Reduction of antagonism between the right to freedom and the right to privacy

Talking about freedom of speech and freedom of access to information as fundamental human rights, we must remember that there are opposing them

but less important for the people of the right - right to respect for private and family life and privacy. In developing the Law of Ukraine "On Access to Public Information," was put before the legislature rather difficult goal - to reduce the antagonism between the two rights, as well as reduce the number of crimes and offenses in the protection of the rights to freedom of speech and information privacy. Role of government in this area is the need to continuously clear and strict balance between the two types of rights, without prejudice to any of them, for example, that does not give us the right to freedom of expression and information in the country unrestricted.

I believe that at the moment is balancing going on in our country quite successfully, freedom of access to information at a high, fast-paced level, as we proved recently adopted Law of Ukraine "On Access to Public Information." Often, problems arise in this area not because of the low efficiency of the state apparatus and the gaps in the law, but rather because of legal literacy and high level of legal nihilism of our population.

Often the media is called the fourth branch of government. And the power they undoubtedly have. However, according to the concept of contractual origin of state, for the harmonious coexistence and productive media must still sort of influence from the government. Since members of the press and television in the course of their activities regularly refer to the state and affect, in every way to discuss and condemn it, and the latter, in turn, should not only have the obligation to provide information, but also certain rights. Thus, it is necessary to develop the most sophisticated model of the interaction of the three traditional branches of government and existing law in the fourth.

To get started is to consider separately the Ukraine as a country about which we can tell more than others, so as directly involved in all social processes within it. According to their inner convictions, I am a supporter of the presidential form of government in our state. First of all, this is due to the fact that modern Ukrainian people because of their mentality so succumbed to the influence of various political forces and international factors that are not able to adequately and intelligently approach the selection of government representatives, and the more fully and intelligently participate in the democratic process and procedures. The fact that Ukraine is now extremely low rate of progress in the development, saying the different rankings, compiled by experts from different areas in which our country occupies the last position. A country that just two decades ago, left the Soviet government and the people who believe that for many generations, Ukraine inhibit neighboring states, we need a leader who can set a positive nation and give a single vector of development.

In the state of the sample, freedom of speech and open access to information certainly there - it is not totalitarian. Media is not involved as much as possible of the rainbow light of the existing power - it has its press-service and specialized publications and TV channels. Journalists, as is characteristic of the media in a democratic society, explore and find out the different views in one case, even if an opposing point of view is radically different from the one expressed by government representatives. If the government competent and progressive, then the answers to official inquiries of correspondents did not take long, will be given in substance and in time. This is an ideal, of course.

Mode of access to information, in my view, in a country should be similar to that in the advanced industrialized states, and it does not hurt anyone. However, by derogation from the principles of democracy, I would have some limited freedom of speech. It concerns only to the subjective opinion of an individual journalist or drop the reputation as a leader in the eyes of the citizen, as was his authority provided me a model lays the foundation for a successful state. In order to implement the same idea I think it is necessary to refuse to discuss the president as an individual with their habits, minor shortcomings: the leader must appear as irreproachable in the eyes of the people, otherwise his work would not have the desired success.

Every ruler who directs its policy on the prosperity of democracy in society, is forced to ensure freedom of speech and expression, freedom of information and access to it, as well as the safety of those who by virtue of their professional duties is working with such a delicate matter, as information. Moreover, the government must ensure the appearance of laws that guarantee freedom of the above, especially to closely monitor their performance and develop an effective procedure to prosecute all those who in any way deviates from the law and violates the legitimate activities of journalists.

Anyway, any ideal model of the existence of mass media in the legal field requires that all parties are satisfied: the media give full freedom to say anything about anyone, and the state with newspapers, radio and TV shows to society its successful activities. In this case, each party acts within the law. However, an ideal system because the so-called, that its existence is almost impossible. In the establishment of such a system, even at considerable endeavors of power, media and individuals, will necessarily arise unexpected contingencies detected unaccounted factors, therefore, any model should be flexible, able to adapt to the demands of the time, the locality and the particular society .

In my opinion, freedom of expression and information in the State should be limited. I mean, the restriction of the use and dissemination of the military, banking, medical confidentiality, the confidentiality of adoption and other important information. It should be remembered that the information is quite often the subject of crime, and in cases where the subjects illegally disclose confidential information, thereby violating the right to privacy, which, together with other rights ensure the normal functioning of the state and civil society, to the offender attacking a serious negative consequences.

In recent situation involving the right to freedom of expression and information has been greatly improved, especially after the adoption of the Law "On Access to Public Information," now on stage amendments to the Law "On Information", which I hope will bring us positive outcomes.