Article 12



  • Article 12
    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

    Proposed Edit: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with one?s privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to attacks upon one?s honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

    Changes for gender neutrality and some grammar.

    What do you think?



  • The intention of this article is good, and I understand where it's going, but "attacks upon one?s honour and reputation" is somewhat vague an expression, and I think it needs further defining in the text. I see a potential threat to freedom of speech here: could an individual invoke this article and sue a newspaper for publishing less-than-flattering -- but accurate -- information about that individual, for it would land a severe blow on the individual's "honour and reputation". Again, I'm not denying the intention of the article, but rather the vagueness of the expression.

    Perhaps we could form it in a different way, for example:

    QUOTE

    malicious, derogatory, or false attacks upon one?s honour and reputation

    What do you think?



  • I can agree with what your saying but I believe being derogatory isn't cause for legal action by itself. I would change the word to defamatory. And then the 3 words we have are basically the definition of slander which I assume is what the whole clause is talking about.



  • I agree with the remark by Pax Aurea, and I also join the reasoning behind the word defamatory. Is this what the representative of Gun-Toting Animals proposes?

    QUOTE

    malicious, defamatory, or false attacks upon one?s honour and reputation



  • This sounds about right. Another alternative would be

    QUOTE

    slanderous attacks upon one?s honour and reputation


  • Mass Effect RP

    Out of all the proposed wordings of the Article, I find myself drawn towards the one presented my Pax Aurea's councillor, namely, "...slanderous attacks upon one's honour and reputation."

    My only concern is that this element of the Article could be invoked for somewhat trivial matters. For example, an office worker could complain that his human rights are being violated when his colleague claims he stole the last working stapler. It is slanderous, being false, and damages the office worker's reputation, at least in the eyes of his superiors. Obviously, I would expect judges and other law officials to show a bit of common sense if they were ever faced with a case like this, but the point still stands.

    I imagine that most, if not all, member states have some sort of legislation regulating the press and outlawing slanderous and libellous statements and comments. Perhaps, in order to prevent the kind of cases described above, we could consider removing the element of the Article relating to honour and reputation?


 

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.