Brazil: challenges for freedom of speech online

Escola de Direito de São Paulo da Fundação Getulio Vargas

Design of an Advanced Platform for Citizen Participation Committed to Ensuring Freedom of Speech

This paper presents a proposal for an advanced system of debate in an environment of digital democracy which overcomes the limitations of existing systems. We have been especially careful in applying security procedures in telematic systems, for they are to offer citizens the guarantees that society demands. New functional tools have been included to ensure user authentication and to permit anonymous participation where the system is unable to disclose or even to know the identity of system users. The platform prevents participation by non-entitled persons who do not belong to the authorized group from giving their opinion. Furthermore, this proposal allows for verifying the proper function of the system, free of tampering or fraud intended to alter the conclusions or outcomes of participation. All these tools guarantee important aspects of both a social and technical nature, most importantly: freedom of expression, equality and auditability.

The press and freedom of speech in Ukraine ahead of parliamentary elections. OSW Commentary No. 90, 2012-09-20

The independence of the mass media has been regularly restricted over the past two years in Ukraine. Following a period of relative freedom in 2005–2010, the scope of direct and indirect government control of the press has increased, cancelling out the achievements of the Orange Revolution in this area. The press in Ukraine is less and less able to perform its role as watchdog on the government and politicians and as a reliable source of information on the situation in the country to the public. This is mainly due to: (1) the concentration of the most important mass media in the hands of Ukraine’s most powerful oligarchs, whose business interests depend on the government; (2) the use of the press as instruments in political and business competition; (3) the ruling class’s subordination of the institutions which supervise the press; (4) repression used against media critical of the government and (5) the lack of an independent public broadcasting corporation. As a consequence, the press has hardly any impact on the political processes taking place ahead of the parliamentary election scheduled for 28 October. This is also an effect of a passiveness present in the Ukrainian public, who are tired of politics and are focused on social issues. Cases of abuse or corruption scandals revealed by the press do not provoke any response from the public and are rarely investigated by the public prosecution authorities. The more popular a given medium is, the more strongly it is controlled by the government. At present, television has to be recognised as the least reliable of the mass media. In turn, Internet news journals are characterised by the greatest pluralism but also have more limited accessibility. The political conditions in which the mass media operate in Ukraine lead to various forms of pathology. The most serious of them are censorship by the owners and self-censorship performed by journalists, and a great share of political advertorials. As the parliamentary election is approaching, the pathologies of the Ukrainian media market have been showing up with greater intensity.

Thirty-five years with freedom of speech.

"Presented as a lecture ... on March 12, 1952, at Columbia University."

Freedom of speech /

Includes index.

Speech of John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, upon the right of the people, men and women, to petition; on the freedom of speech and debate in the House of representatives of the United States; on the resolutions of seven state legislatures, and the petitions of more than one hundred thousand petitioners, relating to the annexation of Texas to this Union. Delivered in the House of representatives of the United States, in fragments of the morning hour, from the 16th of June to the 7th of July 1838, inclusive.

Mode of access: Internet.

The Right to Freedom of Information in Inida

This thesis entitled “The right to freedom of information in india”.In a democracy, the citizens being the persons to choose their own governors, the right to know from the Government is a pre-condition for a properly evaluated election. Freedom of speech and expression, one of the repositories of self~government, forms the basis for the right to know in a wider scale. The functions which the free speech rights serve in a society also emphasize the need for more openness in the functioning of a democracy.Maintanance of law and order and investigation of crimes are highly important in a country like India, where no risk may be taken on account of the public‘s right to know. The Indian situations relating terrorist activities, riots based on language, region, religion and caste are important in this respect. The right to know of the citizens may be regulated in the interests of secrecy required in these areas.On the basis of the conclusions reached in this study, a draft Bill has been proposed for the passing of an Access to Public Documents Act. This Bill is appended to this Thesis.

“Right to Privacy and Freedom of Press - Conflicts and Challenges”

India is a signatory to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political 1966, the two major International instruments, building the foundations of the major democracies and the constitutions of the world. Both these instruments give an independent and upper position to right to privacy compared to right to freedom of speech and expression. The freedom of press finds its place under this right to freedom of speech and expression. Both these rights are the two opposite faces of the same coin. Therefore, without the right of privacy finding an equal place in Indian law compared to right to freedom of speech and expression, the working of democracy would be severely handicapped and violations against citizens rights will be on the rise It was this problem in law and need to bring a balance between these two conflicting rights that induced me to undertake this venture. This heavy burden to bring in a mechanism to balance these two rights culminated in me to undertake this thesis titled “Right to Privacy and Freedom of Press – Conflicts and Challenges

Freedom of thought in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks

Peer reviewed

Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech

This is a study of free speech and hate speech with reference to the international standards and to the United States jurisprudence. The study, in a comparative and critical fashion, depicts the historical evolution and the application of the concept of ‘free speech,’ within the context of ‘hate speech.’ The main question of this article is how free speech can be discerned from hate speech, and whether the latter should be restricted. To this end, it examines the regulation of free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and in light of the international standards, particularly under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The study not only illustrates how elusive the endeavour of striking a balance between free speech and other vital interests could be, but also discusses whether and how hate speech should be eliminated within the ‘marketplace of ideas.’

The Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Freedom of Expression and Public Morality Cases

This paper discusses whether or not Strasbourg organs have created principled criteria governing the use of the doctrine within the context of free speech and public morals. The first part of the paper gives an overview of the doctrine and further examines how the doctrine has evolved within the European context. Part II focuses on the rationale behind the doctrine and discusses the legitimacy of the doctrine in light of its application to various forms of free speech. Part III covers one of the most problematic applications of the doctrine in matters concerning public morality, where Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation. This part will discuss whether or not the “lack of European consensus” criterion is an elusive concept that might create a risk of abuse in the application of the doctrine. The paper concludes that while margin of appreciation today serves as a flexible instrument between the local necessities and the universal application of human rights, the imprecise and contradictory points might lead to its potential abuse that might endanger its future existence.

After Charlie: free speech and the political economy of communication

Three significant events at the start of 2015 have put freedom of speech firmly on the global agenda. The first was the carry-over from the December 2014 illegal entry to the Sony Corporation’s file servers by anonymous hackers, believed to be linked to the North Korean regime. The second was the horrible attack on journalists, editors, and cartoonists at the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo on 7 January. The third was the election of leftwing anti-austerity party Syrzia in Greece on 25 January.While each event is different in scope and size, they are important to scholars of the political economy of communication because they all speak to ongoing debates about freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I name each of these concepts separately because, despite popular confusion, they are not the same thing (Patching and Hirst, 2014) . Freedom of expression is the right to individual self-expression through any means; it is an inalienable human right. Freedom of speech refers to the right (and the physical ability) to utter political speech, to say what others wish to repress and to demand a voice with which to express a range of social and political thoughts. Freedom of the press is a very particular version of freedom of expression that is intimately bound with the political economy of speech and of the printing press. Freedom of the press is impossible without the press and, despite its theoretical availability to all of us, this principle is impossible to articulate without the material means (usually money) to actually deploy a printing press (or the electronic means of broadcasting and publishing).Freedom of expression is immutable; freedom of speech subject to legal, ethical and ideological restriction (for better, or worse) and freedom of the press is peculiar to bourgeois society in that it entails the freedom to own and operate a press, not the right to say or publish on a level playing field. Access to freedom of the press is determined in the marketplace and is subject to the unequal power relationships that such determination implies.It is fitting to start with the Charlie Hebdo massacre because the loss of 17 lives makes this the most chilling of the three events and demands that it be given prominence in any analysis. No lives have been lost yet because Sony’s computers were hacked and the election of Syriza has not (yet) led to mass deaths in Greece.