Diskursas bylos Mustafa Erdoğan v. Turkey kontekste

saviraiškos laisvė v. akademinė atsakomybė

Translated title of the contribution: The discourses on the "mustafa Erdoʇan v. Turkey" case context: Freedom of expression v. academic responsibility

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The article analyses the 27 May 2014 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Mustafa Erdoʇan and Others v. Turkey. The author reviews the circumstances that lead to a civil case on violated dignity in Turkey. In addition, the article also describes the legal circumstances from which a national problem became an international one. The article also presents the entirety of the obiter dicta arguments that determined that Turkey had violated Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The article contains a presentation and analysis of one of the dissenting opinions - Prof. Egidijus Ku¯ris and his colleagues. Agreeing with the dissenting opinion, the author holds that the dissenting opinion emphasizes the conceptual problem of the relation between academic responsibility and freedom of self-expression. Although this problem is not reflected in the system of the obiter dicta arguments, it remains a problem of the social environment and a part of the discourse on the concept of freedom of self-expression.

Original languageLithuanian
Pages (from-to)77-86
Number of pages10
JournalLogos (Lithuania)
Issue number84
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Turkey
responsibility
discourse
human rights
Discourse
Responsibility
Freedom of Speech
Dictum
Self-expression
Dignity
Human Rights
Social Environment
Fundamental
European Court of Human Rights

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities(all)
  • Cultural Studies

Cite this

@article{e8cde7aef6534837af844afd73f35eff,
title = "Diskursas bylos Mustafa Erdoğan v. Turkey kontekste: saviraiškos laisvė v. akademinė atsakomybė",
abstract = "The article analyses the 27 May 2014 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Mustafa Erdoğan and Others v. Turkey. The author reviews the circumstances that lead to a civil case on violated dignity in Turkey. In addition, the article also describes the legal circumstances from which a national problem became an international one. The article also presents the entirety of the obiter dicta arguments that determined that Turkey had violated Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The article contains a presentation and analysis of one of the dissenting opinions – Prof. Egidijus Kūris and his colleagues. Agreeing with the dissenting opinion, the author holds that the dissenting opinion emphasizes the conceptual problem of the relation between academic responsibility and freedom of self-expression. Although this problem is not reflected in the system of the obiter dicta arguments, it remains a problem of the social environment and a part of the discourse on the concept of freedom of self-expression.",
keywords = "Academic responsibility, European Court of Human Rights, Freedom of expression",
author = "Gediminas Mesonis",
year = "2015",
language = "Lithuanian",
pages = "77--86",
journal = "Logos (Lithuania)",
issn = "0868-7692",
publisher = "Visuomenine organizacija {"}LOGOS{"}",
number = "84",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diskursas bylos Mustafa Erdoğan v. Turkey kontekste

T2 - saviraiškos laisvė v. akademinė atsakomybė

AU - Mesonis, Gediminas

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - The article analyses the 27 May 2014 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Mustafa Erdoğan and Others v. Turkey. The author reviews the circumstances that lead to a civil case on violated dignity in Turkey. In addition, the article also describes the legal circumstances from which a national problem became an international one. The article also presents the entirety of the obiter dicta arguments that determined that Turkey had violated Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The article contains a presentation and analysis of one of the dissenting opinions – Prof. Egidijus Kūris and his colleagues. Agreeing with the dissenting opinion, the author holds that the dissenting opinion emphasizes the conceptual problem of the relation between academic responsibility and freedom of self-expression. Although this problem is not reflected in the system of the obiter dicta arguments, it remains a problem of the social environment and a part of the discourse on the concept of freedom of self-expression.

AB - The article analyses the 27 May 2014 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Mustafa Erdoğan and Others v. Turkey. The author reviews the circumstances that lead to a civil case on violated dignity in Turkey. In addition, the article also describes the legal circumstances from which a national problem became an international one. The article also presents the entirety of the obiter dicta arguments that determined that Turkey had violated Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The article contains a presentation and analysis of one of the dissenting opinions – Prof. Egidijus Kūris and his colleagues. Agreeing with the dissenting opinion, the author holds that the dissenting opinion emphasizes the conceptual problem of the relation between academic responsibility and freedom of self-expression. Although this problem is not reflected in the system of the obiter dicta arguments, it remains a problem of the social environment and a part of the discourse on the concept of freedom of self-expression.

KW - Academic responsibility

KW - European Court of Human Rights

KW - Freedom of expression

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84943592545&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84943592545&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

SP - 77

EP - 86

JO - Logos (Lithuania)

JF - Logos (Lithuania)

SN - 0868-7692

IS - 84

ER -