scholarly journals Doktrynalna legitymizacja idei wolności słowa

2017 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 247-260
Author(s):  
Łukasz Machaj
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Political System ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
Democratic Systems ◽  
Democratic Political System

DOCTRINAL JUSTIFICATIONS OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECHFreedom of speech is one of the foundational values of contemporary liberal and democratic systems. The article analyzes four most important doctrinal justifications for extending afar-reach­ing protection for expression. First, respect for free speech is alogical corollary and consequence of respecting individual dignity and liberty. Second, free market of ideas is the best way of attaining truth and fostering healthy public debate. Third, freedom of speech is an indispensable condition of democratic political system. Fourth, respecting free speech helps create tolerant and open-minded society.

Defamation Law in Turbulence: Does Israel Need ‘Libel Reform’?

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-134
Author(s):  
Tamar Gidron
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Massive Change ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Right ◽  
Defamation Law ◽  
Over Time

Among the various bills proposing amendments to Israel's Defamation (Prohibition) Law that were presented to the 18th Knesset, the most controversial one is the bill proposing an increase in the caps on statutory damages (without proof of special or general damage). The current NIS 50,000 cap (NIS 100,000 when the publication was intended to cause injury) will be replaced, if the bill is approved, by a NIS 300,000 cap (NIS 600,000 when the publication was intended to cause injury). This proposed massive change has ignited a heated public debate. The bill, according to its proponents, is targeted principally at the media. Its aim is deterrence and even punishment, accomplished by attaching a higher price tag to libellous publications while focusing on remedies and leaving liability tests (including defences) untouched.I claim that this bill is both unnecessary and detrimental.Based on case law from the eight-year period 2004–11 on damages awarded by Israeli courts in defamation cases – both damages awarded ‘without proof of damage’ (the plaintiff does not need to prove damage caused by the publication) and damages awarded for ‘general damage’ (some general damage needs to be proved) – I conclude that the spectrum of judicial discretion is sufficiently broad to accommodate any level of deterrence seen fit by the courts in any circumstances. The fact that average damages awards do not reach the statutory caps indicates that, for all practical purposes, legislative intrusion in the manner proposed is erroneous. As to the normative standards the bill strives to convey, I maintain that absent reasonable justifications based on identifiable changes in cultural, social or other circumstances over time, the attempt to change the currently accepted balance between the rights of reputation and freedom of speech in Israeli defamation law in terms of damages awards is also erroneous.Even if some modification of the current balance between reputation and free speech, as a result of specified changes in circumstances, do indeed appear to be necessary, the particular content, form and measure of this specific bill – which have yet to be examined and assessed – do not seem to provide the right approach to achieve such modifications.

scholarly journals Freedom of speech within political parties

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Udit Bhatia ◽  
Fabio Wolkenstein
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Political System ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Political Agency ◽  
The Political ◽  
Knock Down ◽  
The World ◽  
Party Members ◽  
Political Freedoms

Abstract The expulsion of party members for the expression of dissent is a common practice in democratic states around the world, which can have momentous consequences for individual parties and the political system at large. In this article, we address the question of whether limitations on party members’ free speech can be defended on normative grounds. Drawing on a conception of parties that sees them as broader membership organisations that allow citizens to exercise political agency in a unique fashion, as well as on insights from the broader normative-theoretical literature on organisations, we build a strong presumptive case that interference with party members’ political freedoms is normatively problematic. Exploring numerous weighty arguments in favour of limiting freedom of speech within parties, we find that none of them provides a knock-down argument against our case. The argument we advance has important implications for contemporary theoretical debates about parties and partisanship, and for the regulation of parties’ internal affairs more generally.

scholarly journals Poprawność polityczna w liberalnej kulturze politycznej – szansa na porozumienie czy hipokryzja władzy?

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 220-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Turkot
Keyword(s):  
Political Culture ◽  
Political System ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Political Correctness ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
Democratic System ◽  
Democratic Political System

Political correctness as a norm of behaviour in liberal political culture is criticized as a sophisticated type of modern censorship, or stronger, as an ideological tool in the hands of part of Western political and cultural elites. Nonetheless, it appears to play important and necessary functions in a democratic system. Even if we agree that political correctness is cynical and hypocritical by nature, it does not lose its value. Its ambiguous potential can be creatively used, particularly in the areas of public discourse, deliberation and public debate, but also in other important spheres of liberal political culture and, more broadly, the democratic political system.

Principle, Pragmatism, and Paralysis: Stanley Fish on Free Speech

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Robertson
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
False Belief ◽  
Main Section ◽  
Stanley Fish ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Relationship

Unlike those who read Fish as declaring that free speech is an illusion or incoherent, I argue that Fish provides a superior explanation of what makes free speech possible, and a more insightful description of what judges are doing when they decide cases under laws which protect it. In this paper I first identify the central philosophical commitment from which Fish derives most of his controversial positions. Next, I demonstrate how his position on free speech in particular flows from this central philosophical commitment. Finally, in the main section of the paper, I consider three serious objections to Fish’s analysis of free speech, and consider how Fish might respond to them. I seek to defend Fish's denial that the relationship between freedom and constraint is one of simple opposition; rather he claims that constraint is the precondition for freedom. He therefore sees all speech as made under conditions of constraint. He also sees a commitment to censoring some speech as inherently contained within any commitment to freedom of speech, and so toleration of all viewpoints is impossible. He denies that any free speech principle can be neutral regarding viewpoints, and he denies that any "free market of ideas" is without bias and exclusions. He therefore rejects the accounts given by American courts deciding cases under the First Amendment which stress a fidelity to neutral principle. Since there are no such principles in existence, such courts are really doing one of two things. Either they are pragmatically advancing a partisan agenda, and constraining some speech in a way which is obfuscated, or their false belief in the existence of neutral principles paralyses them in the face of danger and prevents them from performing this pragmatic exercise.

scholarly journals Political Attitudes of Arab Citizens in North Africa

Politologija ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Mahmoudreza Rahbarqazi ◽  
Seyed Javad Emamjomehzadeh ◽  
Hossein Masoudnia
Keyword(s):  
Political System ◽  
Political Attitudes ◽  
Political Systems ◽  
Political Performance ◽  
Democratic System ◽  
Social Associations ◽  
Democratic Systems ◽  
The One ◽  
Islamic Values ◽  
Democratic Political System

Theories of social capital, government performance, Islamic values, and globalization are among the most important tools that can be used to help explain individuals’ political attitudes. The present research attempts to address the effects of the abovementioned factors on the political attitude of Arab citizens using the Arab Barometer Wave IV data. The results showed that only 23.2% of citizens disagreed with a democratic political system, while 70.3% and 60.1% expressed their opposition to authoritarian and Shari’ah-based systems. Results of the final model of research indicated that memberships in social associations, on the one hand, increased the tendency of individuals to support authoritarian and law-based political systems and, on the other hand, did not have any significant effect on the tendency toward supporting a democratic political system. It was concluded that improving economic performance not only affected the promotion of the Shari’ah-based political system, but that Political Performance also reduced the inclinations toward Shari’ah and authoritarianism. Furthermore, Political Performance increased the tendency of individuals to favor a democratic system. In addition, although individuals’ support for a Shari’ah-based political system had increased, Islamic values did not act as a barrier that would keep individuals away from favoring a democratic political system. Among the variables of globalization, the expansion of communication reduced people’s tendencies toward Shari’ah and authoritative political systems, along with a positive effect on strengthening support for democratic systems. Ultimately, Westernization only affected the shrinking support of some Shari’ah-based political systems.

6 Is there a legitimation crisis of the nation-state?

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (S1) ◽  
pp. 119-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
ACHIM HURRELMANN ◽  
ZUZANA KRELL-LALUHOVÁ ◽  
ROLAND LHOTTA ◽  
FRANK NULLMEIER ◽  
STEFFEN SCHNEIDER
Keyword(s):  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Political System ◽  
Political Power ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
Institutional Arrangements ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Nation State ◽  
Effect Relationship ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Democratic Systems

It is widely accepted that internationalization and the increasing loss of parliamentary control over political power challenge the legitimacy of national democratic systems and their core institutions. We first present results from a study of public communication, which, when examined in the context of theories of legitimation, indicate that these processes do not necessarily lead to the erosion or breakdown of popular support for the nation state. The idea that there is a linear cause-and-effect relationship is overly simple, and a more detailed analysis is called for. Legitimation of a political system through public communication is a back-and-forth process which is determined by the system's specific institutional arrangements and by the fortuitous twists and turns of public debate. Nation states have more extensive, diverse and deeply rooted sources of legitimation than is often assumed.

The Logic of ‘But’: Quarrels, Literature and Democracy

Paragraph ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 114-130
Author(s):  
Thomas Docherty
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The Way

This paper looks at intrinsic disputation within proposition, and specifically within propositions that offer a moderated version of the freedom of speech and expression. It begins from a consideration of what is at stake in Othello's ‘Rude am I in my speech’, a rhetorical gesture that frames an act of great eloquence, and in which the eloquence serves to formulate a quarrel by ostensibly resolving it. This example reveals that there is a conflict between empirical quarrel and articulated spoken resolution. This leads the essay to explore the way in which diplomacy works, whereby we establish the pretence that there is peace between disputatious positions through the power of the logic of ‘but’, thus: ‘I agree with you, but …’. Finally, this is extended to a consideration of the limits of and/or on free speech: ‘I defend free speech, but …’, where the ‘but’ is a gesture in which the defence of free speech is modified to the point of being obliterated.

Determinanty wewnętrzne polityki zagranicznej Ukrainy pod rządami Wołodymyra Zełenskiego

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-141
Author(s):  
Tomasz Stępniewski
Keyword(s):  
Market Economy ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Political System ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Stable State ◽  
Free Market Economy ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The People ◽  
Internal Politics ◽  
Research Questions

The present paper discusses the following research questions: to what extent did errors made by the previous presidents of Ukraine result in the country’s failure to introduce systemic reforms (e.g. combating corruption, the development of a foundation for a stable state under the rule of law and free-market economy)?; can it be ventured that the lack of radical reforms along with errors in the internal politics of Ukraine under Petro Poroshenko resulted in the president’s failure?; will the strong vote of confidence given to Volodymyr Zelensky and the Servant of the People party exact systemic reforms in Ukraine?; or will Volodymyr Zelensky merely become an element of the oligarchic political system in Ukraine?

PERSECUTION AND THE ART OF FREEDOM: ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF FREE PRESS AND FREE SPEECH IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-208
Author(s):  
Khalil M. Habib
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Alexis De Tocqueville ◽  
Free Society ◽  
Free Press ◽  
Constituent Element ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Right ◽  
Shed Light

AbstractAccording to Tocqueville, the freedom of the press, which he treats as an extension of the freedom of speech, is a primary constituent element of liberty. Tocqueville treats the freedom of the press in relation to and as an extension of the right to assemble and govern one’s own affairs, both of which he argues are essential to preserving liberty in a free society. Although scholars acknowledge the importance of civil associations to liberty in Tocqueville’s political thought, they routinely ignore the importance he places on the freedom of the press and speech. His reflections on the importance of the free press and speech may help to shed light on the dangers of recent attempts to censor the press and speech.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document