Liberal Democracy Law And The Citizen Speaker

This book delivers an original, theoretically informed analysis of the legal regulation of online speech. Rejecting the narrow pluralism of elitist and deliberative accounts of the citizen's role in political discourse, the book defends a participatory account of speech in non-deliberative settings. The latter account of political pluralism best captures the republican democratic aspiration for popular, on-going authorship of the laws and the centrality of freedom to dissent in democratic theory. The legal and policy implications for governments and social media platforms of this inclusive envisioning of public discourse are then elaborated upon. In the digital world, anyone with access to the internet can be a speaker. Speech on public platforms has become democratised. At the same time, aspects of online speech are plainly problematic. Concerns exist about disinformation, 'fake news', 'deep fakes', 'weaponised speech' and 'trolls'. Offensive speech and the polarising effects of robustly expressed political opinion are also troublesome. These assorted downsides of democratised speech are said to undermine the integrity of democratic processes and institutions. Public debate is distorted and coarsened and the electorate are misled. How ought the liberal democratic state respond to these challenges? The discussion is intended to be read by academics and researchers with interests in democratic theory, digital communications and freedom of expression. It offers a stimulating and distinctive contribution to debates about online speech.

This book delivers an original, theoretically informed analysis of the legal regulation of online speech. Rejecting the narrow pluralism of elitist and deliberative accounts of the citizen's role in political discourse, the book defends a participatory account of speech in non-deliberative settings. The latter account of political pluralism best captures the republican democratic aspiration for popular, on-going authorship of the laws and the centrality of freedom to dissent in democratic theory. The legal and policy implications for governments and social media platforms of this inclusive envisioning of public discourse are then elaborated upon. In the digital world, anyone with access to the internet can be a speaker. Speech on public platforms has become democratised. At the same time, aspects of online speech are plainly problematic. Concerns exist about disinformation, 'fake news', 'deep fakes', 'weaponised speech' and 'trolls'. Offensive speech and the polarising effects of robustly expressed political opinion are also troublesome. These assorted downsides of democratised speech are said to undermine the integrity of democratic processes and institutions. Public debate is distorted and coarsened and the electorate are misled. How ought the liberal democratic state respond to these challenges? The discussion is intended to be read by academics and researchers with interests in democratic theory, digital communications and freedom of expression. It offers a stimulating and distinctive contribution to debates about online speech.

The main objectives of media regulation in Europe are to protect media freedom, to ensure the social responsibility of the media, and to prevent harm caused by speech published through the media. This book examines the way in which these are reflected in European legal regimes and jurisprudence at the supranational, regional, and national levels. It addresses the theoretical considerations behind the protection and restriction of media freedom. It starts from the assumption that there is a common European ideal of media freedom as a human right. Apart from EU law, and in many cases similar national regulations, many common points can be identified across Europe in the theoretical underpinnings of this right, and the history of struggles for this freedom in different European countries also shows common features. While the focus is on media freedom in Europe, the work also discusses the uniquely distinct concept of freedom of expression and of the media that is prevalent in the US, the principles of which have a significant impact in Europe. The book uses a comparative method, in part, as it attempts to outline the common regulatory framework for the idea of media freedom on a European scale. The reference to national laws and court decisions is intended to illustrate this picture, looking primarily at what binds European states together. The work will be a valuable resource for those working in the areas of public law, media law, media studies, comparative law, international human rights law, and legal philosophy.

Most modern democracies punish hate speech. Less freedom for some, they claim, guarantees greater freedom for others. Heinze rejects that approach, arguing that democracies have better ways of combatting violence and discrimination against vulnerable groups without having to censor speakers. Critiquing dominant free speech theories, Heinze explains that free expression must be safeguarded not just as an individual right, but as an essential attribute of democratic citizenship. The book challenges contemporary state regulation of public discourse by promoting a stronger theory of what democracy is and what it demands. Examining US, European, and international approaches, Heinze offers a new vision of free speech within Western democracies.

Citizenship has long been a central topic among educators, philosophers, and political theorists. Using the phrase “rhetorical citizenship” as a unifying perspective, Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation aims to develop an understanding of citizenship as a discursive phenomenon, arguing that discourse is not prefatory to real action but in many ways constitutive of civic engagement. To accomplish this, the book brings together, in a cross-disciplinary effort, contributions by scholars in fields that rarely intersect. For the most part, discussions of citizenship have focused on aspects that are central to the “liberal” tradition of social thought—that is, questions of the freedoms and rights of citizens and groups. This collection gives voice to a “republican” conception of citizenship. Seeing participation and debate as central to being a citizen, this tradition looks back to the Greek city-states and republican Rome. Citizenship, in this sense of the word, is rhetorical citizenship. Rhetoric is thus at the core of being a citizen. Aside from the editors, the contributors are John Adams, Paula Cossart, Jonas Gabrielsen, Jette Barnholdt Hansen, Kasper Møller Hansen, Sine Nørholm Just, Ildikó Kaposi, William Keith, Bart van Klink, Marie Lund Klujeff, Manfred Kraus, Oliver W. Lembcke, Berit von der Lippe, James McDonald, Niels Møller Nielsen, Tatiana Tatarchevskiy, Italo Testa, Georgia Warnke, Kristian Wedberg, and Stephen West.

Readership: This book would be suitable for students, academics and scholars of law, philosophy, politics, international relations and economics

Freedom in the World is the standard-setting comparative assessment of global political rights and civil liberties. The methodology of this survey is derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and these standards are applied to all countries and territories.

How free is the speech of someone who can't be heard? Not very--and this, Owen Fiss suggests, is where the First Amendment comes in. In this book, a marvel of conciseness and eloquence, Fiss reframes the debate over free speech to reflect the First Amendment's role in ensuring public debate that is, in Justice William Brennan's words, truly uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. Hate speech, pornography, campaign spending, funding for the arts: the heated, often overheated, struggle over these issues generally pits liberty, as embodied in the First Amendment, against equality, as in the Fourteenth. Fiss presents a democratic view of the First Amendment that transcends this opposition. If equal participation is a precondition of free and open public debate, then the First Amendment encompasses the values of both equality and liberty. By examining the silencing effects of speech--its power to overwhelm and intimidate the underfunded, underrepresented, or disadvantaged voice--Fiss shows how restrictions on political expenditures, hate speech, and pornography can be defended in terms of the First Amendment, not despite it. Similarly, when the state requires the media to air voices of opposition, or funds art that presents controversial or challenging points of view, it is doing its constitutional part to protect democratic self-rule from the aggregations of private power that threaten it. Where most liberal accounts cast the state as the enemy of freedom and the First Amendment as a restraint, this one reminds us that the state can also be the friend of freedom, protecting and fostering speech that might otherwise die unheard, depriving our democracy of the full range and richness of its expression.