scholarly journals Malaysia’s Anti-Fake News Act: A cog in an arsenal of anti-free speech laws and a bold promise of reforms

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (1&2) ◽  
pp. 173-192
Author(s):  
Joseph M Fernandez
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
General Election ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
Fake News ◽  
Media Control ◽  
Election Result ◽  
Media Regulation ◽  
Regulation Reform

Malaysia’s surprising fourteenth general election result in May 2018 was widely hailed as the advent of a seismic shift for press freedom in the country. The country’s draconian media control armoury was often wantonly and oppressively applied over six decades under previous rule. Key actors from that era are  now presiding over bold reforms that have been promised by the new government. In keeping with its election promises, the new government sought to repeal the hastily and badly drafted Anti-Fake News Act 2018 (AFNA). The Attorney-General Tommy Thomas wrote scathingly before the Act was passed and before taking office as the new A-G:The draconian effect of the entire bill renders it unconstitutional…This is a disgraceful piece of legislation drafted by a desperate government determined to crush dissent and silence critics. The bill is so hastily and poorly drafted that it cannot under any circumstances be improved by amendment. Instead, it must be rejected outright. (Thomas, 2018)The repeal effort, however, failed and the Act remains technically on the books. This article examines the Act against a backdrop of global responses to the ‘fake news’ phenomenon; provides an overview of Malaysia’s draconian armoury of laws that impinge on freedom of expression; discusses the fading optimism for proper media regulation reform in Malaysia; and concludes that meaningful media regulation reform must go beyond repealing AFNA.

scholarly journals Szabadság határokkal, avagy európai útmutató a szólásszabadság jogszerű gyakorlásához

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
László Vári
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Law ◽  
Fake News ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
New Challenges

Az online kommunikációs tér kínálta lehetőségekkel, illetve annak egyre terjedő használatával felértékelődött a vélemény és a kifejezés szabadságának jelentősége, a mindennapok szóhasználatával pedig a szólás- és sajtószabadság szerepe. Nemcsak azért, mert a mobil világ kiváló, eddig nem ismert lehetőségeket hordoz magában a szabadságjog gyakorlásához, érvényesüléséhez, hanem mert a digitális korban újabb, eddig ismeretlen vagy kevésbé jelentős problémák is felerősödnek. A félrevezető és álhírek, a profilfelfüggesztés, a kommenttörlés, a rágalmazás, és a gyűlöletbeszéd még sokáig lehetne sorolni azokat a problémákat, melyek egytől egyig a kifejezés szabadságának jogszerűtlen gyakorlatára vezethetők vissza. Mindezek nemcsak egyéni, de társadalmi szinten is komoly veszélyt jelentenek, így befolyásolva a demokratikus társadalmakat és azok fejlődését. Éppen ezért válik jelentőssé az a kérdés, hogy hogyan lehet a szólásszabadság sérelmére visszavezethető problémákat kiküszöbölni, és az említett kihívásokra megoldást találni. A következő oldalakon a nemzetközi és európai jogból, azok magyarázataiból és az európai joggyakorlatból kiolvasható válaszokat gyűjtjük össze, hogy rávilágítsunk a jogsértések okaira, és európai megoldásokat keressünk azok orvoslására. --- Liberty with limitations, a European guide to the rightful exercise of the freedom of expression In the digital age, in line with the opportunities of cyberspace and the increasing use of mobile communication the importance of freedom of expression, the so-called free speech and freedom of the press have become more salient. Not only because they carry new opportunities for the practice and the prevalence of freedom, but because new challenges emerge alongside new opportunities. Misleading and fake news, profile suspensions, deleted comments, defamation, hate speech and many other problems, can all stem from the violation of the freedom of opinion and expression. These violations of freedom carry dangers both at an individual and sociatal level, thus influencing the everyday life of democratic societies and their development. Therefore, the question becomes crucial: how can we fix these problems and provide the best solution to these challenges. In the following we will explore international and European law, their explanations and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in order to find European explanations behind the reasons for violations, as well as legal solutions for exercising freedom of expression. Keywords: freedom of expression, international and regional freedom of expression law, European case-law, 3rd party liability, public watchdogs, misleading and fake news, defamation, hate speech, copyright

scholarly journals Qual Liberdade de Imprensa? A Imprensa Concebida como um "Fórum Aberto" ou como um "Cão de Guarda Privilegiado"

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens Elo Rytter
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Open Forum ◽  
The Public ◽  
Media Regulation ◽  
The Press ◽  
Prior Restraint

QUAL LIBERDADE DE IMPRENSA? A IMPRENSA CONCEBIDA COMO UM “FÓRUM ABERTO” OU COMO UM “CÃO DE GUARDA PRIVILEGIADO” WHICH FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? THE PRESS CONCEIVED AS AN 'OPEN FORUM' OR A 'PRIVILEGED WATCHDOG'  RESUMO: O artigo examina o significado histórico e contemporâneo de “liberdade de imprensa” no direito constitucional e nos direitos humanos. Existem duas concepções diferentes, a concepção restrita define a liberdade de imprensa como a liberdade de cada um para publicar sem censura prévia, a concepção mais ampla define-a como uma liberdade privilegiada da imprensa organizada para reunir e informar sobre informações de interesse público. Essas duas concepções têm respostas muito diferentes para a questão de saber se a imprensa deve desfrutar de algum privilégio de isenção da legislação ordinária, quando tal legislação restringe o limite da imprensa para informar o público a respeito de questões de interesse público. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Liberdade de imprensa; Liberdade de expressão; Regulação da mídia; Privilégios da imprensa. ABSTRACT: The article surveys the historical and current meaning of "Freedom of the Press" in constitutional and human rights law. Two different conceptions exist, the narrow one defining freedom of the press as the freedom of every one to publish without prior restraint, the broader one defining it as a privileged freedom of the organised press to gather and report on information of public interest. These two conceptions have very different answers to the question of whether the press should enjoy some privilege to be exempt from ordinary legislation when such legislation restricts the access of the press to inform the public on matters of public interest. KEYWORDS: Freedom of the press; Freedom of expression; Media regulation; Press Privileges.

Nigerian crackdown on dissent will cause growing alarm

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Presidential Candidate ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Public Demonstrations ◽  
Federal Judge

Subject Nigerian dissent crackdown. Significance Nigerian journalist and former presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore was freed on bail on December 24, following a month in which he was released by a federal judge, rearrested by agents of the Department of State Services (DSS) in defiance of that order and finally released by order of the attorney-general. Sowore’s case highlights President Muhammadu Buhari’s increasing clampdown on dissent, with the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) preparing to give the executive branch new powers with a series of bills designed further to restrict freedom of expression. Impacts Public demonstrations against DSS impunity and government curbs on free speech will likely be met with force, despite official denials. The Trump administration’s cooperation with Nigeria will come under renewed scrutiny from Democrats and human rights organisations. Abuja may increasingly look to bolster its online surveillance capacity with the assistance of authoritarian states.

Media Regulation and Freedom of Expression in Black Africa

2019 ◽  
pp. 228-249
Author(s):  
Floribert Patrick C. Endong
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
The Political ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Political Pluralism ◽  
Black African ◽  
Media Regulation ◽  
Black Africa ◽  
The Press

Since the 1990s, Black African states have been subjected to endogenous and exogenous political pressures which have compelled them to variously adopt a number of pro-democracy reforms. Though lauded in a number of quarters, these sweeping political reforms have merely been on paper. This is so as, cardinal democracy indexes such as freedom of expression, press freedom, freedom of thought and political pluralism among others, have remained more a myth than a reality in these countries. Using a comparative analysis of the political situation in Cameroon and Nigeria, this chapter argues that press freedom and liberal democracy are still mere ideals, not yet backed by evidential political will in both countries. The same multifaceted abuses of the press still prevail in the two states. This chapter however, underscores the vibrancy and political maturity of the Nigerian press which differentiate it from its counterparts in other African countries, notably in Cameroon.

scholarly journals Freedom of Expression and Communicative Equality

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 35-50
Author(s):  
Renato Francisquini
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
Central Feature ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Negative Liberty ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Individual Self

This paper addresses the normative issue of free speech within the landscape of democratic societies where the mediated form of communication appears as a central feature. Contemporary discussions about free speech tend assimilate press freedom to a notion of freedom of expression as a negative liberty, so repudiating every single regulation to the mass media. In opposition to that line of thought, I argue that media freedom cannot be justified by analogy with negative liberty. The most convincing justification for the principle of freedom of expression relies on the idea of the fair value of communicative liberties, or the idea that society must assure fair opportunities for the exercise of communication. Following this account, I affirm that the institutions responsible for mediating the expressive acts should be structured in a way that contributes, at once, to individual self-determination and collective self-government.

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 Russia’s law ‘On news aggregators’: Control the news feed, control the news?

Journalism ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 146488492199091
Author(s):  
Mariëlle Wijermars
Keyword(s):  
Online News ◽  
Fake News ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Media Control ◽  
Media Regulation ◽  
News Websites ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Feed Control ◽  
Media Pluralism ◽  
The Law

On 1 January 2017, a Russian federal law (№ 208-FZ) came into force that holds news aggregators liable for spreading fake news. Links to news items that originate from registered media outlets – a state-regulated category – are, however, exempt from liability. As a result, news aggregators, such as Yandex News, have revised their algorithms to avoid legal claims. This article argues that the law has created a mechanism of indirect media control enabling the Russian state to influence online news dissemination through existing media regulation structures. It conceptualises five ways in which this mechanism can affect media pluralism in Russia’s online news environment, given news aggregators’ function as algorithmic gatekeepers directing traffic to news websites. The article argues that the law ‘On news aggregators’ exemplifies the diversification of Russian regulation of online news from controlling content and targeting content producers towards governing the algorithmic infrastructures that shape news dissemination.

Media Regulation and Freedom of Expression in Black Africa

2017 ◽  
pp. 281-302
Author(s):  
Floribert Patrick C. Endong
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
The Political ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Political Pluralism ◽  
Black African ◽  
Media Regulation ◽  
Black Africa ◽  
The Press

Since the 1990s, Black African states have been subjected to endogenous and exogenous political pressures which have compelled them to variously adopt a number of pro-democracy reforms. Though lauded in a number of quarters, these sweeping political reforms have merely been on paper. This is so as, cardinal democracy indexes such as freedom of expression, press freedom, freedom of thought and political pluralism among others, have remained more a myth than a reality in these countries. Using a comparative analysis of the political situation in Cameroon and Nigeria, this chapter argues that press freedom and liberal democracy are still mere ideals, not yet backed by evidential political will in both countries. The same multifaceted abuses of the press still prevail in the two states. This chapter however, underscores the vibrancy and political maturity of the Nigerian press which differentiate it from its counterparts in other African countries, notably in Cameroon.

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