Purpose This article aims to examine the tension between freedom of expression and personal data protection, focusing on criminal conviction and offence data under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It analyses how legal frameworks, particularly Article 85 of the GDPR, attempt to reconcile public access to information with individual data privacy rights harmoniously. Design/methodology/approach Using a legal doctrinal approach primarily, this study examines GDPR provisions, especially Article 85, alongside relevant case law. The principle of proportionality serves as a key analytical tool to assess the necessity and justification of legal restrictions on data processing. Findings The research underscores the delicate balance between freedom of expression and data protection concerning criminal records. Article 85 plays a crucial role in establishing journalistic exemptions while ensuring data privacy. The principle of proportionality is vital in preventing disproportionate restrictions, requiring case-by-case evaluations. The study highlights the evolving nature of privacy-publicity conflicts, with the right to be forgotten serving as a safeguard against undue harm from outdated or minor convictions. Research limitations/implications This study has limitations, including its reliance on case-specific analyses, which overlook the broader impacts of the evolving digital media landscape, particularly social media and user-generated content. The focus on European legal frameworks (e.g. GDPR) restricts generalisability to non-EU jurisdictions with differing standards. Additionally, the analysis emphasises journalistic exemptions, neglecting other forms of expression – such as academic, artistic and literary – that also require balancing against personal data protection rights. Practical implications The research provides practical guidance for balancing data protection and freedom of expression, particularly under GDPR Article 85. It underscores the need for case-by-case assessments, ensuring proportionality and necessity when handling criminal conviction data. Policymakers and legal practitioners can use these insights to refine journalistic exemptions and prevent data misuse, especially in digital media contexts. Organisations, including media platforms, are encouraged to adopt responsible data-handling practices to safeguard privacy while enabling public interest reporting. Finally, the findings stress the importance of dynamic frameworks that adapt to evolving societal and technological contexts, supporting fair outcomes for both data protection and expression rights. Social implications This research highlights the delicate balance between individual data protection rights and freedom of expression, particularly regarding criminal conviction data. Its implications extend to societal concerns over data privacy, the potential misuse of personal information and the long-term impact on individuals, especially those with minor or outdated offences. As digital media evolves, these issues become more pressing, with the rise of social media and user-generated content complicating the legal landscape. Ensuring that privacy is upheld without stifling public access to essential information is crucial for maintaining both rights and societal transparency in an increasingly interconnected world. Originality/value This study enriches the debate on data protection and freedom of expression in crime-related data processing. By addressing journalistic exemptions and the evolving media landscape, it provides a nuanced perspective on safeguarding privacy while maintaining transparency in an era of digital accessibility.
Read full abstract