MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2346519679

Review of 'Freedom of speech', by E.Barendt (Oxford, 2005)

2007· article· en· W2346519679 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueNottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEuropean and International Law Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFree speechSpeech recognitionLinguisticsComputer sciencePhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

It has been over 20 years since the publication of the first edition of Professor Barendt's masterful study of comparative free speech law.In the two decades between the publication of the first and this second edition there have been changes of orogenic proportions in the legal landscape inhabited by the free speech right.Most obviously perhaps, for United Kingdom lawyers anyway, has been the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) which incorporates the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).Thus, for the first time, those within the UK who, hitherto, merely had the freedom of speech, as long as that speech was not restricted by statute or common law, are now able to claim a positive right to freedom of expression.In a similar vein the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982 was virtually brand new at the time of the first edition.Since then there have been a series of important decisions developing the jurisprudence on freedom of speech, emanating from the Canadian Supreme Court.Further there has been a steady and increasing stream of cases coming before the courts in different jurisdictions dealing with issues that might never have arisen 20 or 30 years ago.Examples include hate speech; holocaust denial; issues concerning copyright and the growth of the cult of celebrity with the concomitant conflict between freedom of expression and privacy.Indeed privacy itself is now afforded greater legal protection in the UK due to the boost given to breach of confidence by the incorporation of article 8 ECHR. 1 Another huge change impacting upon freedom of speech has been not a legal but a technological one: the inception and meteoric rise of the world wide web, the internet and email, making possible, for huge numbers of people, instantaneous global communication.Given the complexity of these constitutional, legal, technological and cultural shifts, even to produce a work covering the law of free speech in England and Wales would be a major achievement.But this is a comparative work dealing in addition and in detail with the varying approaches to free speech in the United States, Germany, Canada and by the European Court and Commission of Human Rights at Strasbourg, as well as in, to a lesser extent, a range of other jurisdictions.As a consequence of the changes outlined above the second edition of Freedom of Speech is a much longer book than its predecessor (the number of pages has expanded from 344 to 526) and there are several completely new chapters.However, the core approach of the book, which, to this reviewer's mind is its greatest strength, has remained.This is the linking thread that begins with the question posed in Chapter I: "Why Protect Free Speech?"Expression rights are less obviously worthy of protection than some other human rights (life; freedom from torture; physical liberty).There are many important interests that will, in particular situations, come into conflict with freedom of speech {eg, privacy, reputation, dignity, freedom from being caused offence, upholding morals, national security, fair trial).Indeed it is only when there is a conflict with some such interest that the free speech right becomes important, for when speech is innocuous, when no other interests are challenged, there is no reason to restrict it.It is therefore essential to establish, at the outset, why free speech is valued at all.To this end Chapter I explains and analyses the classic arguments justifying the free speech

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,854
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,258
Écart entre enseignants0,244 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle