Univ., Diss.--Erfurt, 2005.

This paper explains the relationship and different arguments concerning freedom of speech. It uses Swedish newspaper columns, such as editorial pages, as its main source. The paper is mainly based upon the work of John Stuart Mill and his book On Freedom and Thomas Hobbes work Leviathan. The main focus is to see if there’s any connection between the Swedish newspapers and the theories which in itself is based upon the two works. The method that was used throughout this thesis was a content analysis which means that all of the newspaper articles and columns were analyzed and put into three different categories with category number one being based upon John Stuart Mill and his ideas, and number three being based upon Thomas Hobbes. Number two worked as a middle way and combined both of the theories. In those separate categories they were read and analyzed after arguments. Arguments that were often recurring were the main focus and were also the ones that were used for the final conclusion. The conclusion was based on the articles and the output was that the majority of the articles actually went on the same line as John Stuart Mill and that a few would like to see some kind of restriction on freedom of speech.

Sociala medier har fått en allt större roll i det svenska samhället och användarantalet ökar ständigt. I takt med att internetuppkopplingen blivit mer lättillgänglig genom exempelvis smarta telefoner har sättet som kommunikation idag sker på fått nya dimensioner. Privatlivet har således börjat gå in i arbetslivet och tvärtom, vilket har lett till att gränsen blivit otydlig och svårdefinierad. Vad arbetstagare får uttrycka i sociala medier är omdiskuterat och åsikter mellan arbetsgivare, Arbetsdomstolen och andra aktörer går isär. Den grundläggande Yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen inskränks i den privata sektorn av lojalitetsplikten och även rätten att kritisera arbetsgivaren begränsas. Hur långtgående arbetsgivares bestämmanderätt är i fråga om reglering av sociala medier är en annan problematik. Arbetsgivare har möjlighet att skapa olika typer av riktlinjer och policies och är relativt obegränsade i utformningen av dessa genom arbetsledningsrätten. Lagstiftningen har i vissa fall fått svårigheter med att följa den snabbt växande teknikutvecklingen, vilket därför har lett till att ändringar i exempelvis Yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen och Tryckfrihetsförordningen ofta måste göras. Sociala medier domineras av den yngre generationen och det har skapat klyftor mellan olika ålderskategorier. Hur dessa klyftor påverkas av att sociala medier får en större roll i arbetslivet studeras i uppsatsen genom ett åldersdiskriminerande perspektiv. Frågeställningarna baseras på arbetstagares skyldigheter, arbetsgivares bestämmanderätt, åldersaspekten samt vilka effekter regleringar av sociala medier har i samhället. / Social media has been receiving an increasingly important role in Swedish society and the number of users is constantly increasing. As the internet connection has become more accessible for an example by the smart phones, the way of communication has acquired the situation new dimensions. Personal life has now begun to go into work and vice versa, which has led to that the border has become unclear and difficult to define. What employees may express in social media is controversial and opinions between employers, the Labour Court and other stakeholders diverge. The basic Freedom of Speech is restricted in the private sector by the duty of loyalty and the right to criticize the employer is limited. How far-reaching employer's discretion goes in regulation of social media is another problem. Employers have the opportunity to create different types of policies and guidelines and are relatively unrestricted in the design of these through the labor management law. The legal regulation has in some cases had difficult to follow the rapidly growing technology development, which therefore has led to a lot of changes in for example, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. Social media is dominated by the younger generation and it has created a rift between different age categories. In which way this gap is affected by the fact that social media has received a larger role in work life is studied in this paper by an age-discriminatory perspective. The questions are based on employee’s obligations and employer discretion in social media. Age aspect constitutes an issue in the essay and the effects of regulations in social media in society are the final issue.

Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania sets the principal democratic values of society. Human rights assume special role in the system of constitutional values. Article 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania establishes the right of a human being to have his own convictions and freely express them. Article 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania establishes the right to everyone to have freedom to express his opinion and convictions and to freely impart them. This is an essential clause for the creation and protection of democracy. Constitutional freedom of expression is realised in ordinary laws. Article 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania establishes the principle of freedom of expression that is realised in the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, Law on Provision of Information to the Public and other ordinary laws. Freedom of expression, just like other constitutional human rights and freedoms, is not absolute. Employment of the freedom of expression faces such requirements that are required in the democratic society to protect the rights and freedoms of other human beings, as well as the constitutional arrangement. Ordinary courts (general jurisdiction and specialised), which examine cases for determining balance of freedom of expression and other constitutional values, must construe the content of constitutional rights of human beings. Decisions by ordinary courts in the cases of determining the balance of freedom of... [to full text] / LR Konstitucijoje įtvirtintos svarbiausios demokratinės visuomenės vertybės. Žmogaus teisėms konstitucinių vertybių sistemoje tenka ypatinga vieta. LR Konstitucijos 25 str. įtvirtinta žmogaus teisė turėti savo įsitikinimus ir juos laisvai reikšti. LR Konstitucijos 25 str. kiekvienam žmogui suteikia galimybę laisvai formuoti savo nuomonę ir pažiūras bei laisvai jas skleisti. Tai būtina sąlyga demokratijai kurti ir saugoti. Konstitucinė saviraiškos laisvė įgyvendinama ordinariniuose įstatymuose. LR Konstitucijos 25 str. įtvirtintas saviraiškos laisvės principas įgyvendintas LR Civiliniame kodekse, LR Visuomenės informavimo įstatyme bei kituose ordinariniuose įstatymuose. Saviraiškos laisvė, kaip ir kitos konstitucinės žmogaus teisės ir laisvės, nėra absoliuti. Naudojantis saviraiškos laisve susiduriama su tokiais reikalavimais, kurie būtini demokratinėje visuomenėje siekiant apsaugoti kitų žmonių teises ir laisves, konstitucinę santvarką. Ordinariniai (bendros kompetencijos ir specializuoti) teismai, spręsdami žodžio laisvės ir kitų konstitucinių vertybių pusiausvyros nustatymo bylas, turi interpretuoti konstitucinių žmogaus teisių turinį. Priimdami sprendimus žodžio laisvės ir kitų konstitucinių vertybių pusiausvyros nustatymo bylose ordinariniai teismai turi remtis žodžio laisvės ir kitų konstitucinių vertybių konstitucine dimensija.

My topic is an analysis of the various theories of multiculturalism and how they would respond to controversial issues concerning freedom of speech with regard to religious sensitivities. While Western nations have often concentrated on 'nation building', or the integration of citizens into public institutions, there has been the emerging trend of minority rights and 'multiculturalism' (Kymlicka, 2001, pp. 2-3). Groups with diverse interests and political agendas are resisting assimilation into wider society and are struggling for acceptence, respect and public affirmation of their differences (Parekh, 2000, p. 1). While the nation state has not become obselete, many of its traditional functions have lost their relevance and value and we therefore need to reconceptualize its nature and role (Parekh, 2000, pp. 193-194). Many nations have a new found interest in multicultural policies and Australia has declared itself multicultural in the early 1970's as did Canada; and the debate around multicultural policies has raged on in Britain, Germany and Israel since the 1960's (Parekh, 2000, p. 5). In Kymlicka's view, public opinion has shifted from seeing minority rights as a pragmatic compromise to a matter of fundamental justice (Kymlicka, 2001, p. 6). One controversy that multiculturalist policies have raised is issues of tolerance of cultural difference, including group rights. This is evident on a daily basis, from the storm around Muslim girls wearing headscarves in France, to the debate surrounding the use of French as a first language in Quebec; multiculturalism has been asked, what should be tolerated? In my dissertation I will look at the controversial topic of freedom of speech within liberal democratic systems. Freedom of speech is an integral part of a democratic system, and in democratic systems discussion is often cited as a means of reaching consensus and compromise. Free speech is also intended to explore new ways of thinking and to criticize ways of thinking and living. The difficulty comes when there are certain topics, such as the lampooning of Islam and the Prophet and denying the Holocaust, which are deemed to be off limits by certain groups. Different liberal philosophies however have differing views on what the limits of free speech are. I will be looking into these philosophies and whether the limits they set apply to the Danish cartoon controversy and to the David Irving case of Holocaust denialism. There are three broad theories of how liberal systems ought to deal with the demands of a plural society. These are 'classical liberalism', 'liberal nationalism' and 'multiculturalism'. In broad terms, classical liberal theory is intolerant of special group rights, liberal-nationalism affirms certain kinds of group rights within a liberal framework, and multiculturalism asserts the equality of cultures, and questions the primacy of liberalism. The question that I will be answering is how these theories deal with group rights when those groups ask for the limiting of speech that is deemed offensive to group culture or religion. In a more global society, different cultural and religious groups have differing levels of tolerance toward certain kinds of speech. Certain groups value freedom of speech with very few constraints, whilst others believe that that some speech is harmful and disrespectful to their culture or religion. Questions about the viability of these different cultural and religious groups co-existing have been highlighted by recent events. The two cases to be explored in my analysis will be, firstly, the outcry following the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed in Denmark. Many of these cartoons were seen to be derogatory to Muslims and the depiction of the Prophet is also not allowed in many Islamic traditions. Much of Danish society felt that although these cartoons were offensive and in bad taste, they had to protect their right to freedom even though it may be offensive to others. This pits the Islamic culture against that of the Danish 'liberal' culture and asks the question of whether 'liberal' culture or 'multiculturalism' can assure religious tolerance? My second example is the controversial case involving the historian David Irving and his questioning of the Holocaust. This questioning led to his imprisonment in Austria for the crimes of Holocaust denial. This case involves someone expressing his freedom of speech, yet many liberal-democratic countries have laws expressly prohibiting this kind of Holocaust denial. The reasoning behind such laws is to protect the sentiments of Jewish community and the suffering they endured under the Holocaust. In both cases, the interests of religious groups are invoked as being sufficiently harmed, and the liberal right to free speech should therefore be limited. Hence the thesis looks to explore religious tolerance available in classical liberal, liberal-nationalist and multiculturalist systems at a theoretical level. I will also argue that certain kinds and manner of speech, such as speech that lampoons and offends group sensibilities, should be limited in certain cases and that liberal-nationalism provides the most fair way of adjudicating disputes. / Thesis (M.Soc.Sc.)-University of KwaZulu-natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2008.

When is it acceptable to make fun of religion, and when does it become disrespectful? On January 7, 2015, the headquarters of the French satirical news paper Charlie Hebdo was subjected to a terrorist attack that claimed the lives of 12 staff members, due to the publishing of caricatures picturing the prophet Muhammed. The reactions that followed the attack circled around two perspectives; the importance of freedom of expression and the obligation to show respect for certain institutions and traditions in society. How come the caricatures can elicit such completely different reactions? This is the question that this thesis uses as a starting point for the examination of the subject caricatures and satire. The thesis examines caricatures and satire from a rhetorical perspective. It distinguishes four rhetorical aspects of caricature, and discusses if these rhetorical aspects can be what makes the difference regarding how provocative a drawing is considered. The thesis then uses the four rhetorical aspects found, to analyze two caricatures from the French satiric magazine Charlie Hebdo.

In the mid 1920's Muncie, Indiana, was exposed to the penetrating scrutiny of Robert S. Lynd and Helen M. Lynd, which resulted in the sociological treatise, Middletown. In the mid 1930's the sociological team once again descended upon "Middletown" to see what, if any, changes had taken place in the intervening ten years. The results of this survey were embodied in an equally famous treatise, Middletown In Transition. Figuring prominently in both surveys was George R. Dale, the crusading editor of the Muncie Post-Democrat of Middletown and the controversial mayor-editor of Muncie in Middletown In Transition.The purpose of this study is to present the story of Dale's battle with political corruption, Klan bigotry, and most of all, his fight for freedom of speech and a free press. The copies of the Muncie Post-Democrat and other pertinent sources which the writer deemed necessary for a proper evaluation of the study have been utilized.

Australian debates about racial vilification legislation have been dominated by mainstream American First Amendment jurisprudence and popular American notions of 'free speech' to the exclusion of alternative Europeans models. This can be seen from notions of Australian racial vilification legislation as inconsistent with 'free speech' rights as well as the influence of some of the basic assumptions of First Amendment jurisprudence on political speech cases in the Australian High Court. Despite the widespread existence of legislation that penalises racial vilification at State and Federal levels, there has been a rise in Australia over the past 10 years of divisive 'race' politics. Against that background, this thesis considers the scope and limits of racial vilification legislation in Australia. It is argued that First Amendment jurisprudence is inadequate in the Australian context, because it is heavily dependent upon economic metaphors, individualistic notions of identity and outdated theories of communication. It assumes that 'free speech' in terms of lack of government intervention is essential to 'democracy'. It ignores the content, context and effect of harmful speech, except in extreme cases, with the result that socially harmful speech is protected in the name of 'free speech'. This has narrowed the parameters within which racial vilification is understood and hindered the development of a broader discourse on the realities of racist harms, and the mechanisms necessary for their redress. The author calls for the development of an Australian jurisprudence of harmful speech. Failing an Australian Bill of Rights, that jurisprudence would be grounded upon the implied constitutional right of free political speech, informed by an awareness that modern structures of public speech favour a very limited range of speech and speakers. The jurisprudence would take advantage of the insights of Critical Race Theory into the connections between racial vilification and racist behaviour, as well as the personal and social harms of racial vilification. Finally, it is argued that the concepts of human dignity and equality, which underpin European discrimination legislation and notions of justice, provide a way forward for Australian jurisprudence in this area.

Australian debates about racial vilification legislation have been dominated by mainstream American First Amendment jurisprudence and popular American notions of 'free speech' to the exclusion of alternative Europeans models. This can be seen from notions of Australian racial vilification legislation as inconsistent with 'free speech' rights as well as the influence of some of the basic assumptions of First Amendment jurisprudence on political speech cases in the Australian High Court. Despite the widespread existence of legislation that penalises racial vilification at State and Federal levels, there has been a rise in Australia over the past 10 years of divisive 'race' politics. Against that background, this thesis considers the scope and limits of racial vilification legislation in Australia. It is argued that First Amendment jurisprudence is inadequate in the Australian context, because it is heavily dependent upon economic metaphors, individualistic notions of identity and outdated theories of communication. It assumes that 'free speech' in terms of lack of government intervention is essential to 'democracy'. It ignores the content, context and effect of harmful speech, except in extreme cases, with the result that socially harmful speech is protected in the name of 'free speech'. This has narrowed the parameters within which racial vilification is understood and hindered the development of a broader discourse on the realities of racist harms, and the mechanisms necessary for their redress. The author calls for the development of an Australian jurisprudence of harmful speech. Failing an Australian Bill of Rights, that jurisprudence would be grounded upon the implied constitutional right of free political speech, informed by an awareness that modern structures of public speech favour a very limited range of speech and speakers. The jurisprudence would take advantage of the insights of Critical Race Theory into the connections between racial vilification and racist behaviour, as well as the personal and social harms of racial vilification. Finally, it is argued that the concepts of human dignity and equality, which underpin European discrimination legislation and notions of justice, provide a way forward for Australian jurisprudence in this area.

Australian debates about racial vilification legislation have been dominated by mainstream American First Amendment jurisprudence and popular American notions of 'free speech' to the exclusion of alternative Europeans models. This can be seen from notions of Australian racial vilification legislation as inconsistent with 'free speech' rights as well as the influence of some of the basic assumptions of First Amendment jurisprudence on political speech cases in the Australian High Court. Despite the widespread existence of legislation that penalises racial vilification at State and Federal levels, there has been a rise in Australia over the past 10 years of divisive 'race' politics. Against that background, this thesis considers the scope and limits of racial vilification legislation in Australia. It is argued that First Amendment jurisprudence is inadequate in the Australian context, because it is heavily dependent upon economic metaphors, individualistic notions of identity and outdated theories of communication. It assumes that 'free speech' in terms of lack of government intervention is essential to 'democracy'. It ignores the content, context and effect of harmful speech, except in extreme cases, with the result that socially harmful speech is protected in the name of 'free speech'. This has narrowed the parameters within which racial vilification is understood and hindered the development of a broader discourse on the realities of racist harms, and the mechanisms necessary for their redress. The author calls for the development of an Australian jurisprudence of harmful speech. Failing an Australian Bill of Rights, that jurisprudence would be grounded upon the implied constitutional right of free political speech, informed by an awareness that modern structures of public speech favour a very limited range of speech and speakers. The jurisprudence would take advantage of the insights of Critical Race Theory into the connections between racial vilification and racist behaviour, as well as the personal and social harms of racial vilification. Finally, it is argued that the concepts of human dignity and equality, which underpin European discrimination legislation and notions of justice, provide a way forward for Australian jurisprudence in this area.