Conflicts between public interest and personal interest, which created Speech or Presentation

Conflicts between public interest and personal interest, which created by Human Rights Acts 1998 (Can the British Bill of Right handle the problem) - Speech or Presentation Example Article 8 of the conventions provides for respect for one’s private life, home and family life. The Article covers areas concerned with self-determination. The definition of private life is complicated and broad. The privacy entitles people to life without the intrusion as in the case of Terry v Persons Unknown (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 119 (QB) (29 January 2010) (BAILII 2010). Contrary to Article 8, Article 10 provides for freedom of expression. One of the aspects of expression involves communication. Communication entitles citizens to express their ideas without limitations. However, communication may also be limited depending on the infringement of an individual’s privacy (BAILII, 2012). It, therefore, can be deciphered that the two aspects considered in the two articles breach confidence in their interpretation. Whereas Article 10 advocates democratic expression, Article 8 suppresses such fundamental entitlements. Article 10 demands transparency and openness, contrary to article 8 that advocates privacy. Upholding Article 8 requires prior consultation of individuals while exercising expression. Such incidence occurred between Mr. Max Mosley sought for an injunction to uphold Article 8 (Mosley v The United Kingdom [2011] 53 E.H.R.R 30). An inference of lack of proper ways of upholding Article 8 can be made from the case. Article 9 provides for an individual’s freedom to uphold a wide range of ideas and beliefs, based on religious ideologies. The article empowers citizens with autonomy regarding their actions and lifestyles (Equal Rights Trust 2014, p. 2). The issue of public interest involves anything that may interfere with other standards upheld in the society. The extent of manifestation of beliefs may be limited as in the case Eweida and Others v The United Kingdom; ECHR 15 January 2013 (BAILII, 2013). Usually, one’s autonomy conflicts with that of the mass. Personal interest concerns