Free Speech and Elections

The Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198827580.013.18 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 311-330

Author(s):

Joo-Cheong Tham ◽

K. D. Ewing

Keyword(s):

Free Speech ◽

Liberal Democracies ◽

Electoral Outcomes ◽

Exponential Increase

This chapter examines how elections give rise to special problems relating to speech. In the choice of government and governors, speech needs to be lively and robust, which is not to say of course that speech should be unconstrained. Indeed, the paradox of elections is that they need both freedom and restraint if electoral purposes are to be served. In the context between candidates and parties, who else should be permitted to speak, and what if anything should they be prohibited from saying? In the context of elections, however, what has become a bigger concern in modern liberal democracies is not who may speak and what can they say, but what means can they use, what opportunities and restrictions are to apply to the means used, and how much can be spent in projecting electoral messages? These latter questions do not address the content of speech so much as its volume, but they are urgent questions in light of the exponential increase in the sums spent by candidates, parties, and others in seeking to influence electoral outcomes.

Download Full-text

Disinformation, Deepfakes and Democracies: The Need for Legislative Reform

University of New South Wales Law Journal ◽

10.53637/dels2700 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 44 (3) ◽

Author(s):

Andrew Ray

Keyword(s):

Artificial Intelligence ◽

Political Parties ◽

Political Communication ◽

Cultural Change ◽

Free Speech ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

Technological Advancement ◽

Democratic Institutions ◽

Legislative Reform ◽

Electoral Outcomes

Rapid technological advancement is changing the way that political parties, voters, and media platforms engage with each other. This along with cultural change has led to an emerging era of disinformation and misinformation driven by both domestic and foreign actors. Political deepfakes, videos created through the use of artificial intelligence, allow individuals to rapidly create fake videos indistinguishable from true content. These videos have the capacity to undermine voter trust and could alter electoral outcomes. Regulating disinformation however raises significant free speech concerns, as well as questions about where liability should fall. In particular, holding large technology and media platforms accountable for content could lead to unintended chilling effects around freedom of expression, harming rather than protecting democratic institutions. Proposed regulations should therefore be carefully analysed through the framework of the implied freedom of political communication, ensuring that any new laws are proportionate and tailored to the threat they seek to prevent. This article analyses how current Australian law interacts with political deepfakes and proposes two targeted amendments to our federal electoral regulations to reduce the threat they pose to elections.

Download Full-text

Conclusion

Sedition in Liberal Democracies ◽

10.1093/oso/9780199481699.003.0008 ◽

2018 ◽

pp. 363-368

Author(s):

Anushka Singh

Keyword(s):

Free Speech ◽

Legal Protection ◽

Freedom Of Speech ◽

Political Speech ◽

Liberal Democracies ◽

Liberal Democratic ◽

Judicial Discourse ◽

Political Speeches ◽

The Law ◽

The Right

The life of a law exists both within and beyond the statute books and courts’ interpretations. This assertion has been made in this work in the exploration of the journey of the law of sedition primarily at three levels—the first concerns itself with analysing the language of the law of sedition; the second, with studying the judicial discourse on sedition; and the third pertains to interrogating the quotidian aspects of law as it unfolds on the ground. While this work offers a focused study on Indian democracy at all these levels, it has broadened its scope by including experiences from the liberal democracies of the west in its analysis. This work has used sedition as a lens to probe the fate of political speech in liberal democracies which claim to give constitutional and legal protection of varying degrees to the right to free speech, of which political speech and the right to dissent are extensions. Despite the claims to protection, the working of such democracies has shown that the freedom of speech in relation to political speeches particularly has always been in danger. The liberal-democratic space has continued to shrink for dissident voices despite the progression of liberal democracies towards free speech jurisprudence and annulment or modification of laws related to sedition....

Download Full-text

Book review: Gautam Bhatia, Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Speech Under the Indian Constitution, Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India and Anushka Singh, Sedition in Liberal Democracies

Studies in Indian Politics ◽

10.1177/2321023020963410 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (2) ◽

pp. 300-303

Author(s):

Jinee Lokaneeta

Keyword(s):

Free Speech ◽

New Delhi ◽

Liberal Democracies ◽

Indian Constitution ◽

Oxford University ◽

Oxford University Press

Gautam Bhatia, Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Speech Under the Indian Constitution. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. 2016. 347 pp. ₹750. ISBN: 9780199488643 Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India. Gurgaon: Penguin Viking. 2017. 383 pp. ₹599. ISBN: 9780670090013 Anushka Singh, Sedition in Liberal Democracies. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. 2018. 331 pp. ₹995. ISBN: 9780199481699

Download Full-text

Conspiracy theories and reasonable pluralism

European Journal of Political Theory ◽

10.1177/1474885119899232 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 147488511989923 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Matej Cíbik ◽

Pavol Hardoš

Keyword(s):

Public Policy ◽

Free Speech ◽

Liberal Democracies ◽

Conspiracy Theories ◽

State Action ◽

Clear Cut ◽

Reasonable Pluralism ◽

Liberal Democratic ◽

Rational Debate ◽

Ethical Criteria

The popularity of conspiracy theories poses a clear challenge for contemporary liberal democracies. Conspiracy theories undermine rational debate, spread dangerous falsehoods and threaten social cohesion. However, any possible public policy response, which would try to contain their spread, needs to respect the liberal commitment to protect pluralism and free speech. A successful justification of such a policy must therefore: 1) clearly identify the problematic class of conspiracy theories; and 2) clarify the grounds on which the state is justified in acting against them. This article argues that the prevailing epistemic approaches to conspiracy theorizing cannot fulfil these criteria. Defining conspiracy theories by their flaws in reasoning, questionable coherence or factual mistakes can neither sharply distinguish problematic conspiracy theories from other, non-problematic worldviews nor justify state action. Thus, we propose to understand conspiracy theories through their ethical unreasonableness. We hold that containment of conspiracy theories is justifiable insofar as they undermine the liberal-democratic ideals of mutual respect, freedom and equality. We then show that such ‘ethical’ criteria for conspiracy theories can be sufficiently robust and clear-cut so that they can serve as a useful guide for public policy.

Download Full-text

Free Speech Categories in the Digital Age

Free Speech in the Digital Age ◽

10.1093/oso/9780190883591.003.0006 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 88-103

Author(s):

Ashutosh Bhagwat

Keyword(s):

Social Media ◽

Free Speech ◽

Public Discourse ◽

The Political ◽

Liberal Democracies ◽

The Public ◽

Commercial Speech ◽

Private Autonomy ◽

Private Actors ◽

Public Versus Private

Modern free speech law in liberal democracies is oriented around some basic, categorical distinctions. This chapter examines four such categories: speech versus conduct (speech generally receives far greater protection than non-expressive conduct); public versus private actors (most legal systems place sharp limits on public regulation of free expression but generally protect private autonomy); political versus commercial (speech related to economic transactions is subject to greater regulation than political or cultural speech); and finally, public discourse versus domestic gossip (the former being universally considered more worthy of protection). Without these distinctions modern free speech law would be unworkable, because it would devolve into either radical libertarianism or tyranny. This chapter demonstrates that the evolution of the internet and social media into the primary platforms for commerce and expression has fundamentally destabilized each of these categories. This is because the very natures of a digital economy and a disaggregated social media undermine the distinction between the commercial and the political, as well as between the public and the private. I conclude by arguing that if workable new categories of speech are to be constructed, scholars and decision-makers must start with first principles establishing why free speech remains of paramount importance today.

Download Full-text