuvos teisiniame reguliavime. Darbo tikslas - identifikuoti Lietuvos teisiniame reguliavime esančius saviraiškos laisvės ir baudžiamosios atsakomybės už šmeižimą atribojimo kriterijus. Darbe naudojami mokslinės literatūros analizės, dokumentų analizės, sisteminis teisės aiškinimo, lyginamasis ir apibendrinimo metodai. Atsižvelgus į kitų šalių patirtį, pastebėtina, kad tokiose valstybėse kaip Jungtinė Karalystė, Airija, Rusija, Ukraina, Estija baudžiamoji atsakomybė už šmeižimą yra dekriminalizuota. Išanalizavus Lietuvos ir užsienio šalių baudžiamuosius kodeksus dėl atsakomybės taikymo už šmeižimą, paminėtina, jog Vokietijos baudžiamojo kodekso šmeižimo straipsnyje, įstatymų leidėjas numatė dalyką - melagingi faktai, kuris išsiskiria iš kitų analizuotų valstybių. Kanados įstatymų leidėjas yra aiškiai ir išsamiai reglamentavęs atsakomybę už šmeižimą, tačiau paminėtina ir tai, jog vienos iš šmeižimo sudėčių dalykas yra teisinga informacija. Suomijos įstatymų leidėjas numatė materialią šmeižimo sudėtį ir nurodė padarinius – sukėlė žalą ar kančias/didelę žalą ar ypač reikšmingą žalą. Lietuvos praktikoje, siekiant atriboti šmeižimą nuo saviraiškos laisvės, yra taikomi tokie kriterijai kaip tikrovės neatitinkanti informacija, tikrovės neatitinkančios informacijos paskleidimas, asmens statusas, pavojingumas, tyčia, tarpusavio santykiai. Tačiau šie identifikuoti kriterijai ne visada padeda atriboti šmeižimą nuo saviraiškos laisvės. Taigi, iš dalies pasitvirtino darbe keliama hipotezė, kad Lietuvos teisiniame reglamentavime įtvirtinti kriterijai padeda atriboti šmeižimą nuo saviraiškos laisvės.
Freedom of expression is one of the most important fundamental rights of an individual which is stipulated by both the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Freedom of expression is a broad conception which consists of the right to have and to express own opinion, freedom of information and freedom of the press. Although every individual is entitled to disseminate and to receive information, to express his/her opinion, however, this freedom is not absolute and may be restricted. One of those restrictions may be the object to protect other valuables such as human dignity and honour. But it is important to find an appropriate balance between them every time when these two valuables are faced with. The object of the research is the criteria of the delimitation of libel and freedom of expression in the legal regulation of Lithuania. The goal of this Thesis is to identify the criteria for delimitation of freedom of expression existing in the legal regulation of Lithuania and criminal liability for libel. The methods of an analysis of scientific literature, an analysis of documentation, systematic law interpretation, and comparative and aggregation methods were used in the Thesis. By taking the experience of other countries into consideration, it should be noted that criminal liability for defamation is decriminalized in the countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Russian, Ukraine and Estonia. After taking more global context into consideration, it should be noticed that criminal liability for defamation is also decriminalized on the federal level in the United States of America. Although there is no general composition of defamation in certain European countries, but liability for the defamation of specific persons is determined. After analysing the criminal codes of Lithuania and foreign countries in respect of the application of liability for defamation, it should be mentioned that by the defamation article of the Criminal Code of Germany, the legislator has proposed the subject – incorrect facts, which distinguishes from other countries analysed. Canadian legislator has clearly regulated liability for defamation in detail; however, it should be mentioned that one of the components of the composition of defamation is correct (true) information. Finnish legislator has established a material composition of defamation and provided its consequences – caused damages or pain/serious damages or very significant damages. The legislators of Latvia and in part Germany have proposed the formulations such as an intentional act, in the defamations article, and it knows what supposes the type of fault. After analyzing case-law of Lithuanian courts, the following criteria were identified: false information, dissemination of information, individual’s status, dangerousness, intentional act, mutual relationship. However, not always these criteria facilitate in delimitation between defamation and freedom of expression. False information is related to delimitation between the opinion and information but courts frequently have ample difficulties in delimitation between these two conceptions, and for this reason, decisions of courts are different. Dissemination of information helps in delimitation of defamation in those cases when the individual contacts with enforcement authorities in order to defend his/her infringed rights; therefore, it is not considered dissemination of false information. Individual’s status reveals a certain difference between private and public persons and also causes problems in respect of the establishment of the limits of criticism, because it is not sufficiently clear when the limits of criticism are exceeded. The criterion of dangerousness is related to the principle of proportionality from the aspect that criminal liability is the most stringent and the most limiting measure however, courts assessing the level of that dangerousness evaluate conclusions even if the article does not require. The intentional act is related to an object to libel other person; however, this criterion does not help in all cases to delimitate between delimitation and freedom of expression as court describe the content of fault incorrectly if the circumstances of case have not been investigated properly. One more criterion of identification is individual’s mutual relationship. The latter helps in delimitation between defamation and freedom of expression, because persons try not to defend their infringed rights due to a conflict but try to settle it by using legal measures. These criteria are assessed individually and they do not give any opportunity to delimit from freedom of expression, however, these criteria are related to another one, the possibility of delimitation is still problematic and most frequently require an assessment in every individual situation. Consequently, the hypothesis held in the Thesis has been approved in part that the criteria stipulated in the legal regulation of Lithuania facilitate in delimitation between defamation and freedom of expression.
Internet: https://eltalpykla.vdu.lt/1/34689
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34689
Appears in Collections:2017 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
greta_kalcenko_md.pdf882.98 kBAdobe PDF   Restricted AccessView/Open

Show full item record
Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats
Export to Other Non-XML Formats

Page view(s)

212
checked on May 31, 2020

Download(s)

18
checked on May 31, 2020

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.