Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 13 - Doctrinal Changes in Scope and the Meaning of Human Rights

  • from Part III - The Core Elements of Non-coherence Theory
  • Mart Susi, Tallinn University
  • Book:
    The Non-Coherence Theory of Digital Human Rights
    Published online:
    22 February 2024
    Print publication:
    29 February 2024, pp 135-164

  • Summary

    Building on the analogy from quantum mechanics, we can ask whether certain human rights exist in a shared state. This would mean, for instance, whether the right to privacy exists in a shared state with the right to freedom of expression. Or, whether the right to reputation – leaving aside the issue whether such a self-standing right can be justified – exists in a shared state with the right of access to information. If the premise of such a shared state is correct, then it would follow that change in the scope and meaning of one right (particle) in this shared state leads to a simultaneous change in the opposite direction in the other right (particle). After transposition into a new domain, the features of a human rights idea, or characteristics of some offline traditional right, may appear in a higher spectrum than in the traditional setting. We notice wide variance between the meaning of freedom of expression offline and online, since offline it can rarely be justified as an absolute right, whereas online practice shows a duality: the parallel possibility of relativity and absoluteness.