LW6003 Academic Study Skills and Project Preparation Assignment Sample

• Type Assignment
• Downloads540
• Pages6
• Words1460

Introduction

“Article 10 of “The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)” describes the freedom of expression and includes the fundamental principle of own expression. Students seeking help with writing assignments can analyze how this right balances public safety, national security, protection from crime, and rights or reputation under ECHR restrictions. However, there exist some circumstances for providing public safety, national security, protection from crime and rights or reputation.

LW6003 Academic Study Skills and Project Preparation Assignment Sample

Liked This Sample? Hire Me Now

Richard Brown 8 Years | LLM

Subsection 1: Protection of expression freedom

In the following situation, guarantee for “freedom of expression right” is given by “Article 10” which is very essential in any democratic society[1]. This also protects from harmful, offensive and controversial opinions.

Subsection 2: Restriction for the public amenity, and/or “national security”

“Article 10(2)” also provides permission for the imposition of the restriction for social interest. This also includes public protection, national security and restrictions for protecting the interest.

Research rationale

The above so called “research proposal” of identification of the balance of the “UK Public law” under “Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights” will help to find out the balance of the freedom of expression for any kind of misinformation, or harmful speech, under consideration of legal framework[2]. In recent days, the concerns about public safety, and protest rights are the growing concerns to protect the society[3]. Thus, the above study will useful to determine the general interplay of “Human Rights (ECHR)” and “Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).”Therefore the main interest arises in understanding the effects of the civil barriers for protesting the freedom of expression on different online platforms. Therefore, this type of research analysis will also help to provide effectiveness and key insights to give the balance between the legal systems of the entire UK economy.

Key issues

The existing regulation under “Article 10 ECHR” is specially made for offensive speech or controversial statements. At the same time, this proposal will focused on national security, public safety, and reputation protection for giving the rights to the other. The main role of some statutes under public law of the UK like “The Public Order Act 1986”, “And Courts Act 2022”, Sentencing, Crime only regulates public demonstrations and hate speech. The misinformation creates some gaps under the regulations of the “Online Safety Bill 2023”, and “Defamation Act 2013”. There also exists some vagueness under different judicial like the distress or alarm, and restrictions for free speech under the “Public Order Act 1986”. Hence the following emergent issues, debates as to the extent of protecting freedom of speech under the “Article 10 ECHR” in the UK with reference to “Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986”. Interaction of present laws such as “Public Order Act 1986” and Police, Crime, Sentencing, and “Courts Act 2022” in controlling hate speech, protests, and the “Online Safety Bill 2023” and its implication of infringement of freedom of speech. Furthermore, the main difficulties in regulating this province lie in the imprecise meanings of some terms including “alarm or distress”.

Aims/Objectives

Research aim

The main “research aim” will be to evaluate how the public law of the UK maintains balances between freedoms of expression under the regulation of “Article 10 ECHR” against any type of misinformation, hate speech, or protest in the context of public orders[4].

Research objectives

• To define the legal basis in the UK for evaluation of the conformity of “Article 10 ECHR” with its effectiveness for preserving the proportionality of free speech and safety issues.

Research Question

1. What will be the key pattern to preserving the efficacy of the freedom of speech under “Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights” in order to prosecute miss-information, preserve public peace and address the issue of hate speech? 

Legal Framework that exists for expression Freedom in the entire UK

“Human Rights Act 1998”

It is worth to stress that the “Human Rights Act of 1998” has influence the case regarding to freedom of speech[5]. “Section 3 of HRA” also mentions that all the legislation have to be read to ensure legislative harmony under the ECHR is kept intact.

“Regulation and Public Order”

The UK has a variety of freedom regulations and domestic statutes that include the “freedom of expression” including hate speech. The “Public Order Act 1986” is considered the governing regulation to identify speech regulations.

On the other hand, the “Court Act 2022” helps to include the government's power for identifying the disruption cases.

Balancing of regulation and expression freedom

Hate Speech

Balance of regulation and “freedom of expression” can be also established in case of the “hate speech”. For instance “R vs Sheppard and Whittle (2009)” is a case that explains the heat-generating presumptions of cyberspace.

Public order and protest

In the case of “DPP vs Jones (1999)” also a protected assembly. Similarly, the “Court Act 2022” shows the concerns for regulation protests[6].

Misinformation

The “Defamation Act 2013” provides a balanced reputation regarding some misinformation or new legislation of “Online Safety Bill (2023)”.

Challenges for the balance of regulations and free expression

Overreach and vagueness

The term vague represents distress, alarm or harassment under the “Public Order Act 1986” which is also criticized for free expression[7].

Misinformation and the “Online hate speech”

This is a unique challenge that creates online discourse with a chilling impact[8].

Public Order and protest

In recent days, the protests and the regulations for crime, and police, have gradually increased under “The “Courts Act 2022” which also includes the protests rights, “democratic rights” etc.[9].

Recommendation applied for Democratic Balance

Legal Reform

Refinement of the vague type of legal scope also highlights the protection challenges and order offence for maintaining the “democratic balance”.

Judicial Oversight

The judges are relevant to the administration of the proportionate test between the free speech and restrictions[10].

Conclusion

The UK seeks to indistinctly protect the “freedom of speech” while fulfilling regulatory objectives concerning hate speech, fake news, and assembly. Strict and definite legislation, role of judiciary and intelligible principles are very important in this regard to apply laminates of law to balance with democratic sovereignty, civil liberties as well as society’s well-being.

Indicative Sources

• “Public order act 1986”
• “Article 10 of Freedom Expression of EHRC”
• “Section 3 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993”
• “Online Safety Bill (2023)”.
• “Court Act 2022”
• “R vs Sheppard and Whittle (2009)”
• “Human Rights Act of 1998”

Reference list

Primary Sources

Website

Public order act 1986

Participation, E. (1986) Public order act 1986, Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/contents (Accessed: 10 January 2025).

Article 10 of Freedom Expression of EHRC

(10.01.2025) Article 10: Freedom of Expression | EHRC. Available at: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression (Accessed: 10 January 2025).

Section 3 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

10.01.2025) Section 3 in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/842137/ (Accessed: 10 January 2025).

Secondary Sources

Journals

• Arnell, P. (2022) ‘The threat to our human rights: The repeal of the human rights act 1998’, Medicine, Science and the Law, 62(4), pp. 248–250. doi:10.1177/00258024221111908.
• Cheung, B. (2023) ‘35 years later: Re-examining the offence of riot in the public order act 1986’, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 73(4), pp. 717–741. doi:10.53386/nilq.v73i4.975.
• McCrea, R. (2022) ‘Article 10 – Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion’, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, pp. 313–332. doi:10.5771/9783748913245-313.
• Shinohara, T. (2021) ‘Physical and sexual abuse against young athletes in sport in light of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)’, The International Sports Law Journal, 22(1), pp. 51–61. doi:10.1007/s40318-021-00197-9.
• Wiersma, C. (2021) ‘scoping the journalists’ freedom to conduct newsgathering at the European Court of Human Rights: A step toward a more human rights-based approach to the coverage of echr article 10?’, Communication Law and Policy, 26(4), pp. 507–557. doi:10.1080/10811680.2021.1963132.
• Wiersma, C. (2021) ‘scoping the journalists’ freedom to conduct newsgathering at the European Court of Human Rights: A step toward a more human rights-based approach to the coverage of echr article 10?’, Communication Law and Policy, 26(4), pp. 507–557. doi:10.1080/10811680.2021.1963132.

[1] Participation, E. (1986) Public order act 1986, Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/contents (Accessed: 10 January 2025).

[2] Participation, E. (1986) Public order act 1986, Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/contents (Accessed: 10 January 2025).

[3] 10.01.2025) Section 3 in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/842137/ (Accessed: 10 January 2025).

[4] Arnell, P. (2022) ‘The threat to our human rights: The repeal of the human rights act 1998’, Medicine, Science and the Law, 62(4), pp. 248–250. doi:10.1177/00258024221111908.

[5] Arnell, P. (2022) ‘The threat to our human rights: The repeal of the human rights act 1998’, Medicine, Science and the Law, 62(4), pp. 248–250. doi:10.1177/00258024221111908.

[6] Cheung, B. (2023) ‘35 years later: Re-examining the offence of riot in the public order act 1986’, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 73(4), pp. 717–741. doi:10.53386/nilq.v73i4.975.

[7] McCrea, R. (2022) ‘Article 10 – Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion’, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, pp. 313–332. doi:10.5771/9783748913245-313.

[8] Shinohara, T. (2021) ‘Physical and sexual abuse against young athletes in sport in light of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)’, The International Sports Law Journal, 22(1), pp. 51–61. doi:10.1007/s40318-021-00197-9.

[9] Wiersma, C. (2021) ‘scoping the journalists’ freedom to conduct newsgathering at the European Court of Human Rights: A step toward a more human rights-based approach to the coverage of echr article 10?’, Communication Law and Policy, 26(4), pp. 507–557. doi:10.1080/10811680.2021.1963132.

[10] Wiersma, C. (2021) ‘scoping the journalists’ freedom to conduct newsgathering at the European Court of Human Rights: A step toward a more human rights-based approach to the coverage of echr article 10?’, Communication Law and Policy, 26(4), pp. 507–557. doi:10.1080/10811680.2021.1963132.