Source/Freedom of Expression - Revision history

Import-sysop: Import-sysop moved page Freedom of Expression to Source/Freedom of Expression: move to source

2023-01-04T13:47:30Z

Import-sysop moved page Freedom of Expression to Source/Freedom of Expression: move to source

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:47, 4 January 2023
(No difference)

Tkwillia: /* Afghanistan */

2022-09-14T16:36:09Z

Afghanistan

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:36, 14 September 2022
Line 9:		Line 9:
	====Afghanistan====		====Afghanistan====
	In Afghanistan's 2004 constitution Article 34 explicitly protects the freedom of expression. With every Afghan having the right to “express through speech, writing, illustrations as well as other means in accordance with the provisions of the constitution.”		In Afghanistan's 2004 constitution Article 34 explicitly protects the freedom of expression. With every Afghan having the right to “express through speech, writing, illustrations as well as other means in accordance with the provisions of the constitution.”

	“Afghanistan 2004 Constitution.” Constitute. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Afghanistan_2004?lang=en.		“Afghanistan 2004 Constitution.” Constitute. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Afghanistan_2004?lang=en.

Tkwillia: /* Afghanistan */

2022-09-14T16:35:56Z

Afghanistan

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 14 September 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:
	===What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right? BUILD IN COLLAPSE EXPAND TOGGLE===		===What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right? BUILD IN COLLAPSE EXPAND TOGGLE===
	====Afghanistan====		====Afghanistan====
			In Afghanistan's 2004 constitution Article 34 explicitly protects the freedom of expression. With every Afghan having the right to “express through speech, writing, illustrations as well as other means in accordance with the provisions of the constitution.”
			“Afghanistan 2004 Constitution.” Constitute. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Afghanistan_2004?lang=en.

	====Albania====		====Albania====
	====Algeria====		====Algeria====

207.188.250.50: /* Is this right exercised in different ways depending on the political governance regime in place (democracy, autocracy, hybrid regime)? */

2022-08-04T15:48:24Z

Is this right exercised in different ways depending on the political governance regime in place (democracy, autocracy, hybrid regime)?

@@ Line 532: / Line 532: @@
 ===Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively===
 ===Is this right exercised in different ways depending on the political governance regime in place (democracy, autocracy, hybrid regime)?===
 ===Is there general and widespread belief that this right is a fundamental right that should generally be protected (and that exceptions should be rare)?===
 ===Does public polling reveal insights about the right as experienced in different countries?===

96.255.63.46: /* Lockean Thought/English Empiricism */

2021-10-28T19:38:44Z

Lockean Thought/English Empiricism

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:38, 28 October 2021
Line 405:		Line 405:
	====Lockean Thought/English Empiricism====		====Lockean Thought/English Empiricism====

	Locke made little mention of free expression. However, one can draw inferences based on his views on religion and association, especially since there is substantial overlap between expression and association and religion. One can infer that, if Locke advocates for certain doctrinal limitations on churches and other associations, he would support limits on the expression of those doctrines. After all, forming associations that exist to further certain viewpoints is a form of expression (take the concept of “expressive association” in US jurisprudence). In A Letter, Locke establishes some respect for freedom of opinion, writing that if an opinion does “not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church		Locke made little mention of free expression. However, one can draw inferences based on his views on religion and association, especially since there is substantial overlap between expression and association and religion. One can infer that, if Locke advocates for certain doctrinal limitations on churches and other associations, he would support limits on the expression of those doctrines. After all, forming associations that exist to further certain viewpoints is a form of expression (take the concept of “expressive association” in US jurisprudence). In A Letter, Locke establishes some respect for freedom of opinion, writing that if an opinion does “not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated” (36). Scholars disagree strongly over the extent to which speech would be regulated in a Lockean society (Daniel 2013, 1).
	in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated” (36). Scholars disagree strongly over the extent to which speech would be regulated in a Lockean society (Daniel 2013, 1).

	A Letter Concerning Toleration: https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/toleration.pdf		A Letter Concerning Toleration: https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/toleration.pdf

96.255.63.46: /* Lockean Thought/English Empiricism */

2021-10-28T19:38:33Z

Lockean Thought/English Empiricism

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:38, 28 October 2021
Line 404:		Line 404:

	====Lockean Thought/English Empiricism====		====Lockean Thought/English Empiricism====

			Locke made little mention of free expression. However, one can draw inferences based on his views on religion and association, especially since there is substantial overlap between expression and association and religion. One can infer that, if Locke advocates for certain doctrinal limitations on churches and other associations, he would support limits on the expression of those doctrines. After all, forming associations that exist to further certain viewpoints is a form of expression (take the concept of “expressive association” in US jurisprudence). In A Letter, Locke establishes some respect for freedom of opinion, writing that if an opinion does “not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church
			in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated” (36). Scholars disagree strongly over the extent to which speech would be regulated in a Lockean society (Daniel 2013, 1).

			A Letter Concerning Toleration: https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/toleration.pdf


			Daniel: https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1154&context=student_scholarship

	====Physiocrats====		====Physiocrats====
	Although Physiocrats stress the importance of economic freedom, critics place them within the realm of enlightened despotism. Toqueville classifies the physiocrats as having “little liking for political freedom” (Cavanaugh 38). Physiocrats believed that a central authority figure was needed to create prosperity by following the principles of natural law (Cavanaugh 42). Most physiocrats’ research examines their economic stances, in fact, it overwhelmingly focuses on their economic theories. However, using their economic perspectives, one can extrapolate their beliefs on general rights and liberties. The physiocrats fundamentally believe in laissez faire—that the economy was over-regulated and taxation was overwhelmingly indirect. They believed that the government should take a hands-off economic approach and let the market regulate itself. This can be expanded into their views of personal rights and liberties. The physiocrats believed in the natural, inherent rights of man and believe these rights should not be regulated except in the instance where man infringes on the rights of others (Higgs 1897). The physiocrats do not believe that men do not compromise on rights in any instance, including when they enter into a social contract (Higgs 1897). Thus, even the state must be subservient to the rights of man. This philosophy is based on the idea of society collectively benefitting or losing based on the actions of individuals (Higgs 1897). Men can maintain all of their rights, with the understanding that an infringement on another individual’s rights would be collectively bad for society in which they both reside (Higgs 1897).		Although Physiocrats stress the importance of economic freedom, critics place them within the realm of enlightened despotism. Toqueville classifies the physiocrats as having “little liking for political freedom” (Cavanaugh 38). Physiocrats believed that a central authority figure was needed to create prosperity by following the principles of natural law (Cavanaugh 42). Most physiocrats’ research examines their economic stances, in fact, it overwhelmingly focuses on their economic theories. However, using their economic perspectives, one can extrapolate their beliefs on general rights and liberties. The physiocrats fundamentally believe in laissez faire—that the economy was over-regulated and taxation was overwhelmingly indirect. They believed that the government should take a hands-off economic approach and let the market regulate itself. This can be expanded into their views of personal rights and liberties. The physiocrats believed in the natural, inherent rights of man and believe these rights should not be regulated except in the instance where man infringes on the rights of others (Higgs 1897). The physiocrats do not believe that men do not compromise on rights in any instance, including when they enter into a social contract (Higgs 1897). Thus, even the state must be subservient to the rights of man. This philosophy is based on the idea of society collectively benefitting or losing based on the actions of individuals (Higgs 1897). Men can maintain all of their rights, with the understanding that an infringement on another individual’s rights would be collectively bad for society in which they both reside (Higgs 1897).

96.255.63.46: /* Benthamite Utilitarianism */

2021-10-28T19:29:23Z

Benthamite Utilitarianism

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:29, 28 October 2021
Line 428:		Line 428:

	To Bentham, the purpose of free expression, especially press, is to identify and censure government abuses, which Bentham believed would have more positive than negative consequences. Like other liberties in Bentham’s thought, it is an instrumental right, not an intrinsic right (Niesen 2019, 4). He worried that a chilling effect would prevent the press from serving its purpose, and he opposed censoring of “bad sentiments” (something Blackstone supported) because he did not trust society’s ability to identify them. Bentham not only advocated for the protection of true statements, but of false ones, provided they were not “‘groundless’ and made with ‘wilful mendacity, accompanied with the consciousness of its falsity, or else with culpable rashness” (Niesen 5). A “wilful mendacity” standard resembles the “actual malice” standard of contemporary American jurisprudence on libel of a public figure.		To Bentham, the purpose of free expression, especially press, is to identify and censure government abuses, which Bentham believed would have more positive than negative consequences. Like other liberties in Bentham’s thought, it is an instrumental right, not an intrinsic right (Niesen 2019, 4). He worried that a chilling effect would prevent the press from serving its purpose, and he opposed censoring of “bad sentiments” (something Blackstone supported) because he did not trust society’s ability to identify them. Bentham not only advocated for the protection of true statements, but of false ones, provided they were not “‘groundless’ and made with ‘wilful mendacity, accompanied with the consciousness of its falsity, or else with culpable rashness” (Niesen 5). A “wilful mendacity” standard resembles the “actual malice” standard of contemporary American jurisprudence on libel of a public figure.



			Niesen: https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/75aeb0a3-96c6-44d5-9994-0e9bb0214657/Science Open/jbs20180001.pdf

	====Millian Utilitarianism====		====Millian Utilitarianism====

96.255.63.46: /* Millian Utilitarianism */

2021-10-28T19:29:03Z

Millian Utilitarianism

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:29, 28 October 2021
Line 434:		Line 434:

	US courts, including the Supreme Court, have invoked the marketplace of ideas theory hundreds of times over the past century (Schultz & Hudson 2017). For a recent example, in 2017, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law banning offensive terms in trademarks, drawing on the marketplace of ideas theory in its unanimous opinion (Hudson 2017).		US courts, including the Supreme Court, have invoked the marketplace of ideas theory hundreds of times over the past century (Schultz & Hudson 2017). For a recent example, in 2017, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law banning offensive terms in trademarks, drawing on the marketplace of ideas theory in its unanimous opinion (Hudson 2017).


			Niesen: https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/75aeb0a3-96c6-44d5-9994-0e9bb0214657/Science Open/jbs20180001.pdf

			Schultz and Hudson: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/999/marketplace-of-ideas

			Hudson: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1528/matal-v-tam

	====Current Utilitarianism====		====Current Utilitarianism====

96.255.63.46: /* Early Modern Rationalism */

2021-10-28T18:39:32Z

Early Modern Rationalism

@@ Line 355: / Line 355: @@
 ====Medieval Judaism====
 ====Early Modern Rationalism====
 ====Absolute Idealism====
 ====Reformation Christianity====

96.255.63.46: /* What do the major legal theories (positive law, natural law, critical legal studies, etc.) say about this right? */

2021-10-28T15:07:21Z

What do the major legal theories (positive law, natural law, critical legal studies, etc.) say about this right?

@@ Line 439: / Line 439: @@
 ===Are there any philosophical or moral traditions that dispute the classification of this right as a fundamental right?===
 ===What do the major legal theories (positive law, natural law, critical legal studies, etc.) say about this right?===
 Critical legal theory states that the law is inherently intertwined with social issues, essentially claiming that the law has social biases that maintain the status quo of systemic issues (Legal Information Institute). According to critical legal theorists, the law enables the protection of the privileged few and systemically disadvantages the underrepresented and underprivileged (Legal Information Institute). In “Speaking Respect, Respecting Speech,” lawyer Richard Abel attacks the legitimacy of First Amendment protections: first, by declaring that the line between accepted and prohibited speech is too subjective and, consequently, “rests on sociopolitical needs and judgements” (Gould 763). Secondly, Abel asserts that the marketplace of ideas—the concept that is used to defend free and unfiltered speech—skews in favor of the privileged few (Gould 764). Concurring with Abel’s assessment are Richard Delgado and Jean Stegancic, authors of “Must We Defend Nazis? Hate Speech, Pornography, and the New First Amendment” (Gould 765). They take issue with the view that First Amendment protections are neutral, instead declaring that this jurisprudence is “repeatedly reinforcing the status and views of the governing white, male elite” (Gould 765). While many scholars acknowledge that the judicial system is unintentionally political and, consequently, decides on legal matters, many believe that freedom of expression is an absolute, unwavering statue (Gould 767). Some, like Supreme Court Justice Black, believe that the First Amendment literally: that Congress shall make no law which restricts expression (Gould 767). Others argue that the values which motivated the First Amendment—“self-expression, truth seeking, and self-government—require that its doctrine be permanent and unwavering” (Gould 768). However, Gould points out “that we present cultural and political rationales for the norm of free speech mean[ing] that we determine its importance through social interactions (768).
@@ Line 462: / Line 481: @@
 Morse v. Frederick: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/690/morse-v-frederick
 ==Culture and Politics==