Present-day Poland Media Landscape: Compliance with EU Regulations

2017 ◽  
pp. 116-127
Author(s):  
Oksana Zvozdetska
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Public Media ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The Press ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
The Government ◽  
Polish Government

The article gives an in-depth analysis of the modern Poland government policy in taking on public media and the European Union stance regarding these reforms. The author argues that Poland public media have been the subject of political disputes since the 90s of the last century. Noteworthy, in October 2015 the newly elected Polish government, namely, the ruling Law and Justice party (known by its Polish initials as PiS) announced its public media to radically reform. To be more precise, the government aimed at replacing the current public media with a national broadcaster that would promote national interests under closer government control. According to PiS elite, Polish public media is presently supervised by the National Media Council, an organization that consists of members elected by the president and the Lower House of the Polish parliament. This means that Poland’s public media is under direct control of the government. The reform of the public media has been part of PiS plans to re-orientate Polish society towards traditional values since the party came back to power. What is more, the heads of the ruling Law and Justice party consider that the present-day public media are the tools of propaganda of the ruling in 2007-2015 and currently the oppositional liberal party – the Civic Platform. The researcher notes that the Polish government launched a new parliamentary initiative as a result of legislative changes, and eventually, the government has returned to the state-known media-dependent government-owned model in the past. Furthermore, from the point of view of a democratic state, law and its main provisions, this reform stipulates the authorities and the mass media symbiosis. However, public media should guarantee freedom of speech, information and creative independence and the separation of public media from politics. Remarkably, in a country, where public media used to be a tool of the communist dictatorship until 1989, media and constitutional reforms pose threats to civil liberties. According to NGO ‘Freedom House’ research, freedom of the press suffers from oppression by the authorities, the government’s intolerance to independent or unbiased journalism, political influence on the media and restrictions on freedom of expression regarding Polish history and consciousness. Interestingly according to the latest studies done in 2017, Poland public media have become partially free for the first time since 1990. To conclude, in December 20, 2017 the European Parliament adopted the resolution, backing the European Commission decision, to initiate the sanctions imposition on Poland over judicial reform. Consequently, the European Commission triggered a procedure against undermining and shrinking of democracy, violation of human rights, freedom of speech, as well as pluralism and the formation of a dependent judicial system in Poland. Keywords: Republic of Poland, public media, freedom of the press, EU sanctions

SLOBODA ŠTAMPE PREMA VIDOVDANSKOM USTAVU

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ružica Kijevčanin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Relations ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Human Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Political Factors ◽  
Public Media ◽  
The Press ◽  
Political Right

In this paper, the author starts from the thesis that freedom of expression, which is best reflected in freedom of the press, as the central public media of the time, was a clear indicator of the level of development of the newly created Yugoslav society. The press in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was a clear example of existing social antagonisms. Although the Vidovdan Constitution paid attention to this fundamental human freedom, classifying it as a political right of citizens, the manner of its regulation and practical application indicated limitations, immaturity and unwillingness of society to face its own weaknesses, ie the weaknesses of the ruling establishment, but also all important political factors. According to the letter of the constitution, freedom of the press is guaranteed, but with restrictions. These restrictions, such as the possibility of introducing censorship in cases provided by law, clearly raised the question of whether the existence of freedom of expression could be discussed at all in this period. The enjoyment of freedom of the press was concretized by a later law which found a foothold in the Constitution. Historical facts most faithfully reflect the situation in this area, but also the importance of the issue, through reflection on everyday political, cultural, educational, economic and social relations. After 100 years, the violation of freedom of the press is referred to as a violation of media freedom, which means that restrictions and violations of the rules have not been eradicated, but only shaped into new terminology, ie a new appearance.

scholarly journals Freedom of the Press

Communication ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dwight Teeter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Electronic Media ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
The Press

Freedom of the press refers to the freedom to criticize government without suffering official interference or punishment, before or after publication. “Freedom of the press,” “freedom of speech,” and “freedom of expression” are terms often used together in the United States, with “the press” primarily connoting print and electronic media. This bibliography concentrates on freedom of the press as defined by some major American and English writers and in decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Because of the advent of electronic media and of the internet and of other “new media” or “social media” during the 20th and early 21st centuries, the term “freedom of the press” is used to cover mediated communication in general. The clearest indicator of press freedom is that opponents of government or of government leaders, laws, or policies can publish effective criticisms without suffering government retaliation in the form of fines, imprisonment, or even death. That definition does not include communications that may break laws of general applicability, such as the law of fraud, nor violation of a contract. It also does not cover extralegal controls such a communicator’s sense of the community’s range of permissible expression, or public pressures (including mob action) against the press in times of crisis. The legal definition of “freedom of the press” in the United States begins with the forty-five words of the First Amendment to the Constitution, adopted 15 December 1791: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The absolute words of prohibition against congressional statutes tampering with speech or press freedom were, however, overridden early in the nation’s history by Congress in 1798, just seven years after the adoption of the First Amendment. Congress then passed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which, among other things, made it a crime to criticize the federal government or government leaders. These short-lived enactments, which fueled bitter partisan controversy in the new nation, are discussed in the Historical Context section. Freedom of the press is not static: it rises in times of peace and diminishes in times of war or national crisis, when most needed by society.

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.

scholarly journals The right to know and freedom of expression in the Arab world in the Digital Age

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
Iman Mohamed Zahra ◽  
Hosni Mohamed Nasr
Keyword(s):  
New Media ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Arab World ◽  
Digital Age ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Arab States ◽  
The Right

'The right to know' represents a fundamental and vital human right. Progress and development of nations fully require information freedom and knowledge sharing. Using a qualitative analysis of a sample of information and press laws in most of Arab states, this paper aims at discussing 'the right to know' from different perspectives while highlighting the surrounding aspects and their consequences on the right of freedom of expression in those states. The paper also tends to clarify the effects of new media on the vision and practices of governments regarding 'the right to know' and the freedom of the press in the digital age. Moreover, the paper analyzes the different types of censorship the Arab states use to control the new media. Findings shed light on different aspect of 'the right to know' within the different challenges of the digital age and clarify the strong bondage of this right with the other human rights, especially freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

The Dominant American View of Freedoms of Press and Speech, in the Decade Leading Up to Ratification of the Federal Bill of Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 303-336
Author(s):  
Wendell Bird
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Source Material ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Original Source ◽  
Narrow View ◽  
The Press ◽  
Freedom Of Press ◽  
The World

In the 1780s in America, the advocates of broad understandings of freedom of press and freedom of speech continued to argue, as “Junius Wilkes” did in 1782, that “[i]f a printer is liable to prosecution and restraint, for publishing pieces on public measures, conceived libellous, the liberty of the press is annihilated and ruined. . . . The danger is precisely the same to liberty, in punishing a person after the performance appears to the world, as in preventing its publication in the first instance. The doctrine of libels, is of pernicious consequence to the freedom of the press.” Many other essays in the 1780s showed the dominance of an expansive understanding of freedoms of press and speech, as did the declarations of rights of nine states. That was the context in which the First Amendment was adopted and ratified in 1789–1791. These conclusions about the prevalent and dominant understanding after the mid-1760s are flatly contrary to the narrow view of freedoms of press and speech stated by Blackstone and Mansfield, and restated by the neo-Blackstonians, who claim that the narrow understanding was not only predominant but exclusive through the ratification of the First Amendment and onward until 1798. This book’s conclusions are based on far more original source material than the neo-Blackstonians’ conclusions.

Illiberals and Autocrats Unite to Craft a New World Media Order

2019 ◽  
Vol 02 (04) ◽  
pp. 1950024
Author(s):  
James M. Dorsey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
New World ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
New World Order ◽  
Fourth Estate ◽  
World Government ◽  
The Press

Underlying global efforts to counter fake news, psychological warfare and manipulation of public opinion is a far more fundamental battle: the global campaign by civilizationalists, illiberals, autocrats and authoritarians to create a new world media order that would reject freedom of the press and reduce the fourth estate to scribes and propaganda outlets. The effort appears to have no limits. Its methods range from seeking to reshape international standards defining freedom of expression and the media; the launch and/or strengthening of government-controlled global, regional, national and local media in markets around the world; government acquisition of stakes in privately-owned media; advertising in independent media dependent on advertising revenue; funding of think-tanks; demonization; coercion; repression; and even assassination. The effort to create a new media world order is closely linked to attempts to a battle between liberals and non-liberals over concepts of human rights, the roll-out of massive Chinese surveillance systems in China and beyond and a contest between the United States and China for dominance of the future of technology. The stakes in these multiple battles could not be higher. They range from basic human and minority rights to issues of transparency, accountability and privacy, human rights, the role of the fourth estate as an independent check on power, freedom of expression and safeguards for human and physical dignity. The battles are being waged in an environment in which a critical mass of world leaders appears to have an unspoken consensus on the principles of governance that should shape a new world order. Men like Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Victor Orbán, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mohammed bin Salman, Mohammed bin Zayed, Narendra Modi, Rodrigo Duterte, Jair Bolsonaro, Win Myint and Donald J. Trump have all to varying degrees diluted the concepts of human rights and undermined freedom of the press. If anything, it is this tacit understanding among the world’s foremost leaders that in shaping a new world order constitutes the greatest threat to liberal values.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document