The Right to Privacy for Children on the Internet: New Developments in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights
In recent years, the European Court of Human Rights has published an increasing number of decisions on the right to privacy for children online. In its case law, the Court addresses the vulnerable position of minors in a digital environment. The aim of this chapter is two fold. First, it seeks to analyse recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to respect for private life (Article 8 ECHR) for children on the Internet. Second, it aims to investigate and critically discuss whether the characteristics of online modes of communications have sufficiently been taken into account by the European Court in its case law on the right to privacy for children.
Jacobs, White & Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights
PART 1. INSTITUTIONS AND PROCEDURES 1. Context, background and institutions 2. Proceedings before the court 3. Supervising the enforcement of judgments 4. The scope of the convention 5. Reservations and derogations 6. Interpreting the convention PART 2. CONVENTION RIGHTS 7. The right to an effective remedy 8. The right to life 9. Prohibition of torture 10. Protection from slavery and forced labour 11. Personal liberty and security 12. The right to a fair trial in civil and criminal cases 13. Aspects of the criminal process 14. Limitations common to articles 8 to 11 15. Protecting family life 16. Protecting private life 17. Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion 18. Freedom of expression 19. Freedom of assembly and association 20. Protection of property 21. The right to education 22. The right to free elections 23. Freedom of movement 24. Freedom from discrimination PART 3. REFLECTIONS 25. Results and prospects
REJOINDER TO BLOCK'S DEFENSE OF EVICTIONISM
I AM THANKFUL TO WALTER BLOCK (2010) for his comprehensive and perspicacious engagement with my critical remarks regarding his theory of evictionism (Wisniewski 2010). I also appreciate his kind words about what he sees as the merits and strong points of my argumentation. However, as one could easily surmise from my decision to write this rejoinder, I found his defense of evictionism unconvincing, though certainly informative and thought-provoking. Without further ado, let me now proceed to explaining why.