freedom of speech

  • Agenda–setting versus Freedom of Speech

    Author: Łukasz Wojtkowski
    Institution: Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (Poland)
    Year of publication: 2010
    Source: Show
    Pages: 241-252
    DOI Address: http://dx.doi.org/10.15804/ppsy2010013
    PDF: ppsy/39/ppsy2010013.pdf

    The most important issue of this paper is contained mostly, though vaguely, in the title. What is agenda-setting and how it is related with freedom of speech domain? In further part I will try to present those, theoretically distant problems. I will also try to present how political and business organizations can affect on daily agenda, so in fact how thy can create access to free speech. There are some situations in mass media world, when those practices can be considered as internal or external censorship. In this paper I specific cases, all selected from American political and media systems. I think that US system is full of contradictions, from law confl icts (state vs federal law, First Amendment), owners of mass media competition (corporations, FCC) and finally state controlled media on the contrary to free speech (censorship).

  • What American people can tell – freedom of speech in United States

    Author: Anna Dziduszko–Rościszewska
    Year of publication: 2010
    Source: Show
    Pages: 253-272
    DOI Address: http://dx.doi.org/10.15804/ppsy2010014
    PDF: ppsy/39/ppsy2010014.pdf

    Freedom of possessing and expressing own ideas and opinions and their dissemination is one of the fundamental rights, that entitled to each person. In addition to this, the freedom enables searching and getting information. Thanks to it, the right to express your own identity, selfrealization and aspiring to truth are guaranteed. It is one of the basic premise and the necessary condition to realize the idea of democracy. In the United States, the cradle of civil rights and modern democracy, the freedom of expression is guaranteed in the First Amendment to American Constitution (Bill of Rights), enacted in 1789 (came into force in 1791). On its virtue, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of (…) the freedom of speech, or of the press (…).” Although the record suggested that this freedom is absolute, (not restricted of any legislation), the later jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court (by case law) isolated categories of utterances that have not been contained by the First Amendment. ! e essential issues are answers on the following questions: in the name of what values Congress can limit the First Amendment? And where is the border of freedom of speech? One of the expressions that are not protected by the law is fi ghting words and hate words. The second are libel and slanders that are understood as a infringement of somebody’s rights.

  • Freedom of Speech in Europe and in the United States of America. A Few Remarks on the History of the Idea and its New Challenges

    Author: Wiesław Wacławczyk
    Institution: Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (Poland)
    Year of publication: 2006
    Source: Show
    Pages: 7-15
    DOI Address: http://dx.doi.org/10.15804/ppsy2006001
    PDF: ppsy/35/ppsy2006001.pdf

    One can hardly overestimate the meaning of freedom of speech in the European tradition. It dates back to the times of the ancient Greece, although it was only John Milton who wrote the first tract devoted to the subject in question. In his Areopagitica (1644), Milton skillfully defended the principle of a free flow of ideas by stressing out that an open and undisturbed clash of various information and opinions is a condition of discovering truth in life. The best-known and most frequently quoted fragment of Areopagitica reads: “And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the ! eld, we do injuriously, by licencing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the wors, in a free and open encounter. Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing”.

  • Wolność mediów w reżimach politycznych. Przypadek Tajlandii

    Author: Martyna Pietruszka
    Institution: Uniwersytet Warszawski
    Year of publication: 2016
    Source: Show
    Pages: 71-87
    DOI Address: -
    PDF: kim/2016_1/kim2016106.pdf

    Freedom of Press in Political Regimes: the Case of Thailand
    Abstract: Article updates the research on the development of media in political regimes. Freedom of the media, one of the basic civil liberties, is understood to belong to everyone, without restrictions on the right to freedom of expression (ie. The freedom of speech), the right to appoint media operators and the right to be informed. Applicable in Thailand limit media freedom in part are located in the directory of commonly accepted in democratic regimes. Thus, for example, restrict freedom of speech similar arrangements for the good of the legal, ie. Dobrom common law, such as public safety, legal order and security of the state and the individual’s personal property occurring, their interpretation and strict enforcement go far beyond the practice of democratic regimes. There is present therein in Thailand closure and suspension of the operation of media entities without a court order, to influence the structure of the business media, widespread censorship, criminalization of defamation, and especially imposing draconian penalties for committing this crime. The aim of this article is to determine the scope of the effect of restricting media freedom in the Thai media market.

  • Freedom of Speech in the Federal Constitution of Brazil and the Problem of its Collision with other Fundamental Rights, particularly personality rights

    Author: Ilton Robl Filho
    Institution: Federal University of Paraná
    Author: Ingo Wolfgang Sarlet
    Institution: Federal University of Paraná
    Year of publication: 2016
    Source: Show
    Pages: 133-163
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2016.06.07
    PDF: ppk/34/ppk3407.pdf

    The fundamental right to freedom of speech is a central element of the rule of law in a democratic state that constantly collides with other fundamental rights. Both in court decisions and in legal literature there is a significant discussion on the limits of the freedom of speech, mainly concerning its collision with other fundamental rights, particularly personality rights. This debate has become very strong in Brazilian constitutional case law, mainly in the Federal Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal), but also in other constitutional systems and even in the domain of international law. Based on the decisions of the Brazilian Supreme Court and those of the US Supreme Court and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, this paper aims to discuss some criteria that may guide Courts when balancing freedom of speech and other fundamental rights.

  • Symbolic Speech and the First Amendment - A Proposal of Adjudicative Model

    Author: Łukasz Machaj
    Institution: University of Wrocław
    ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7247-0138
    Year of publication: 2021
    Source: Show
    Pages: 91-105
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2021.06.07
    PDF: ppk/64/ppk6407.pdf

    The First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution prohibits any abridgment of the freedom of speech. According to the consistent line of the Supreme Court’s precedents, dating from 1931, the term “speech” encompasses non-verbal expressive conduct. Granting such symbolic speech constitutional protection can be justified with phenomenological, axiological, and historical arguments. Nevertheless, the constitutional jurisprudence regarding symbolic speech has so far been a little inconsistent and haphazard. The article proposes an adjudicative model that could be applied to all symbolic speech cases, bringing greater coherence and predictability to judicial decisions in this area. The suggested procedure comprises five basic steps: preliminary analysis (assessing basic features of the law in question independent of any First Amendment-specific enquiries), application of the “Spence test”, application of the doctrine of a categorical exclusion, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny.

  • On-line Anonymity Versus Access to Private Data as the Constitutional Right

    Author: Katarzyna Chałubińska-Jentkiewicz
    Institution: War Studies University in Warsaw
    ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0188-5704
    Year of publication: 2021
    Source: Show
    Pages: 479-489
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2021.06.38
    PDF: ppk/64/ppk6438.pdf

    Cyberspace seems to be ubiquitous. It coexists with the real world and it constitutes its coded zero-one reflection. However, it deprives us of privacy, our constitutional right. Even more, the modern technology allows our fingerprint to be traced forever. Problems with maintaining online privacy in the face of the phenomenon of identity theft for criminal purposes, or the use of our data for property purposes in the broadly understood internet marketing.

  • The Category of Truth in the Constitutions of Modern States

    Author: Grzegorz Maroń
    Institution: University of Rzeszów
    ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3861-9103
    Year of publication: 2022
    Source: Show
    Pages: 237-251
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2022.02.18
    PDF: ppk/66/ppk6618.pdf

    The subject of the article is references to the truth in the constitutions of modern states. The comparative study shows multiplicity of contexts in which the category of truth is mentioned in several dozen fundamental laws. The mention of truth in the constitutions as a component of the axiology of the legal and social order, the basis of transitional justice or the principle of court and administrative proceedings should be assessed positively. However, making the truth a limit of freedom of speech raises serious reservations. Granting constitutional protection only to truthful statements can stifle the public debate on socially prominent issues. The conducted analysis does not confirm the thesis of political liberalism that the truth is irrelevant for law and politics.

Message to:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart