- User contributions [en]

Freedom of Religion/Polling

2024-08-01T20:40:39Z

Norapek: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Religion |section=Culture and Politics |question=Polling |questionHeading=Does public polling reveal insights about the right as experienced in different countries? |pageLevel=Question |contents=While the degree to which people are allowed to express themselves religiously varies in different countries, the importance that religion has in people’s lives also varies grately. Over half the people in countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina,..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=Culture and Politics
|question=Polling
|questionHeading=Does public polling reveal insights about the right as experienced in different countries?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=While the degree to which people are allowed to express themselves religiously varies in different countries, the importance that religion has in people’s lives also varies grately. Over half the people in countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, and Romania say that religion is very important in their lives. However, in countries like the Baltics, Scandinavia, and Western Europe, fewer than 1 in 5 people say that religion is important to them (How Religious Commitment Varies by Country Among People of all Ages).
Many people have different ways in which they express themselves religiously. A survey done by the Pew Research Center found that in Europe, “about four-in-ten adults in the average country surveyed say that they attend religious services at least weekly.” They go on to say that “Buddhists and Hindus do not observe weekly holy days, and weekly communal worship services are not necessarily a part of their religious traditions” and that “countries in sub-Saharan Africa with predominantly Christian or Muslim populations tend to have the world’s highest levels of regular worship attendance; in the average country in that region, 79% of adults say they attend services weekly.” Daily prayer is one way that people express themselves religiously: “fully 96% of Afghans and 87% of Iranians report praying daily, reflecting a global pattern of high levels of prayer in Muslim-majority countries” (How Religious Commitment Varies by Country Among People of all Ages). This relates to freedom of religion because people are able to choose the way they want to express themselcces in this manner. For example, some people may choose to attend religious services, while others don’t practice religion in that manner.
In a 2009 Gallup Survey, 65% of Americans said that religion was an important part of their daily lives. This is a significant contrast from other countries, with Spain being 49%, Canada at 42%, France at 30%, the United Kingdom at 27%, and Sweden at 17% (Religion in the United States).
Among Americans, their choice to identify with religion varies greatly. 29% of Americans think that they’re a part of a minority group because of their religious beliefs and 70.6% of Americans affiliate with Christianity (Religion’s Role in Public Life). While some people may feel they’re a part of a minority group, the United States is less restrictive in regards to people’s ability to practice their religion than other countries. According to the Pew Research Center, “government restrictions on religion in the U.S. are nowhere near as extensive as those of countries such as China, Iran and Burma. Likewise, the U.S. has much lower levels of social hostilities to religion than countries like India, Pakistan and Nigeria” (Henne, 2015). One example of the religious restrictions in China is that “Christians are allowed to worship in ‘official churches’ registered with supervisory government agencies responsible for Protestantism and Catholicism” (10 Things to Know about China’s Policies on Religion).

“3. How Religious Commitment Varies by Country among People of All Ages.” 2018. Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. June 13, 2018. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/06/13/how-religious-commitment-varies-by-country-among-people-of-all-ages/.

“Religion in the United States.” Pressbooks.howardcc.edu, April https://pressbooks.howardcc.edu/soci101/chapter/17-5-religion-in-the-united-states/.

‌Center, Pew Research. 2024. “1. Religion’s Role in Public Life.” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. March 15, 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2024/03/15/religions-role-in-public-life/.

‌Henne, Peter. n.d. “How the U.S. Compares with the Rest of the World on Religious Restrictions.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/03/25/how-the-u-s-compares-with-the-rest-of-the-world-on-religious-restrictions/.

‌Pew Research Center. 2023. “10 Things to Know about China’s Policies on Religion.” Pew Research Center. October 23, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/23/10-things-to-know-about-chinas-policies-on-religion/.
}}

Freedom of the Press/Threatening to government

2024-07-31T21:27:52Z

Norapek:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of the Press
|section=Limitations - Restrictions
|question=Threatening to government
|questionHeading=Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=An example of why freedom of the press may appear threatening to those in power is because of the speed at which information moves, and the way it can shape critical events, like elections. Oftentimes it may seem like the news outlets have a bias, for example, “cable organizations are labeled as liberal or conservative instead of just news. Information flows on social media and Internet sites at lightning-fast speed with no way to verify accuracy” (Wermiel, 2019).
In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act which allowed for people to be prosecuted when they “brought the president of the government into disrepute and ridicule” (Wermiel, 2019). So, freedom of the press can also appear to be threatening because it allows people to voice their concerns about the decisions of the US government. However, government officials may pass laws to ensure this doesn’t happen. This act was created because President Wilson and Congress wanted to eliminate people speaking out about their opposition to the involvement of the United States in the war (This Day in History).
Freedom of the press may be perceived as threatening to government authorities when the media is able to uncover the wrongdoings or abuse of the government because it could prevent citizens from fully trusting the government in its ability to do things in the best interest of its citizens. For example, “Watergate” is “synonymous with political crime and corruption” (Watergate). President Nixon was not a big fan of freedom of the press; according to William Robinson, who worked for the New York Herald Tribune, he believed that it was a “handy refuge for subtle as well as overt character assassination” (Farell, 2014).
However, even if some people in government positions may view freedom of the press as threatening, the Supreme Court has upheld the press’ right to report on anything they deem important. For example, in the Supreme Court case New York Times Company v Sullivan, the “actual malice” test was created, which requires that a public figure demonstrates that someone knew the information they were reporting was false, but proceeded to use it anyway (Oyez). So, while news outlets can post whatever they want, they run the risk of being sued for libel (the publication of false information).
In order to cover up anything that government authorities may not want known, they have “made explicit attempts to silence critical media voices and strengthen outlets that serve up favorable coverage” (Repucci, 2019). It may appear that some government officials want to be seen in a positive light, and they could attempt to remove any media that depicts them in a way that’s different from that.

Wermiel, Stephen. 2019. “Freedom of the Press: Challenges to This Pillar of Democracy.” www.americanbar.org. March 26, 2019.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-19/insights-vol-19-issue-2/freedom-of-the-press/.

‌History.com Editors. 2019. “U.S. Congress Passes Sedition Act.” HISTORY. July 29, 2019. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-congress-passes-sedition-act.

‌FBI. “Watergate.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/watergate.

‌Farrell, John Aloysius. 2014. “When Nixon Met the Press.” POLITICO Magazine. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/nixon-and-the-media-109773/.

‌Oyez. 2018. “New York Times Company v. Sullivan.” Oyez. 2018. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39.

‌Repucci, Sarah. 2019. “Media Freedom: A Downward Spiral.” Freedomhouse.org. Freedom House. 2019. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Modern Capitalism

2024-07-31T21:10:23Z

Norapek:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Tradition contributions
|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
|breakout=Modern Capitalism
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=At first glance, the idea of freedom of religion seems tangential to modern capitalist philosophy. They are of course intuitively compatible, since under a system of free enterprise there is no reason why one shouldn’t have freedom of faith as well. Undoubtedly, capitalism became closely linked to freedom of religion in the political discourse of the Cold War, to draw a contrast with the suppression of religion under communism. Nevertheless, capitalism is fundamentally an economic philosophy, and most arguments for it are in economic terms, with a positive argument for freedom of religion apparently regarded as not essential to a capitalist value system. As Ludwig von Mises wrote, “one does not refute socialism by attacking the socialist stand on religion, marriage, birth control, and art” (von Mises 1990, 16).

That said, even if freedom of religion is not absolutely necessary to the capitalist model, leading capitalist philosophers have interacted with it in unique ways, ultimately showing that freedom of religion can be defended in terms of the free market. Precursors to this connection can be found even before modern capitalism had fully developed, as when Voltaire described how commerce fosters religious tolerance in his famous commentaries on English society: “Take a view of the Royal Exchange in London, a place more venerable than many courts of justice, where the representatives of all nations meet for the benefit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian transact together, as though they all professed the same religion, and give the name of infidel to none but bankrupts. There the Presbyterian confides in the Anabaptist, and the Churchman depends on the Quaker’s word” (National Constitution Center 2023).

Milton Friedman, the preeminent modern philosopher of capitalism, would build on this idea by discussing how the underlying principles of capitalism naturally work to promote respect for freedom of religion. In his book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman specifically highlighted the principles of free association and private enterprise, emphasizing that they have relevance to society in realms other than the economic: “By relying primarily on voluntary cooperation and private enterprise, in both economic and other activities, we can insure that the private sector is a check on the powers of the governmental sector and an effective protection of freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought” (Friedman 2002, 3). Elsewhere in his book, Friedman pointed to the importance of competition: “[T]he preserves of discrimination in any society are the areas that are most monopolistic in character, whereas discrimination against groups of particular color or religion is least in those areas where there is the greatest freedom of competition” (Friedman 2002, 109).

For Friedrich Hayek, the capitalist system was crucial in enabling free exchange of ideas that are in demand by the public, just as it enables the free exchange of goods and services. To Hayek, capitalism (in a broader sociopolitical sense rather than strictly in an economic sense) facilitates freedom, of which freedom of religion is necessarily a part. As he wrote in The Constitution of Liberty, “the man of independent means is an even more important figure in a free society when he is not occupied with using his capital in the pursuit of material gain but uses it in the service of aims which bring no material return” (Hayek 1960, 125). Among these aims are “the propagation of new ideas in politics, morals, and religion” (Hayek 1960, 125). Hayek subsequently emphasizes how the principle of competition necessitates religious pluralism, analogously to John Stuart Mill’s marketplace of ideas: “[T]here should be no monopoly here but as many independent centers as possible able to satisfy such [spiritual] needs… representatives of all divergent views and tastes should be in a position to support with their means and their energy ideals which are not yet shared by the majority” (Hayek 1960, 125). That said, Hayek noted that freedom of religion, like any freedom, cannot be absolute: “Since there is no kind of action that may not interfere with another person's protected sphere, neither speech, nor the press, nor the exercise of religion can be completely free. … Freedom does mean and can mean only that what we may do is not dependent on the approval of any person or authority and is limited only by the same abstract rules that apply equally to all” (Hayek 1960, 155). Even so, Hayek evidently did not regard such limitations as so significant as to curtail freedom of religion; they did not represent a conflict between freedom of religion and the capitalist model.

Other philosophers, however, were not so accepting of the role of religion in the capitalist system. Von Mises did, in some parts of his work, express a view similar to Friedman and Hayek, as when he wrote, “the freedom that the market economy grants to the individual is not merely ‘economic’ as distinguished from some other kind of freedom. It implies the freedom to determine also all those issues which are considered as moral, spiritual, and intellectual” (von Mises 1990, 9). On the other hand, he also apparently considered religion (or at least the institutions of organized religion) inimical to the development of capitalism. As von Mises said, “it would seem that only a negative answer can be made to the question [of] whether it might not be possible to reconcile Christianity with a free social order based on private ownership in the means of production. A living Christianity cannot, it seems, exist side by side with Capitalism. Just as in the case of Eastern religions, Christianity must either overcome Capitalism or go under” (Glahe and Vorhies 1989).

In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard denied the very existence of freedom of religion as a separate right, under his conception that all rights are fundamentally property rights. As he wrote, “the concept of ‘rights’ only makes sense as property rights. For not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard” (Rothbard 1998, 113). For Rothbard, every right is a right to ownership (of one’s body, speech, beliefs, etc.); any other account of rights creates inevitable conflicts when one person’s right interferes with the rights of others. He believes that due to such conflicts all rights must be acknowledged as not absolute, and thus (in contrast to Hayek’s view) they become abridged. Using the example of the right to freedom of speech, or “the right of everyone to say whatever he likes,” Rothbard argued that “the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing” (Rothbard 1998, 113). Therefore “there is no such thing as a separate ‘right to free speech’; there is only a man's property right: the right to do as he wills with his own [property] or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners” (Rothbard 1998, 113). The same would thus be true for freedom of religion as a discrete right; presumably, it should likewise be subordinated to the interests of, and subsumed into, the capitalist right to property.

The most obvious real-life application of Rothbard’s stance seems to be in workplace accommodations for religious practice. In the United States, the courts have in fact rejected his view by recognizing a separate right to practice one’s religion as it relates to employment; this goes as far back as the 1963 case Sherbert v. Verner, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman who had been denied unemployment benefits after being fired due to her Seventh-Day Adventist faith. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religion is likewise a protected category when it comes to employment discrimination, in areas like hiring, firing, or advancement. Under the adversarial view described above, however, a business owner’s property is theirs to do with as they see fit, and they cannot be made to change the way they use their property to accommodate anyone’s beliefs; if the requirements of the job are intolerable to an employee’s religion, the business owner has no obligation to keep employing them. While the employee has the right to ownership of their beliefs, that does not extend to the right to practice those beliefs on someone else’s property.

In the thought of the leading philosophers of modern capitalism, one can find divergent views on the relationship that religion, and specifically the right to freedom of religion, has with capitalism. Nonetheless, these philosophers certainly had to contend with issues of religion, and from their writings it can be seen that freedom of religion has more relevance to a discussion of modern capitalist philosophy than may initially be apparent.

References:

Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Glahe, Fred, and Frank Vorhies. “Religion, Liberty, and Economic Development: An Empirical Investigation.” Public Choice, 62, no. 3 (1989): 201-215.

Hayek, Friedrich. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.
National Constitution Center. “Letters Concerning the English Nation (1733).” 2023. Accessed July 14, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/voltaireletters-concerning-the-english-nation-1733

Rothbard, Murray. The Ethics of Liberty. New York: New York University Press, 1998.

von Mises, Ludwig. “Human Action.” In Economic Freedom and Interventionism: An Anthology of Articles and Essays, ed. Bettina Bien Greaves, 12-19. Courtesy of the Online Library of Liberty, Liberty Fund, Inc., 1990.

von Mises, Ludwig. “The Freeman.” In Economic Freedom and Interventionism: An Anthology of Articles and Essays, ed. Bettina Bien Greaves, 3-11. Courtesy of the Online Library of Liberty, Liberty Fund, Inc., 1990.

While there were many different views on voting rights in the context of capitalism, two main influences on this were Friedrich Hayek and Joseph Schumpeter.
Hayek was in favor of the free-market system, a system by which the government does not intervene and the laws of supply and demand create the foundations for the economic system. Hayek was supportive of this system because he believed it allowed for innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship (Kenton, 2022). In addition to this, Hayek’s later book, The Constitution of Liberty, expressed that “individuals should be left largely free to act on the basis of their own values and beliefs, rather than those of government regulators or planners” (Dombroski, 2019). In the frame of voting rights, most people have the freedom to choose who they want to be put in office — people have the right to vote for whoever they want without feeling pressure from other people to pick a specific candidate. Hayek emphasized that too much government intervention may lead to a decrease in the freedom that people experience, for example, the right to vote; a capitalist/free-market economy can boost people’s freedom because it limits government intervention.
Another influential economist was Joseph Schumpeter. One of the more famous ideas he coined was an “elite democracy,” which is the idea that “individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote” (Schumpeter, p. 269). One of the consequences of this would be that if the people we’re putting in power are elite, or better than regular citizens, then they might not have our best interests in mind when making decisions. It could mean that in a capitalist society, winning an election would be about maintaining status, rather than safeguarding the rights of people. In an interview between Shawn Gude and John Medearis, Medearis explains that one of the main reasons why democracy it a “competition among elites” is because of the “will of the people.” Essentially this means that ordinary people have to “deliberate, to decide, to act reasonably in politics.” However, it appears that Schumpeter thinks that, in other scenarios, some people may not make the “right” decision (“Why Joseph Schumpeter..”) He believes that “there is more rationality in economic decisions than in public choices because the latter are detached from personal responsibility,” and continues by saying “the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field” (Lemieux, 2022). People may feel detached from public choices, like voting, for instance, because they may believe that it “doesn’t really matter” because they’re just one vote. On the other hand, people may be more affected by their economic decisions because it has more direct consequences — one example of this would be immediately seeing the money in your bank account lowering after buying something. Additionally, if people’s mental performance decreases when they enter the political field, then there should be more accountability in this area.
Both Hayek and Schumpeter had interesting things to say about capitalist societies. While Hayek mainly talked about free-market economies, and his distaste for government intervention, Shumpeter was more interested in specific parts of capitalism.

Kenton, Will. 2022. “Who Was Friedrich Hayek? What Was His Economic Theory?” n.d. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/friedrich-hayek.asp#toc-what-did-friedrich-hayek-win-the-nobel-prize-for.

‌Dombroski, Kristie Eshelman. 2019. “Hayek, Republican Freedom, and the Universal Basic Income.” Niskanen Center. November 6, 2019. https://www.niskanencenter.org/hayek-republican-freedom-and-the-universal-basic-income/.

Schumpeter, Joseph. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.

‌“Why Joseph Schumpeter Hated Democracy.” n.d. Jacobin.com. https://jacobin.com/2020/04/joseph-schumpeter-john-medearis-democracy-elites.

Lemieux, Pierre. “A Celebrated and Puzzling Book” Cato.org. 2024. https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2022/celebrated-puzzling-book#:~:text=Schumpeter%20remarked%20that%20there%20is.
}}

Freedom of Expression/Fundamental and protected

2024-07-31T20:20:00Z

Norapek: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Expression |section=Culture and Politics |question=Fundamental and protected |questionHeading=Is there general and widespread belief that this right is a fundamental right that should generally be protected (and that exceptions should be rare)? |pageLevel=Question |contents=Even though freedom of expression is not written into the constitution, like most fundamental rights are, most people would agree that this right is fundamental and s..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=Culture and Politics
|question=Fundamental and protected
|questionHeading=Is there general and widespread belief that this right is a fundamental right that should generally be protected (and that exceptions should be rare)?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=Even though freedom of expression is not written into the constitution, like most fundamental rights are, most people would agree that this right is fundamental and should generally be protected, however the level to which it should be protected may differ from person to person.
Most people would think that freedom of expression is fundamental because it allows for conversations in two different areas of life: legal discourse and everyday life. Most Americans believe that freedom of expression is a fundamental right that should be protected. People should be allowed to express their opinions without fear of being “cancelled” or that they will be harmed for voicing their opinion. The Knight Foundation produced a survey on Americans’ views on free speech and found that 91% of them think that protecting it is crucial to protecting American Democracy (Knight Foundation, 2022). This necessity for freedom of speech becomes especially true when two people have an opposing viewpoint on something because they should be able to disagree freely, without fear of punishment. However, in a New York Times Article, most Americans have begun to bite their tongue because they’re afraid of “cancel culture,” a phenomenon that occurs when a politician, celebrity, or another influential person speaks in a certain way that causes a withdrawal of support. Some people may feel like others don’t need to express everything they’re thinking. In this article, “America has a Free Speech Problem,” the authors say that a poll created by Times Opinion and Siena College found that “84 percent of adults said it is a ‘very serious’ or ‘somewhat serious’ problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism” (America Has a Free Speech Problem, 2022).
Not everyone agrees that freedom of speech is a good thing. In an interview between Sean Illing and Brian Leiter for Vox, Leiter explains that “we have massive amounts of worthless, dangerous speech in the public sphere right now” (Illing, 2019). It seems as if Leither isn’t saying that freedom of speech is a “bad” thing, but moreso that some peopl may be abusing this freedom. If speech was more regulated, and people weren’t allowed to post whatever they wanted without being factchecked, then the speech put out on the Internet oculd be less damaging—there could be less fake news, for instance. Limitations on freedom of expression could prevent unnecessary harm. Justice Murphy, in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, argued that there are “certain categorical exceptions to First Amendment protections, including obscenities, certain profane and slanderous speech, and ‘fighting words’ (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire). This case is still upheld today, so anyone who uses these categories of words, may be punished by the law. Expression and speech shouldn’t interfere with someone’s emotional state, and if it does, that’s when it could be a legal issue.
While freedom of expression protects most people’s actions, it does not allow people to do whatever they want, therefore some exceptions are applied. In Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, a student was reprimanded by school officials for making a “lewd and vulgar speech” at an assembly. This is similar to Schenck v. United States, which ruled that yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is not protected by the first amendment. So, the constitution has allowed for “freedom of speech,” there are exceptions when it seems it’s not appropriate for the setting. In this article, she mentions that “people can’t go around saying what they think all the time when that speech infringes on other’s rights. There needs to be a limit for what people do say, where people say it, when people say it” (Hanna, 2022). While they may not be rare, exceptions to the protection of freedom of expression should be made when our words negatively impact someone else.
It seems as if freedom of expression in the United States is less censored than in other parts of the world. In nations like North Korea, Turkmenistan, Libya, Syria, and Belarus “the media is either state-controlled or silenced, the internet is filtered, and highly censored and restrictive laws are used—often in tandem with fear and intimidation—to prevent the spread of ideas and information” (Countries with Freedom of Speech 2024). While freedom of expression seems to be a priority in the United States, other countries do not protect people’s rights to express themselves freely.
Freedom of expression is protected when it does not cause unnecessary harm or potentially put someone at risk. And on the off chance that it does negatively affect someone, or causes them harm, then there should be exceptions to their ability to freely express themselves.

Knight Foundation. 2022. “Free Speech for All? Poll Reveals Americans’ Views on Free Expression Post-2020.” Knight Foundation. January 6, 2022. https://knightfoundation.org/press/releases/free-speech-for-all-poll-reveals-americans-views-on-free-expression-post-2020/.

‌The Editorial Board. 2022. “America Has a Free Speech Problem.” New York Times, March 18, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/cancel-culture-free-speech-poll.html.

‌Illing, Sean. 2019. “Free Speech: Is It Actually a Good Thing?” Vox. Vox. March 4, 2019. https://www.vox.com/2019/3/4/18197209/free-speech-philosophy-politics-brian-leiter.

‌“Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.” 2019. Oyez. 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/315us568.

‌Hanna, Verina. 2022. “Limitations Are Necessary for Freedom of Speech.” THE ALGONQUIN HARBINGER. March 17, 2022. https://arhsharbinger.com/29742/opinion/limitations-are-necessary-for-the-freedom-of-speech/#:~:text=The%20limitations%20of%20the%20freedom.

‌World Population Review. 2022. “Countries with Freedom of Speech 2020.” Worldpopulationreview.com. 2022. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-freedom-of-speech.
‌
}}

Freedom of the Press/Threatening to government

2024-07-31T20:10:10Z

Norapek:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of the Press
|section=Limitations - Restrictions
|question=Threatening to government
|questionHeading=Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=While freedom of the press is outlined in the constitution, public trust in the media has continued to waver. In a Gallup Poll done in October 2018, it was found that “only 45% of Americans had a high degree or fair amount of trust in the news media to fairly report the news.” Oftentimes it may seem like the news outlets have a bias, for example, “cable organizations are labeled as liberal or conservative instead of just news. Information flows on social media and Internet sites at lightning-fast speed with no way to verify accuracy” (Wermiel, 2019). The combination of being labeled as “liberal” or “conservative” as well as the speed at which information is posted on social media allows for the possibility that some people may choose to avoid a certain media outlet if it’s labeled different than what they identify as. For example, if Fox News is regarded as a media source that leans Republican, then Democrats may choose to steer clear of it. Conversely, if Democracy Now is regarded as left leaning, then Republicans will avoid it. If information online is flowing so fast that there’s no way to verify if it’s “correct,” then that could tarnish a political candidate’s reputation, as well as their campaign in general, because it could cause them to lose support from their constituents. This freedom is perceived as threatening to members of government when it brings shame to their name. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act which allowed for people to be prosecuted when they “brought the president of the government into disrepute and ridicule” (Wermiel, 2019). This act was created because President Wilson and Congress wanted to eliminate people speaking out about their opposition to the involvement of the United States in the war (This Day in History).
Freedom of the press may be perceived as threatening to government authorities when the media is able to uncover the wrongdoings or abuse of the government because it could prevent citizens from fully trusting the government in its ability to do things in the best interest of its citizens. For example, “Watergate” is “synonymous with political crime and corruption” (Watergate). President Nixon was not a big fan of freedom of the press; according to William Robinson, who worked for the New York Herald Tribune, he believed that it was a “handy refuge for subtle as well as overt character assassination” (Farell, 2014).
However, even if some people in government positions may view freedom of the press as threatening, the Supreme Court has upheld the press’ right to report on anything they deem important. For example, in the Supreme Court case New York Times Company v Sullivan, the “actual malice” test was created, which requires that a public figure demonstrates that someone knew the information they were reporting was false, but proceeded to use it anyway (Oyez). So, while news outlets can post whatever they want, they run the risk of being sued for libel (the publication of false information).
In order to cover up anything that government authorities may not want known, they have “made explicit attempts to silence critical media voices and strengthen outlets that serve up favorable coverage” (Repucci). It may appear that some government officials want to be seen in a positive light, and they could attempt to remove any media that depicts them in a way that’s different from that.

Wermiel, Stephen. Freedom of the Press: Challenges to This Pillar of Democracy. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-19/insights-vol-19-issue-2/freedom-of-the-press/.

“U.S. Congress Passes Sedition Act.” History.Com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-congress-passes-sedition-act.

“Watergate.” FBI. FBI, August 12, 2016. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/watergate.

Farrell, John. When Nixon Met the Press - Politico Magazine. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/nixon-and-the-media-109773.

New York Times Company v. Sullivan. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39.

Repucci, Sara. “Media Freedom: A Downward Spiral.” Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral.
}}

Freedom of the Press/Threatening to government

2024-07-31T20:09:51Z

Norapek:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of the Press
|section=Limitations - Restrictions
|question=Threatening to government
|questionHeading=Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=While freedom of the press is outlined in the constitution, public trust in the media has continued to waver. In a Gallup Poll done in October 2018, it was found that “only 45% of Americans had a high degree or fair amount of trust in the news media to fairly report the news.” Oftentimes it may seem like the news outlets have a bias, for example, “cable organizations are labeled as liberal or conservative instead of just news. Information flows on social media and Internet sites at lightning-fast speed with no way to verify accuracy” (Wermiel, 2019). The combination of being labeled as “liberal” or “conservative” as well as the speed at which information is posted on social media allows for the possibility that some people may choose to avoid a certain media outlet if it’s labeled different than what they identify as. For example, if Fox News is regarded as a media source that leans Republican, then Democrats may choose to steer clear of it. Conversely, if Democracy Now is regarded as left leaning, then Republicans will avoid it. If information online is flowing so fast that there’s no way to verify if it’s “correct,” then that could tarnish a political candidate’s reputation, as well as their campaign in general, because it could cause them to lose support from their constituents. This freedom is perceived as threatening to members of government when it brings shame to their name. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act which allowed for people to be prosecuted when they “brought the president of the government into disrepute and ridicule” (Wermiel, 2019). This act was created because President Wilson and Congress wanted to eliminate people speaking out about their opposition to the involvement of the United States in the war (This Day in History).
Freedom of the press may be perceived as threatening to government authorities when the media is able to uncover the wrongdoings or abuse of the government because it could prevent citizens from fully trusting the government in its ability to do things in the best interest of its citizens. For example, “Watergate” is “synonymous with political crime and corruption” (Watergate). President Nixon was not a big fan of freedom of the press; according to William Robinson, who worked for the New York Herald Tribune, he believed that it was a “handy refuge for subtle as well as overt character assassination” (Farell, 2014).
However, even if some people in government positions may view freedom of the press as threatening, the Supreme Court has upheld the press’ right to report on anything they deem important. For example, in the Supreme Court case New York Times Company v Sullivan, the “actual malice” test was created, which requires that a public figure demonstrates that someone knew the information they were reporting was false, but proceeded to use it anyway (Oyez). So, while news outlets can post whatever they want, they run the risk of being sued for libel (the publication of false information).
In order to cover up anything that government authorities may not want known, they have “made explicit attempts to silence critical media voices and strengthen outlets that serve up favorable coverage” (Repucci). It may appear that some government officials want to be seen in a positive light, and they could attempt to remove any media that depicts them in a way that’s different from that.

Wermiel, Stephen. Freedom of the Press: Challenges to This Pillar of Democracy. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-19/insights-vol-19-issue-2/freedom-of-the-press/.

“U.S. Congress Passes Sedition Act.” History.Com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-congress-passes-sedition-act.

“Watergate.” FBI. FBI, August 12, 2016. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/watergate.

Farrell, John. When Nixon Met the Press - Politico Magazine. Last modified August 6, 2014. Accessed July 31, 2024. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/nixon-and-the-media-109773.

New York Times Company v. Sullivan. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39.

Repucci, Sara. “Media Freedom: A Downward Spiral.” Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral.
}}

Freedom of the Press/Threatening to government

2024-07-31T20:09:10Z

Norapek: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of the Press |section=Limitations - Restrictions |question=Threatening to government |questionHeading=Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities? |pageLevel=Question |contents=While freedom of the press is outlined in the constitution, public trust in the media has continued to waver. In a Gallup Poll done in October 2018, it was found that “only 45% of Americans had a high degree or fair amount of trust in the..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of the Press
|section=Limitations - Restrictions
|question=Threatening to government
|questionHeading=Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=While freedom of the press is outlined in the constitution, public trust in the media has continued to waver. In a Gallup Poll done in October 2018, it was found that “only 45% of Americans had a high degree or fair amount of trust in the news media to fairly report the news.” Oftentimes it may seem like the news outlets have a bias, for example, “cable organizations are labeled as liberal or conservative instead of just news. Information flows on social media and Internet sites at lightning-fast speed with no way to verify accuracy” (Wermiel, 2019). The combination of being labeled as “liberal” or “conservative” as well as the speed at which information is posted on social media allows for the possibility that some people may choose to avoid a certain media outlet if it’s labeled different than what they identify as. For example, if Fox News is regarded as a media source that leans Republican, then Democrats may choose to steer clear of it. Conversely, if Democracy Now is regarded as left leaning, then Republicans will avoid it. If information online is flowing so fast that there’s no way to verify if it’s “correct,” then that could tarnish a political candidate’s reputation, as well as their campaign in general, because it could cause them to lose support from their constituents. This freedom is perceived as threatening to members of government when it brings shame to their name. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act which allowed for people to be prosecuted when they “brought the president of the government into disrepute and ridicule” (Wermiel, 2019). This act was created because President Wilson and Congress wanted to eliminate people speaking out about their opposition to the involvement of the United States in the war (This Day in History).
Freedom of the press may be perceived as threatening to government authorities when the media is able to uncover the wrongdoings or abuse of the government because it could prevent citizens from fully trusting the government in its ability to do things in the best interest of its citizens. For example, “Watergate” is “synonymous with political crime and corruption” (Watergate). President Nixon was not a big fan of freedom of the press; according to William Robinson, who worked for the New York Herald Tribune, he believed that it was a “handy refuge for subtle as well as overt character assassination” (Farell, 2014).
However, even if some people in government positions may view freedom of the press as threatening, the Supreme Court has upheld the press’ right to report on anything they deem important. For example, in the Supreme Court case New York Times Company v Sullivan, the “actual malice” test was created, which requires that a public figure demonstrates that someone knew the information they were reporting was false, but proceeded to use it anyway (Oyez). So, while news outlets can post whatever they want, they run the risk of being sued for libel (the publication of false information).
In order to cover up anything that government authorities may not want known, they have “made explicit attempts to silence critical media voices and strengthen outlets that serve up favorable coverage” (Repucci). It may appear that some government officials want to be seen in a positive light, and they could attempt to remove any media that depicts them in a way that’s different from that.

Wermiel, Stephen. Freedom of the Press: Challenges to This Pillar of Democracy. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-19/insights-vol-19-issue-2/freedom-of-the-press/.
“U.S. Congress Passes Sedition Act.” History.Com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-congress-passes-sedition-act.
“Watergate.” FBI. FBI, August 12, 2016. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/watergate.
Farrell, John. When Nixon Met the Press - Politico Magazine. Last modified August 6, 2014. Accessed July 31, 2024. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/nixon-and-the-media-109773.
New York Times Company v. Sullivan. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39.
Repucci, Sara. “Media Freedom: A Downward Spiral.” Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Early Sociology

2024-07-31T19:44:26Z

Norapek: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Expression |section=Philosophical Origins |question=Tradition contributions |questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right? |breakout=Early Sociology |pageLevel=Breakout |contents=While sociology has been studied for many years, with different academics commenting on classic works from many different people, one prominent figure is Stephen Lukes, a political and social the..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Tradition contributions
|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
|breakout=Early Sociology
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=While sociology has been studied for many years, with different academics commenting on classic works from many different people, one prominent figure is Stephen Lukes, a political and social theoriest at NYU, who commented on Émile Durkheim’s work. Lukes views Durkheim as someone whose thoughts on sociology are essential to our understanding of it; he explains that “he’s hard to escape because there are some profound insights which entered into the very bloodstream of sociology thinking.” Without Durkheim, it’s possible we may have some unanswered questions about things in the realm of sociology. In an interview with Nigel Warburton, he explains several concepts that Durkheim has worked through. He explains how in Durkheim’s book he defines a “social fact” as something “external to individuals, meaning any individuals taken singly, they constrain us, they are independent of us, and they exist, sometimes this is called the theory of emergence” (Social Science Bites). While Lukes does quote things directly from Durkheim, he also tries to explain some things that Durkheim has said in his own words, or seems to put is own spin on what he thinks they mean. When referencing Durkheim’s book on suicide, he explains that this work “elaborates a theory in which there are, what he calls, ‘suicidogeic’ currents, [and] in the end came down to two ideas really: the extend to which people were integrated into larger social unities, communities, or so on, and the extent to which they were regulated by norms” (Social Science Bites). Having someone else be able to explain Durkheim’s points could make them easier to understand, especially if Durkheim’s style of writing is more complex than someone is used to. Lukes brings up Durkheim’s concept of “organic solidarity,” but added on that while he sees this as a problem, Durkheim didn’t provide a solution to this.
Lukes seems to be in awe of Durkheim’s work. He explains that his book on religion is a “masterpiece” and that his book was a “big, very ambitious thing.” He generalizes this book as being “an attempt to develop a general theory of religion, what religion is, what its elements are, by studying the tribal religions that had been investigated and written about by missionaries and travellers at that time” (Social Science Bites). In the 1970s, Lukes wrote a book about Durkheim, “Emilie Durkheim: His Life and Eork. A Historical and Critical Study.” He explains that Durkheim was obsessed with “the question of social determination, and the ways in which our thoughts and behavior are shaped by, and reflect our social conditions and social life” (Social Science Bites).
Because Lukes appreciates Durkheim and his work so much, it’s possible that Durkheim’s ways of thinking or points of view on certain topics have infiltrated his ways of thinking. If this isn’t the case, then it’s possible that his ways of thinking could’ve led Lukes to dive deeper into certain sociological topics. For example, Durkheim’s thinking inspired Lukes’ “radical” view of power, and he believes it can be examined in “three dimensions - the overt, the covert, and the power to shape desires and beliefs” (Social Science Bites).

Bites, Social Science. “Steven Lukes on Durkheim.” Social Science Space. Last modified May 29, 2020. Accessed July 31, 2024. https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2015/05/steven-lukes-on-durkheim/.
}}

Privacy Rights/History/Country sources/Greece

2024-07-31T19:32:55Z

Norapek:

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Greece
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=In the [[Probable year:: 1975]] constitution, the Greeks protect the right to privacy in Article 9. This article protects the home, private, and family life. Article 9A provides constitutional data privacy protections (Constitute Project, “Greece [[Probable year:: 1975]] rev. [[Probable year:: 2008]]” ).

https://constituteproject.org/constitution/Greece_[[Probable year:: 2008]]? lang=en

Article 9 of the 1975 Constitution establishes the right to privacy in people’s homes: “Every person's home is a sanctuary. The private and family life of the individual is inviolable.”
In Article 19 of the 1975 Constitution, the right to privacy in any form of communication is established: “Secrecy of letters and all other forms of free correspondence or communication shall be absolutely inviolable.”

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Greece_2008
}}

Privacy Rights/History/Country sources/Ethiopia

2024-07-31T19:29:59Z

Norapek:

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Ethiopia
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The [[Probable year:: 1931]] constitution protects correspondence privacy in Article 26 (Ethiopian Legal Brief, “Ethiopian Constitution of [[Probable year:: 1931]]” ). In Article 25, the home is claimed as private. Today, privacy rights are protected in Article 26 (Constitute Project, “Ethiopia [[Probable year:: 1994]]” ).

https://chilot.files.wordpress.com/[[Probable year:: 2011]]/ 04/ethiopian-constitution-of-[[Probable year:: 1931]]. pdf
https://constituteproject.org/constitution/Ethiopia_[[Probable year:: 1994]]? lang=en

Article 26 of the 1994 Constitution establishes the right to privacy, including in their home and communication: “Everyone has the right to privacy. This right shall include the right not to be subjected to searches of his home, person or property, or the seizure of any property under his personal possession. Everyone has the right to the inviolability of his notes and correspondence including postal letters, and communications made by means of telephone, telecommunications and electronic devices.”

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ethiopia_1994
}}

Privacy Rights/History/Country sources/Dominican Republic

2024-07-31T19:28:59Z

Norapek:

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Dominican Republic
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Today, Article 44 protects the right to privacy and personal honor. It reads, “All people have the right to privacy. The respect and non-interference into private and family life, the home, and private correspondence are guaranteed. The right to honor, good name, and one’s own image are recognized. All authorities or individuals who violate them are obligated to compensate or repair them in accordance with the law” (Constitute Project, “Dominican Republic [[Probable year:: 2015]]” ). The subsections expand on these rights. In previous versions, this was the right to intimacy and personal honor (Constitute Project, “Dominican Republic [[Probable year:: 2010]]” ). Previous constitutions could not be found in English.

https://constituteproject.org/constitution/Dominican_Republic_[[Probable year:: 2015]]? lang=en
https://constituteproject.org/constitution/Dominican_Republic_[[Probable year:: 2010]]? lang=en

In the 2015 constitution, Article 44 establishes a right to privacy and personal honor: In respect to right to privacy it reads “all people have the right to privacy. The respect and non-interference into private and family life, the home, and private correspondence are guaranteed.” The constitution has established that the “home and domicile and all private premises of the person are inviolable,” in addition to the recognition that people’s documents should be private: “The inviolability of private correspondence, documents, or messages in physical, digital, electronic, or all other formats is recognized.”
The right to personal honor is established by “the right to honor, good name, and one’s own image are recognized. All authorities or individuals who violate them are obligated to compensate or repair them in accordance with the law.”

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Dominican_Republic_2015
}}

Privacy Rights/History/Country sources/Denmark

2024-07-31T19:27:56Z

Norapek:

Privacy Rights/History/Country sources/Denmark

2024-07-31T19:27:12Z

Norapek: