07プライバシー

我々は、自らのプライバシーを守り名誉毀損に反駁することができる一方で、それが公益に関わる場合、プライバシーに関する吟味を妨げることはできない。

Academia (1)
Access (4)
Africa (1)
Anonymity (6)
Arab Spring (2)
Art (8)
Atheism (1)
Australia (3)
Blasphemy (7)
Blogger (4)
Brazil (2)
Burma (1)
Canada (2)
Celebrity (2)
Censorship (17)
Charlie Hebdo (1)
China (5)
Christianity (6)
Civility (20)
Colonialism (1)
Copyright (3)
Corruption (1)
Defamation (14)
Democracy (14)
Denialism (2)
Discrimination (3)
Education (8)
Egypt (2)
Exclusion (1)
Facebook (3)
Film (1)
France (4)
Freedom (18)
Genocide (1)
Germany (4)
Google (2)
Governance (4)
Hate speech (6)
Hinduism (1)
History (12)
Homosexuality (2)
Humour (2)
Hungary (1)
Hunger strike (1)
India (4)
Internet (19)
Internet companies (1)
Islam (6)
Japan (2)
Journalism (11)
Knowledge (14)
Language (4)
Latin America (3)
Law (27)
Lese majesty (1)
Liberalism (6)
Libya (1)
Literature (2)
Media (22)
Memory laws (1)
Middle East (3)
Minorities (1)
Money (6)
Morality (3)
Multiculturalism (4)
National security (11)
Net neutrality (8)
New Zealand (1)
Nudity (2)
Occupy movement (1)
Pakistan (1)
Piracy (1)
Politics (18)
Pornography (5)
Power (21)
Privacy (15)
Protest (8)
Public Morality (8)
Radio (1)
Regulation (1)
Religion (12)
Reputation (11)
Right to information (23)
Satire (7)
Science (4)
Scientology (1)
Secrecy (1)
Social media (7)
South Africa (3)
Southeast Asia (1)
Surveillance (2)
Technology (14)
Terrorism (2)
Thailand (1)
Turkey (3)
Twitter (5)
United Kingdom (9)
United States (6)
Violence (13)
Whistleblowing (2)
Wikipedia (1)

			
					“Monopoly is really dangerous for free speech”
				
Ana Kasparian of #yourMSC asks our director Timothy Garton Ash about Facebook, free speech and democracy at the Munich Security Conference 2019.

					Glasnost! Nine ways Facebook can make itself a better forum for free speech and democracy
				
Free Speech Debate co-authors an Oxford-Stanford report on Facebook.

					In defence of Europe’s memory laws
				
There are two exceptional cases in which memory laws protect free speech, argue Grażyna Baranowska and Anna Wójcik.

					Is there a universal right to free speech and what are its limits?
				
Timothy Garton Ash in conversation with Nigel Warburton, as part of the Philosophy in the Bookshop series at Blackwell’s, Oxford.

					Silencing 140 characters: free expression and the internet in the Gulf
				
A seminar run by the University of Oxford’s Middle East Centre and Free Speech Debate on Free Expression in the Gulf, with Maryam al-Khawaja (Gulf Centre for Human Rights), Toby Matthieson (St. Anthony’s College) and Nicholas McGeehan (Middle East Researcher, Human Rights Watch). Chaired by Timothy Garton Ash

					Should students be free to savage their professors using online anonymity?
				
Jonathan Raspe explores the case of the Münkler Watch blog, which relentlessly criticised Herfried Münkler, professor of political theory at Humboldt University.

					Ben Wizner, Edward Snowden’s lawyer: To what extent should government be allowed to curtail civil liberties for the sake of national security?
				
Ben Wizner, Edward Snowden’s ACLU lawyer, reflects on the state of and importance of the right to free speech in 2017. He argues we must not overuse the term ‘national security’ or surrender our right to privacy because we have nothing to hide, for we would not deny somebody the right to free speech because they had nothing to say.

					An introductory guide to the ten principles
				
Our social media team have created a new way to explore the 10 principles on Youtube.

					Luciano Floridi: What contribution can the philosophy of information make to our understanding of free speech?
				
Luciano Floridi, Professor at the Oxford Internet Institute of the University of Oxford, speaks to Free Speech Debate about the philosophy of information, European data protection, and contemporary challenges to free speech.

					What happened to ‘the right to be forgotten’?
				
Free Speech Debate tells the story of the advisory council to Google on the right to be forgotten, and talks to council member Luciano Floridi.

					世評
				
我々は、自らのプライバシーを守り名誉毀損に反駁することができる一方で、それが公益に関わる場合、プライバシーに関する吟味を妨げることはできない。

					プライバシー
				
我々は、自らのプライバシーを守り名誉毀損に反駁することができる一方で、それが公益に関わる場合、プライバシーに関する吟味を妨げることはできない。

					―「リベンジ・ポルノ」は非合法化するべきか―
				
マックス・ハリスが、イギリスで「リベンジ・ポルノ」が非合法化された例を述べ、他の慣習法の国家ではどうなっているか、検討する。

					What is it like to be a satirical cartoonist in Malaysia?
				
Malaysian cartoonist Zunar talks about what it means to be a satirical cartoonist in Malaysia.

					Google grapples with the ‘right to be forgotten’
				
Katie Engelhart attends the public hearing of Google’s Advisory Council, set up in response to a European Court of Justice judgement.

					Privacy: Sample our intellectual buffet. Or make your own meal.
				
Timothy Garton Ash introduces a sample tour of the content on our site

					A short history of disappearing privacy on Facebook
				
Since Facebook launched in 2005 its default privacy settings have undergone radical changes, giving more access to personal data than many are aware of. 

					US Supreme Court strikes down law creating ‘buffer zone’ around abortion clinics
				
In the case of McCullen v Coakley, the US Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling about restrictions on speech around abortion clinics.  Max Harris explains.

					How an attempt at ‘libel tourism’ rebounded on a Tanzanian tycoon
				
A British citizen blogged about a Tanzanian media magnate involved in throwing her and her husband off their Tanzanian farm. He sued for libel in a British court. Dominic Burbidge explains.

					National security and privacy: striking the balance
				
Anthony Lester and Zoe McCallum discuss the need to balance national security and privacy in the age of internet surveillance.

					Is it a crime to offend bread?
				
For one taxi company in the Russian town of Kostroma, the answer turned out to be yes. Sergey Fadeev explains.

					Can a law-abiding liberal democracy be Big Brother?
				
Jeff Howard explores the legal basis on which the US is collecting vast amounts of data on foreign and US citizens, despite the Fourth Amendment.

					Does India need its Leveson?
				
India has its own fierce debate about media regulation. Arghya Sengupta discusses how the shadow of the 1970s “Emergency” hangs over proposed steps from failed self-regulation to statutory regulation.

					When and where should extremists be allowed to march?
				
Protests held by far right groups in ethnically diverse areas are provocation, but banning them can have undesired effects. Josh Black looks at a ban on the English Defence League in East London.

					Is privacy getting lost in Google’s “cracks and crevices”?
				
A globally-effective privacy regime is a realistic goal, argues Ian Brown. But it needs giants like Google to get behind it.

					―プライバシーの権利？言論の自由を侵すのなら、それは許可されない！
				
FSDウェブサイトのユーザー、imos.org.uk　が、我々の原理の一項に反論し、言論の自由の条件としてプライバシーは必要ないと論じる。

					自殺につながるネット上のイジメ事件
				
2012年10月10日、カナダ人の少女アマンダ・トッド (Amanda Todd) が数年間にわたるネット上のイジメとハラスメントが原因で自殺をした。ジュディス・ブルーン (Judith Bruhn) が衝撃的なケースを提示する。

					A right to lie about government?
				
In the landmark case of New York Times v Sullivan, in 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that criticism of public officials must be protected, even if some of the claims were inaccurate. Jeff Howard explains.

					The Nira Radia tapes controversy and the right to privacy
				
Should government-initiated phone hacking be made public if the recordings are in the public interest? Shubhangi Bhadada exposes the thin line in India between the right to privacy and freedom of expression.

					Former British agent, Annie Machon: What is the case for whistleblowing?
				
Former British MI5 agent Annie Machon revealed,  together with David Shayler,  alleged criminal behaviour within the agency. In an interview with Sebastian Huempfer she speaks about the need for official channels through which whistleblowers can voice their concerns.

					殺人者はその名を人目にさらされない権利を持ちうるか？
				
2008年、二人の有罪判決を受けた殺人犯は、ドイツの法律に基づいてウィキペディアや他のオンラインメディアに対して自分たちの名前の削除を求めました。個人のプライバシーは、市民の知る権利よりも優先されているのでしょうか？

					Facebook’s over-zealous face tagging
				
Should Facebook automatically suggest who is in a photo? Sebastian Huempfer asks whether Facebook’s photo tagging software infringes the privacy of its users.

サーチ

アカウント

言語