scholarly journals A Hashtag Worth a Thousand Words: Discursive Strategies Around #JeNeSuisPasCharlie After the 2015 Charlie Hebdo Shooting

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 205630511668699 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Giglietto ◽  
Yenn Lee
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Discursive Strategies ◽  
Religious Extremism ◽  
Charlie Hebdo

Following a shooting attack by two self-proclaimed Islamist gunmen at the offices of French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo on 7 January 2015, there emerged the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie on Twitter as an expression of solidarity and support for the magazine’s right to free speech. Almost simultaneously, however, there was also #JeNeSuisPasCharlie explicitly countering the former, affirmative hashtag. Based on a multimethod analysis of 74,047 tweets containing #JeNeSuisPasCharlie posted between 7 and 11 January, this article reveals that users of the hashtag under study employed various discursive strategies and tactics to challenge the mainstream framing of the shooting as the universal value of freedom of expression being threatened by religious extremism, while protecting themselves from the risk of being viewed as disrespecting victims or endorsing the violence committed. The significance of this study is twofold. First, it extends the literature on strategic speech acts by examining how such acts take place in a social media context. Second, it highlights the need for a multidimensional and reflective methodology when dealing with data mined from social media.

HUMANISTIC ASPECTS IN THE LANGUAGE PLANING POLICIES

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 2335-2338
Author(s):  
Agim Poshka
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Public Speaking ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
The Impact

It is believed that language policies aim to organize, encourage but sometimes even discourage language rights. Although slowly states in the Balkans started to believe that language rights could be used as a tool for creation of social cohesion, there is one aspect of language practice that is ignored but seems to cause quite negative impact, and that is hate speech. This paper investigated modes in which this dangerous tool is harming inter-ethnic and inter-cultural stability in the region. It is a long term interest to the judicial system of every country to limit the negative impact that hate speech has to certain fragile societies. The study also reflects on particular laws that aim to expand the span of freedom of speech and minimize the presence of hate speech in public life. This derogatory behavior can ultimately produce hatred and in some cases even human sacrifices. A definition that is often available in literature regarding hate speech is that “hate speech is an abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation”. In other words the basic concept of using language for solely communicational purpose has switched to use language to insult, intimidate, or threaten a group or an individual and is primarily based on a particular characteristic or disability. In its violent history, Europe has witnessed a considerable number of cases of human rights violations, and recent ones often get the “prefix” of hate speech. Certain domains of public speaking undoubtedly require legal measures and few societies have already designed their legal framework in order to address the issue The conditions have become even more dramatic with the introduction of social media. There are thousands of pages and blogs in which hate speech is expressed publicly. In an article published by the legaldictionary.net it states that with the advent of social media, the issue of offensive and threatening speech has become a global problem”. There are many cases in which hate speech is used as an argument of free speech. The process becomes even more challenging when the officials are expected to draw a line between where free speech ends and hate speech begins. Certain domains of public speaking undoubtedly require legal measures and as a result few societies have designed legal framework in order to address the issue and this study provides different methods and approaches are considered in the process. The study also cites a number of international cases which aim to create a greater picture of these deleterious phenomena and although there are many elements of the ethical and moral dilemma in regards to the freedom of expression it is important that we are aware of the responsibility and the impact we have when using hate speech in any public appearances.

Recipes, Plans, Instructions, and the Free Speech Implications of Words That Are Tools

2019 ◽  
pp. 74-87
Author(s):  
Frederick Schauer
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Mass Distribution ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Philosophical Questions

This chapter investigates whether speech acts of urging, advising, recommending, instructing, and informing ought all to be treated in the same way for purposes of implementing a principle of freedom of speech, and asks: If not, how do we justify treating them differently? This problem is arguably more pressing than it has been in the past, as the internet and various forms of social media have seemingly caused the mass distribution of instructions for committing antisocial acts have proliferated. After discussion of examples of publications that allow the reader to acquire knowledge on how to engage in dangerous activities, the chapter concludes that the normative and philosophical questions about the relationship between freedom of speech and the provision of instructions, plans, recipes, and detailed facts are in the final analysis less philosophical than they are empirical and social scientific.

HUMANISTIC ASPECTS IN THE LANGUAGE PLANING POLICIES

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 2335-2338
Author(s):  
Agim Poshka
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Public Speaking ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
The Impact

It is believed that language policies aim to organize, encourage but sometimes even discourage language rights. Although slowly states in the Balkans started to believe that language rights could be used as a tool for creation of social cohesion, there is one aspect of language practice that is ignored but seems to cause quite negative impact, and that is hate speech. This paper investigated modes in which this dangerous tool is harming inter-ethnic and inter-cultural stability in the region. It is a long term interest to the judicial system of every country to limit the negative impact that hate speech has to certain fragile societies. The study also reflects on particular laws that aim to expand the span of freedom of speech and minimize the presence of hate speech in public life. This derogatory behavior can ultimately produce hatred and in some cases even human sacrifices. A definition that is often available in literature regarding hate speech is that “hate speech is an abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation”. In other words the basic concept of using language for solely communicational purpose has switched to use language to insult, intimidate, or threaten a group or an individual and is primarily based on a particular characteristic or disability. In its violent history, Europe has witnessed a considerable number of cases of human rights violations, and recent ones often get the “prefix” of hate speech. Certain domains of public speaking undoubtedly require legal measures and few societies have already designed their legal framework in order to address the issue The conditions have become even more dramatic with the introduction of social media. There are thousands of pages and blogs in which hate speech is expressed publicly. In an article published by the legaldictionary.net it states that with the advent of social media, the issue of offensive and threatening speech has become a global problem”. There are many cases in which hate speech is used as an argument of free speech. The process becomes even more challenging when the officials are expected to draw a line between where free speech ends and hate speech begins. Certain domains of public speaking undoubtedly require legal measures and as a result few societies have designed legal framework in order to address the issue and this study provides different methods and approaches are considered in the process. The study also cites a number of international cases which aim to create a greater picture of these deleterious phenomena and although there are many elements of the ethical and moral dilemma in regards to the freedom of expression it is important that we are aware of the responsibility and the impact we have when using hate speech in any public appearances.

Social media before domestic courts in Europe: An analysis of free speech cases

2020 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2097919
Author(s):  
Evangelia Psychogiopoulou ◽  
Federica Casarosa
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Test Bed ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Media Regulation ◽  
The Impact

Social media arose as a way to communicate with friends, but it evolved to become a significant medium through which individuals exercise their right to free speech. At the same time, social media has raised a variety of challenges for fundamental rights. Whereas national and supranational legislators play a key role in terms of governing social media, court decisions are a test-bed for the protection of fundamental rights in a social media context. This article seeks to shed light on the social media jurisprudence of constitutional and supreme courts in a selected set of EU Member States. It examines in particular the contribution of national judiciaries to the protection of freedom of expression online and its balancing with other rights and interests in a social media setting. The focus is on cases that concern political speech, cases that examine the application of safeguards for the press on social media, and cases that reflect upon the impact of social media on legacy media regulation, that is, regulation for the mass media from the pre-digital age. The analysis identifies key trends in domestic judicial reasoning and shows the importance of fundamental rights as an interpretative tool for judicial decision-making on social media standards.

scholarly journals TO WHAT EXTENT EXPRESSION IS FREE ON SOCIAL MEDIA IN MOROCCO?

2021 ◽  
Vol 03 (03) ◽  
pp. 270-280
Author(s):  
Skouri HASSAN ◽  
Hajar NMIRACH
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
The Past ◽  
The People ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
People’S Attitudes

Since the emergence of social media, they have become the most common worldwide platforms of information and exchange. They did not only make the world smaller and access to information and news easier but they also provided a safe ground for people to express their ideas, share their thoughts and voice out their opinions. Throughout the past few years, social media have given out voices to millions of people with no boundaries. The main aim of this research paper is to study the current web regulations in Morocco and the status of the freedom of speech on social media in Morocco. To approach to the subject empirically, a survey was undertaken for a total number of 100 respondents. The paper puts together findings on people’s attitudes towards free speech, the limits of freedom of expression, and in which areas limitations of freedom of expression might be acceptable. Overall, the majority of the people supports the principle of the freedom of speech. Yet, at the same time they support the existence of some restrictions for various reasons. Hence, they are with a free speech as long as people’s integrity is protected.

Using Speech Acts to Elicit Positive Emotions for Complainants on Social Media

2021 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 67-80
Author(s):  
Young Anna Argyris ◽  
Kafui Monu ◽  
Yongsuk Kim ◽  
Yilu Zhou ◽  
Zuhui Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
Positive Emotions

Governing Fake News: The Regulation of Social Media and the Right to Freedom of Expression in the Era of Emergency

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-41
Author(s):  
Donato VESE
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Fake News ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Social Media Platforms ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Media Censorship

Governments around the world are strictly regulating information on social media in the interests of addressing fake news. There is, however, a risk that the uncontrolled spread of information could increase the adverse effects of the COVID-19 health emergency through the influence of false and misleading news. Yet governments may well use health emergency regulation as a pretext for implementing draconian restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, as well as increasing social media censorship (ie chilling effects). This article seeks to challenge the stringent legislative and administrative measures governments have recently put in place in order to analyse their negative implications for the right to freedom of expression and to suggest different regulatory approaches in the context of public law. These controversial government policies are discussed in order to clarify why freedom of expression cannot be allowed to be jeopardised in the process of trying to manage fake news. Firstly, an analysis of the legal definition of fake news in academia is presented in order to establish the essential characteristics of the phenomenon (Section II). Secondly, the legislative and administrative measures implemented by governments at both international (Section III) and European Union (EU) levels (Section IV) are assessed, showing how they may undermine a core human right by curtailing freedom of expression. Then, starting from the premise of social media as a “watchdog” of democracy and moving on to the contention that fake news is a phenomenon of “mature” democracy, the article argues that public law already protects freedom of expression and ensures its effectiveness at the international and EU levels through some fundamental rules (Section V). There follows a discussion of the key regulatory approaches, and, as alternatives to government intervention, self-regulation and especially empowering users are proposed as strategies to effectively manage fake news by mitigating the risks of undue interference by regulators in the right to freedom of expression (Section VI). The article concludes by offering some remarks on the proposed solution and in particular by recommending the implementation of reliability ratings on social media platforms (Section VII).

The Structure of a Free Speech Right

2021 ◽  
pp. 212-230
Author(s):  
Stephen Gardbaum
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Structural Elements ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Free Speech Rights

This chapter describes the structural elements or components of a free speech right. The nature and extent of a free speech right depends upon a number of legal components. The first is the legal source of the right (in common law, statute, or a constitution) and the force of the right having regard to how it is enforced, and whether and how it can be superseded. The second component is the ‘subject’ of free speech rights, or who are the rights-holders: citizens, natural or legal persons. The third is the ‘scope’ of a free speech right, while the fourth is the kind of obligation it imposes on others: a negative prohibition or a positive obligation. The fifth component is the ‘object’ of a free speech right: who is bound to respect a right of freedom of expression and against whom the right may be asserted. Finally, there is the ‘limitation’ of a free speech right.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document