scholarly journals Threats to Media Freedom and Journalist’s Security as a Challenge to Implementation of Constitutional Principle of Freedom of Speech in the Council of Europe’s Member States

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (6) ◽  
pp. 303-316
Author(s):  
Alicja Jaskiernia ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Principle

Positive Free Speech: A Democratic Freedom

2021 ◽  
pp. 230-248
Author(s):  
Andrew T. Kenyon
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Public Speech ◽  
Positive Freedom ◽  
Negative Liberty ◽  
Structural Dimensions ◽  
Democratic Freedom ◽  
Legal Right

This chapter explores the positive structural dimensions of the freedom of speech by using a democratic free speech rationale. While far from the only aspect of positive free speech, it offers a useful example of the freedom’s positive dimensions. The chapter focuses on legal conditions underlying public speech and their links to democratic constitutional arrangements. It outlines the general approach before drawing brief comparisons with two well-known US approaches to free speech and media freedom. The chapter then highlights two of the multiple ways in which ‘positive’ can be used in relation to free speech. Positive may concern positive freedom, the idea that freedom is not only a negative liberty but requires support or enablement. It can also be used in terms of a positive right, typically a legal right enforced through courts.

scholarly journals Factors that Influence Freedom of Speech and Self-censorship in Mass Media in Contemporary Russia

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 110-120
Author(s):  
Oksana Olshevskaya
Keyword(s):  
Mass Media ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Political Influence ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Negative Experience ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Mass Media ◽  
The Government ◽  
In The Beginning

An attempt to define the degree of media freedom in contemporary Russia leads to contradiction between the declaration of the mass media freedom provided by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Soviet Union heritage of unequivocal control of the press by the government, described by Siebert et al. (1984) as the Soviet-Communist Press Theory. The reason for this ambiguity could be explained by the great deal of different factors that exert an influence on the journalism, such as features of mass media legislation, governmental control of the media, the diversity of media ownership, sources of media incomes, and traditions of censorship in Russia.  The current development of the media legislation in Russia shows no improvement regarding the freedom of speech. In the beginning of the third presidential term in 2012, Vladimir Putin has signed several laws that reduced the freedom of speech through the limitation of public assembly, criminalization of defamation in the mass media, and intensification of governmental censorship on the internet. On the other hand, the contemporary press freedom that appeared in conditions of the new market economy in the beginning of the 1990s has brought discredit as to the conception of an exclusively positive impact of unconditional freedom on the mass media since the newspapers, television and radio channels were controlled by several powerful oligarchs who used the owned mass media to spread and support their political influence. However, after the authorities’ reference in the 2000s the balance was not regained. As a result, the majority of the media outlets in Russia became co-owned or fully controlled by the government. Another crucial aspect of the mass media freedom as the cultural phenomenon should be kept in mind: seven decades of severe censorship could not be erased from the journalism professional community’s memory in several years. The negative experience of predecessors transforms censorship into self-censorship in modern Russia.

Representation of citizens by the EP

2004 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jörg Gerkrath
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Parliamentary Democracy ◽  
European Level ◽  
Member States ◽  
Democratic Representation ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Union Democracy ◽  
The People ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Political Decisions

As it is obviously impossible for the modern ‘demos’ to assemble in order to take political decisions, democratic representation is an inevitable tool in large democracies. Representatives have to stand for and to act for the people as a whole. Accordingly, the principle of representative or parliamentary democracy is a fundamental constitutional principle shared by all the Member States of the Union. Democracy doubtlessly works on the national level; the Member States' decisional powers, however, are fading with the constant transfer of competences towards the European level. This leads to a system of European ‘multi-level governance’ with wide consequences for the linkage between the represented peoples of the Member States and their representatives on both national and European levels.

scholarly journals EDITORIAL: Free speech in Fiji

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-8
Author(s):  
David Robie
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Universal Declaration ◽  
Military Government ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Coup D'etat ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Military

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart informa tion and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.- Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights When military strongman Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama staged his creeping coup d’état on 5 December 2006—Fiji’s fourth in two decades—he was quick to declare: ‘We will uphold media freedom’ (cited in Foster, 2007). Barely two and a half years later, when he finished off the job with a putsch—dubbed ‘coup 4.5’ by some—and after having expelled three publishers, two New Zealand diplomats and five journalists over the intervening period, he told Radio New Zealand freedom of speech ‘causes trouble’ and must be curbed to allow the military government do its work (Bainimarama: Free speech ‘causes trouble’, 15 April 2009).

A Vital Report on Trends in Media Freedom and Its Link with the Future of Democracy

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-170
Author(s):  
Vipul Mudgal
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development Goals ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Communication Environment ◽  
Media Pluralism ◽  
Development Goals

UNESCO’s report World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development is aimed at creating a heightened awareness about human development, media freedom and public access to information for which an enabling environment hinges on peoples’ awareness and participation. The report is like a tool for implementing UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which have a deadline of 2030. It reaffirms that an impartial and responsible media will thrive only in a just and sensible society with good governance, strong democratic institutions, and a healthy media landscape. It calls for media pluralism, diverse, transparent and non-monopolistic ownership, and a healthy communication environment. The report warns of authoritarianism of governments and goes on to show that the issue of media independence matters for both protecting freedom of speech and democracy.

scholarly journals The Fiji media decree: A push towards collaborative journalism

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reggie Dutt
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Media Industry ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Media Development ◽  
Developing Nation ◽  
Industry Development ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Government

This article evaluates Fiji’s Media Industry Development Decree 2010 by drawing a link between it and the Singaporean media laws and the collaborative role the Fijian regime claims journalism should play in the nation’s development. A number of sections of the Fiji Media Decree are similar to the Singapore Media Development Authority Act 2003 and it contains similar harsh fines and jail terms. The Fiji Media Decree makes provisions for a Media Industry Development Authority and a Media Tribunal, both of which are appointed and controlled by the government. The Authority has wide-ranging powers to search, seize and censor, and refer to the Tribunal incidents which it considers are in breach of the decree. The government minister responsible for administering the decree has a direct say in the make-up of the Media Industry Development Authority and may give directions to the Authority in the performance of its duties and the exercise of its powers. This study explores the powers vested in the government via these two proposed bodies and what they will mean for journalism, freedom of speech and media freedom in Fiji. It also shows the merits of a ‘collaborative journalism’ model for a developing nation but explains how the design is flawed under the conditions it has been imposed in Fiji.

scholarly journals Cyberspace and Libel: A Dangerous Balance for Physicians

10.2196/22271 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e22271
Author(s):  
Varsha Chiruvella ◽  
Achuta Kumar Guddati
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Media Access ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Early American ◽  
Online Presence

Freedom of speech and expression is one of the core tenets of modern societies. It was deemed to be so fundamentally essential to early American life that it was inscribed as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Over the past century, the rise of modern life also marked the rise of the digital era and age of social media. Freedom of speech thus transitioned from print to electronic media. Access to such content is almost instantaneous and available to a vast audience. From social media to online rating websites, online defamation may cause irreparable damage to a physician’s reputation and practice. It is especially relevant in these times of political turbulence where the battle to separate facts from misinformation has started a debate about the responsibility of social media. The historical context of libel and its applicability in the age of increasing online presence is important for physicians since they are also bound by duty to protect the privacy of their patients. The use of public rating sites and social media will continue to be important for physicians, as online presence and incidents of defamation impact the practice of medicine.

La responsabilidad de los diarios digitales por los comentarios de sus usuarios

2014 ◽  
pp. 425-452
Author(s):  
M.ª Nieves ARRESE IRIONDO
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Digital Newspapers

RESUMEN: Una de las caracteristicas de los diarios digitales es que permiten que los usuarios introduzcan comentarios en sus plataformas. La normativa comunitaria, y en su desarrollo, la interna de cada Estado, especifican en que supuestos los diarios estan exentos de responsabilidad por el tenor de dichos comentarios. No obstante, una sentencia de la Seccion Primera del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos ha cuestionado los citados supuestos al llevar a cabo una interpretacion distinta. Las reacciones a dicha sentencia por parte de asociaciones en defensa de la libertad de expresion no se han hecho esperar, y el planteamiento del asunto ante la Gran Sala del Tribunal de Estrasburgo abre una nueva oportunidad para que reconsidere su postura y dicte un pronunciamiento acorde con la normativa de la Union. LABURPENA: Egunkari digitalen ezaugarria da erabiltzaileek iruzkinak sar ditzaketela haien plataformetan. Europar Batasuneko araudiak, eta hori garatuz, Estatu bakoitzekoek, zehazten dute zein kasutan ez diren egunkari digitalak iruzkin horiengatik erantzule izango. Hala ere, Giza Eskubideen Europar Auzitegiaren Lehenengo Atalak emandako epai batek kasu horiek zalantzan jarri ditu beste bat izan baita egin duen interpretazioa. Adierazpen-askatasunaren aldeko erakundeek epai horren aurka erreakzionatu dute, eta uzia Estrasburgoko Auzitegiaren Areto Nagusiaren aurrean planteatu denez, aukera berria ireki da bere jarrera berriz pentsatu eta Europar Batasuneko araudiarekin bat etorriko den ebazpena emateko. ABSTRACT: Digital newspapers allow users to include their own comments. European and Member States’ laws specify in which cases those newspapers are exempted from liability owing to those opinions. However, the European Court of Human Rights (First Section) has questioned those exemptions. Freedom of speech associations have criticized the ECHR’s standpoint. In fact, an appeal is pending before the Grand Chamber of the ECHR providing a fresh opportunity to amend the current interpretation of applicable laws and adopt a position much closer to European Union law.

Does the Codification of the Principle of Supremacy Matter?

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 57-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Per Cramér
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
National Institutions ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Law

A little more than four decades ago, the European Court of Justice declared that the law of the European Communities constitutes the supreme law of the Member States. The national institutions, most importantly the national courts, were to apply rules of Community law and, in so doing, were required to set aside conflicting provisions of national law, however framed. Since then, this judicially formulated constitutional principle has been developed and restated in later judgments by the ECJ. However, during the same period the absolute character of the principle has been continually challenged by the Member States.

scholarly journals Cyberspace and Libel: A Dangerous Balance for Physicians (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Varsha Chiruvella ◽  
Achuta Kumar Guddati
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Media Access ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Early American ◽  
Online Presence

UNSTRUCTURED Freedom of speech and expression is one of the core tenets of modern societies. It was deemed to be so fundamentally essential to early American life that it was inscribed as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Over the past century, the rise of modern life also marked the rise of the digital era and age of social media. Freedom of speech thus transitioned from print to electronic media. Access to such content is almost instantaneous and available to a vast audience. From social media to online rating websites, online defamation may cause irreparable damage to a physician’s reputation and practice. It is especially relevant in these times of political turbulence where the battle to separate facts from misinformation has started a debate about the responsibility of social media. The historical context of libel and its applicability in the age of increasing online presence is important for physicians since they are also bound by duty to protect the privacy of their patients. The use of public rating sites and social media will continue to be important for physicians, as online presence and incidents of defamation impact the practice of medicine.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document