Freedom of Speech. A selected bibliography (original) (raw)
Related papers
Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of democratic societies, empowering individuals to share ideas, participate in political discourse, and hold authorities accountable. However, the modern digital age has introduced significant challenges, such as the spread of Disinformation, hate speech, and derogatory language, which threaten democracy and social harmony. This article delves into the dual nature of Freedom of expression, exploring its importance in upholding democratic values, the legal frameworks that govern it, and the implications of its misuse. The discussion includes the role of media, global case studies, policymaking challenges, and the balance between public order and individual rights. Ultimately, it emphasizes the need for responsible expression, effective regulation, and a collaborative approach to ensure the sustainability of democratic freedoms.
Protection of Freedom of Expression: An International Perspective
The importance of freedom of speech and expression enshrines the ability to think and speak freely and to obtain information from others through publications, public discourse and in cyber era to like, share and comment through audiovisual medium, without fear of retribution, restriction, or repression by the government. It is through free speech, people could come together to achieve political influence, to strengthen their moral ity, and to help others to become moral and enlightened citizens. This freedom is recognised as mother of all freedom at the national and international level in all the civil societies. The present paper offers an overview on the protection of the freedom of speech and expression at international level and civil societies. The paper examines in detail the constitutional dimension s of the freedom of expression and the approaches of the States in curbing freedom of expression on reasonable grounds.
Feminist Dissent
Many of us struggle to make sense of what is without doubt a deepening global socio-economic and political crisis, and at the heart of this crisis lies an unprecedented and multi-directional assault on freedom of speech. But what is free speech? How should it be exercised and to what ends? These are more difficult questions to navigate in contexts of growing divisions in society, the crises of state governabilities, people’s governmentalities and disparities in power and wealth. Debates about freedom of speech are not new; however, the form they take now seems particularly vindictive and violent. Across the world, we are witness to disturbing moves to curtail free speech in liberal democracies and totalitarian states alike and among left wing as well as right wing movements. As recent events show, free speech is the first casualty of all forms of authoritarianism including religious fundamentalism. And from this flow a range of other crackdowns on civil society and serious human rig...
On The Limits of Free Speech: Towards the Fair Value of Communicative Liberties
This study addresses, from a theoretically oriented perspective, the relationship between freedom of expression and democracy, trying to assess its implications for the regulation of mass media. Starting with a legal case in which a TV channel and a journalist were prosecuted for hate speech, looking at the reaction of the São Paulo Press Association to the case, I examine three perspectives on the statute and the reach of expressive libertiesthe Millian Principle, the collectivist approach, and the participatory view-which connect these liberties to the ideas of moral autonomy and self-determination. For different, but related, reasons, these views present a conception of free speech that would not garner universal agreement in a pluralistic society. Moreover, some of the ideas defended could justify rules (or the absence of them) that might harm the social bases of self-respect. In opposition to these lines of thought, I argue for the fair value of communicative liberties; i.e., the idea that everyone should have access to the same rights and effective conditions to exercise communication. This means a fair distribution of opportunities for occupying the mediated public space and the establishment of rules to discourage the dissemination of ideas that fail to acknowledge the equal respect that we owe to each other as members of the political association. Democracy, I shall contend, comprises both private and public autonomy. A fair system of communicative freedom is to be seen as the outcome of and the upholding force in a democratic society. 66 (2015) 9 (1) 65 -92 To try to deny the citizen this freedom [of the pen], means withholding from the ruler all the knowledge of those matters which, if he knew about them, he would himself rectify, so that he is thereby put in a self-stultifying position. (Immanuel Kant -"On The Common Saying -This may be true in Theory, but it Does Not Apply in Practice". In: Kant Political Writings). n an unprecedented decision, the Brazilian Court has convicted a broadcast corporation and one of its most important journalists for hate speech. Bandeirantes TV, one of the four big media corporations in the country, presents a daily show in which reporters follow the police while they chase and arrest supposed criminals. José Luiz Datena, the host of the program, is responsible for analyzing and commenting on the images. Both Datena and the corporation were convicted over a show aired in July 2010 in which Datena, in a sort of a Dostoievskian argument, claimed the supposed criminal must be an atheist. According to Datena, "Atheists have no limits; that is why we see crimes like these. Atheists kill and commit other atrocities. They think they are their own God". After a protest by the Brazilian Atheist Association (ATEA), the Brazilian Court sentenced Bandeirantes TV and Datena, compelling them to air a two-hour show discussing freedom of consciousness and religious diversity. In the case of noncompliance, they would have to pay five thousand dollars in fines each day until the program was made. The São Paulo Press Association reacted by publishing a note opposing the conviction, in which it stated, "one cannot think of democracy in Brazil without fighting for the rights enshrined in the United Nations' Charter of Human Rights, which protects the human right to freedom of expression and therefore the right to communication" 1 . The note continued, "When a journalist or a TV station is prevented from the right to free speech, we disrespect democracy and the rule of law. This is not a discussion about freedom of consciousness or religious diversity; more important is the question of freedom of expression and the essential and legitimate right of communicatio" 2 . According to the Association, it would be failing 1 Emphasis added. 2 Emphasis added. I Renato Francisquini I Departing from the aforementioned case, this paper will address the normative issue of freedom of expression within the landscape of democratic societies in which the mediated form of communication appears as a central feature. From a certain perspective, the development of IT technologies and the spread of democratic practices have made it easier than ever to establish communication both widely and effectively. Yet, some theoretically accepted concepts and legally enforced norms tend to restrict, rather than support, democratic communication. Here I refer to views such as the one espoused by the São Paulo Press Association.
Freedom of Expression: Finding a Balance between Two Extremes
International Affairs and Global Strategy, 2020
This study deals with the concept of freedom of expression in the West and compares it with its concept in Islam. It also examines some aspects of the practical application of this right, whether in the West or in Muslim countries, and the foundations on which it is applied, and the means by which it is expressed, giving examples of modern practices and allegations which either support this right or demolish it. This research aims to discuss the two extremes of freedom of expression, as well as the opposing parties, and the conditions and criteria that apply on the basis of security measures to restrict or control or adjust or prosecute. Finally this research seeks to find a balance between the two extremes, which draws features from the Islamic religion, and emphasizes the need to deduct the most important Divine foundations to ensure justice and security for all.
The elusive boundaries of freedom of expression
This article, published in the Indian magazine "Seminar", presents the origins of Pakistani Blasphemy Laws, rejecting the call for a general “protection of religions”. In matters where religious views are involved, only incitement to hate should be punished by law. Other more strict provisions would end up endangering freedom of expression.
The Metalinguistic Dilemma of Freedom of Expression; Its Limits
2016
Freedom of expression is an innate human right, although its misuse has made it a controversial subject in every part of the world. It has been exploited in the context of hatred speech to malign different religions and races. It is being applied in negative manners to propagate aversion and hatred for specific ethnic or religious groups under the excuse that it constitutes one of the innate human rights an individual has to freely express any like or dislike as his/her own opinion. This research upholds that unbridled freedom of speech generates widespread inferiority complexes, violence and generally injustice and interferes with other fundamental human rights. This article aims to highlight different aspects of the subject especially freedom of speech from an international perspective, as well as draw guidelines for the safety and respect of all individuals alike, without consideration of gender, race, religious affiliation, ethnicity, etc. This study proves that all rights have limitations and freedom of speech should be no less. The reason for this is, while a person is, without any doubt, entitled to express his or her own opinion, these opinions should not interfere with the rights of others.
COHESIVE NATIONHOOD SURVIVES ON RESPONSIBLE FREE SPEECH (1)
The genealogy of mankind's right to free expression can be traced back to the heralds of modern civilization, an era that brought with it the entrenchment and propagation of salient principles and rights for mankind's mutual coexistence. Those rights are inherently human, predicated on shared values whose protection fosters mutual coexistence. Among these rights is the freedom of speech. Undoubtedly, freedom of speech and expression is the bellwether of fundamental rights and freedoms for any democratic society such as Kenya. As it is with other rights and freedoms, freedom of expression is protected by local judicial mechanisms and emphasized by hawk-eyed protection of the international assembly of independent States-the United Nations. Over time, the significance of this right has been accentuated by being embedded in Constitutions, such as Kenya's. Freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 33 of Kenya's Constitution of Kenya 2010, and includes the right to seek, receive, or impart information and ideas. Yet, regardless of how sacrosanct it is, this right has scarcely been spared various forms of censorship, restrictions on access, and violent acts directed against those whose views or inquiries are seen as somehow dangerous or iniquitous.
Building and Sustaining Freedom of Expression
Nordicom Review, 2017
Although countries protect and promote freedom of expression in different ways, free speech can be understood to have two basic aspects in democratic constitutional systems: non-censorship and diversity of voices. This article examines how the approach to free speech in Sweden contains both these aspects. Selected comparisons with the US First Amendment, and German broadcasting law, indicate the value in the Swedish approach but also reveal challenges that it faces if free speech’s dual aspects are not clearly recognised – a danger that some contemporary statements suggests is real. Articulating free speech in terms of both non-censorship and diversity may aid Swedish parliamentary processes to uphold important structural aspects of the freedom, but it would also bring into focus larger questions about the limits of parliamentary processes