Lietuvoje 2008-aisiais metais įsigaliojo Lietuvos Respublikos susirinkimų įstatymo 8 straipsnio 5 punktas bei Lietuvos Respublikos administracinių teisės pažeidimų kodekso 18818 straipsnis. Šios įstatyminės normos draudžia naudoti nacistinius ir komunistinius simbolius susirinkimuose, masiniuose renginiuose bei kitaip demonstruoti. Tokiu būdu siekiama apsaugoti demokratinės visuomenės narius nuo nacistinių ir komunistinių okupacinių režimų propagandos, užkirsti kelią kurtis antidemokratines idėjas propaguojančioms organizacijoms. Tačiau kai kurie draudžiami simboliai gali būti suprantami ne vien tik kaip nacistiniai ar komunistiniai, todėl ne visais atvejais jų demonstravimas ar naudojimas pažeis svarbias kitų asmenų teises ir laisves. Šio darbo tikslas yra įvertinti, ar šie draudimai neprieštarauja Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucijos 25 straipsnyje įtvirtintai saviraiškos laisvei. Saviraiškos laisvė – viena iš pagrindinių žmogaus teisių, įtvirtinta daugumos demokratinių valstybių konstitucijose bei įvairiose konvencijose, tačiau ji nėra absoliuti. Siekiant įvertinti, ar draudimas demonstruoti nacistinius bei komunistinius simbolius neprieštarauja saviraiškos laisvei, analizuojami principai, kuriais remiantis galima riboti saviraiškos laisvę, taip pat vertybės, kurias siekiama apsaugoti nustatant saviraiškos laisvės apribojimus. Analizuojant principus bei saugomas vertybes, daugiausia remiamasi Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucijos bei Europos žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / In 2008 Lithuanian Parliament enacted new laws prohibiting use of Nazi and Communist symbols during meetings and other mass events or other kinds of demonstration (Article 8(5) of Law on Meetings of Republic of Lithuania and Article 18818 of Administrative Violations Code of Republic of Lithuania). The purpose of this prohibition is to protect members of democratic society from propaganda of Nazi and Communist occupation regimes and to prevent the establishment of organizations that propagates antidemocratic ideas. However, some of the prohibited symbols may be understood not only as of Nazis or Communists, therefore they would not breach fundamental rights and freedoms of other members of the society. Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental human rights. It is mentioned in most constitutions of most democratic states and international conventions. However, freedom of expression is not absolute. In order to be restricted it has to meet some requirements. The requirements are being analyzed in this master project according to provisions of the Constitution of Lithuanian Republic and the European Convention on Human Rights and case-law regarding freedom of expression of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania and the European Court of Human Rights. Laws prohibiting demonstration of Nazi and Communist symbols are being compared to some other European states’ laws of the same function. The purpose of this master project is to evaluate whether the... [to full text]

Šiame darbe įrodinėju tezę: Berlino dviejų laisvių perskyra pagrįsta, nes tiek praeities, tiek dabarties mąstytojų teorinei minčiai būdingi pozityviosios arba negatyviosios laisvės bruožai. I-oje dalyje pateikiu Berlino pagrindinius dviejų laisvių bruožus. Taip pat nagrinėju Berlino darbus, skirtus lygybės, istorijos filosofijos, pliuralizmo bei Apšvietos ir Romantizmo problematikai. Teigiu, jog Berlinas – negatyviosios laisvės gynėjas, mat jo filosofijoje ginama individo pasirinkimo laisvė, asmuo suprantamas kaip autonomiškas subjektas. Berlinas pasisako už vertybinio pliuralizmo idėjas, teigia, jog visiems žmonėms turi būti garantuotos vienodos galimybės. II-oje dalyje nagrinėju 3-jų žymių praeities mąstytojų laisvės sampratas, įrodinėju, jog jos turi negatyviosios arba pozityviosios laisvės bruožų. Nustatau, kad Loko teorijoje vyrauja negatyviosios laisvės nuostatos, mat autorius teigia, jog visi individai laisvi ir patys gali rinktis gyvenimo tikslus. Spinozos darbus priskiriu pozityviosios laisvės tradicijai, nes autorius teigia, jog laisvi tegali būti individai, besivadovaujantys protu. Teigiu, jog Hegelio sistema priklauso toms pozityviosios laisvės teorijoms, anot kurių asmuo gali būti laisvas tik priklausydamas politinei bendruomenei. III-oje dalyje analizuoju Berlino laisvių perskyros kritiką. Ji pateikiama XX a. Politinių teorijų kontekste: XXa. Vyksta atkaklus ginčas tarp negatyviosios (individualistų) ir pozityviosios (bendruomenininkų) laisvės atstovų. Teigiu... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / In this work I'm proving thesis: the Berlin's distinction between two freedoms is legitimate, because the attributes of positive or negative freedom are characteristic to the past thinkers' theoretical thought. In the first part I'm setting forth the main characteristics of Berlin's two freedoms. I'm also investingating the works of Berlin, which are investigating the problems of equality, philosophy of history, pluralism and Romanticism and Enlightenment. I maintain that Berlin is proponent of negative freedom, because the freedom of individual choice is protected in his philosophy, person is comprehended as autonomous subject. Berlin is proponent of value pluralism, he maintains that equal opportunities must be ensured for all. In the second part I'm analysing the concepts of freedom of three past thinkers, I'm arguing that these concepts of freedom have the features of negative or positive freedom. I'm settling that there are certain attitudes of negative freedom which are dominating in the theory of Locke: it is because author states that all individuals are free and can freely choose the ends of life. I attribute the works of Spinoza to the tradition of positive freedom, because author states that only mind following people can be free. I state, that the system of Hegel belongs to those theories of positive freedom, according to which person can only be free if he belongs to the political community. In the third part I'm analysing the criticism to the Berlin's freedom... [to full text]

Universiẗat, Diss., 2006--Heidelberg. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 339-353).

Zugleich: Diss. Düsseldorf, 2008. / Literaturverz.

Thesis (Doctor of Philosophy)--Miami University, Dept. of Political Science, 2004. / Title from second page of PDF document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 150-158).

O trabalho analisou os projetos de regulação das atividades da imprensa brasileira, discutindo a recepção, pelos jornais e no Parlamento, das legislações apresentadas e aprovadas durante o período republicano, nos anos de 1923, 1934, 1953 e 1967, e também o projeto rejeitado em 1956. Todos esses regulamentos, propostos por diferentes governos ao Congresso Nacional, foram discutidos e salientados ao público através de informações divulgadas pelos jornais escolhidos e também nas reuniões promovidas pelos congressistas e registradas em documentos oficiais, o que tornou possível identificar os argumentos utilizados tanto pelos periódicos quanto pelo sistema político, demonstrando que o tema da liberdade de imprensa se constituiu como discurso retórico usado por ambas as partes – governos e jornais – em defesa de sua atuação social. O trabalho de produção de notícias e informações, desenvolvido pela imprensa, foi configurado por movimentos históricos originados no Iluminismo, que projetava essa atividade como forma de propiciar ao cidadão as ferramentas para atuar na esfera pública, desde que respeitadas proposições que permitissem que os diferentes discursos fossem levados ao conhecimento do público. No processo histórico que levou ao desenho institucional da imprensa brasileira, essa condição ficou prejudicada, dentre outros motivos por ter a imprensa se tornado objeto de interesse de grupos sociais específicos, o que produziu conflitos com os governos. A tese concluiu que o processo histórico de elaboração das leis que deveriam regular o trabalho da imprensa teve uma recepção negativa pelos jornais, que argumentaram ser essa legislação uma tentativa de obstruir o trabalho por eles desenvolvido. No entanto, como se demonstrou, o processo resultou da disputa política e social protagonizada pelos diferentes grupos de interesse – imprensa e jornais – colocando em lados opostos os governos e as organizações jornalísticas, em torno da liderança pela atuação como mediador entre os cidadãos e o Estado. / This paper analyzes bills intended to regulate Brazilian press activities, as well as discusses the receptivity of the legislation submitted and passed by newspapers and the Parliament during the republican period in the years 1923, 1934, 1953 and 1967, in addition to the bill which was rejected in 1956. All these regulations, which were submitted to the National Congress by different governments, were shown and highlighted to the public through information published in selected newspapers and meetings promoted by congressmen and recorded in official documentation, which enabled the identification of arguments used by both newspapers and the political system, thus demonstrating that the theme of freedom of the press was rather a rhetorical discourse used by both parties – governments and newspapers – in the defense of their social performance. The task of producing news and information developed by the press has been shaped up by historical movements originated in the Enlightenment period, which projected this activity as a way of providing the citizen with the tools to act in the public sphere, on condition that the propositions allowing that different speeches brought to the attention of the public were respected. In the historical process that led to the institutional design of the Brazilian press, this condition was impaired, among other reasons because the press became an object of interest of specific social groups, giving rise to conflicts with governments. The thesis concluded that the historical process of drafting laws which should regulate the work of the press was not welcome by newspapers, which argued that this legislation was an attempt to interfere with their work. Nevertheless, as it has been shown, the process resulted from a political and social dispute between different interest groups – press and newspapers – placing governments and news organizations on opposite sides as to who should lead the mediation between citizens and the State.

Submitted by Oliveira Santos Dilzaná (dilznana@yahoo.com.br) on 2013-11-05T18:03:02Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação-Flaviane Nascimento.pdf: 3522447 bytes, checksum: 38d5bfba666d9eb7acd72910912964ae (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Ana Portela (anapoli@ufba.br) on 2013-11-18T17:10:01Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação-Flaviane Nascimento.pdf: 3522447 bytes, checksum: 38d5bfba666d9eb7acd72910912964ae (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2013-11-18T17:10:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação-Flaviane Nascimento.pdf: 3522447 bytes, checksum: 38d5bfba666d9eb7acd72910912964ae (MD5) / CAPES / Este estudo tem como objetivo analisar projetos e experiências de liberdade na região de Feira de Santana das últimas décadas do escravismo. A questão que persigo nesta dissertação é quais expectativas e experiências de liberdade foram possíveis entre os anos de 1850 e 1888 por aqueles lados da Bahia. Analiso em que medida as formas de outorga da carta de alforria e o exercício da liberdade estavam firmemente imbricados no período. Trata-se de um estudo que avalia os significados e usos da carta de alforria dentro de uma determinada gramática da libertação e do domínio a partir de uma coleção documental ainda inédita. Ou seja, como as circunstâncias da manumissão, sua política e prática incidiram sobre experiências de liberdade vivenciadas e compartilhadas pelos egressos do cativeiro, notadamente nos anos que se seguiram às reformas do escravismo no Brasil. Para tanto foi necessário entender como os diferentes sujeitos envolvidos – libertandos, testemunhas, juízes e senhores - definiam o estado ou a condição de liberdade daqueles sujeitos em ações cíveis de liberdade levadas às barras do tribunal. Pretendi uma análise dos significados do viver por si, grifados na documentação cartorial e judiciária.This study aims to analyze projects and experiences of freedom in the area of Feira de Santana in final decades of slavery. The question that I chase in this dissertation is what expectations and experiences of freedom were possible between the years of 1850 and 1888 in those parts of Bahia. I analyze the extent to which the shapes of the grant of letter of manumission and the exercise of freedom were tightly interwoven in the period. This is a study that assesses the meanings and uses of the letter of manumission within a particular grammar of liberation and domination from a collection of documents still unpublished. That is, as the circumstances of manumission, its policy and practice focused on experiences of freedom experienced and shared by freedmen, especially in the years following the reforms of slavery in Brazil. Therefore it was necessary to understand how the different subjects involved - libertandos, witnesses, judges and slaveholders - defined the state or condition of freedom from those subject to civil lawsuits brought freedom to the bars of the court. Here I analyze the meanings of live by themselves, written in judicial and notarial documents.

O trabalho analisou os projetos de regulação das atividades da imprensa brasileira, discutindo a recepção, pelos jornais e no Parlamento, das legislações apresentadas e aprovadas durante o período republicano, nos anos de 1923, 1934, 1953 e 1967, e também o projeto rejeitado em 1956. Todos esses regulamentos, propostos por diferentes governos ao Congresso Nacional, foram discutidos e salientados ao público através de informações divulgadas pelos jornais escolhidos e também nas reuniões promovidas pelos congressistas e registradas em documentos oficiais, o que tornou possível identificar os argumentos utilizados tanto pelos periódicos quanto pelo sistema político, demonstrando que o tema da liberdade de imprensa se constituiu como discurso retórico usado por ambas as partes – governos e jornais – em defesa de sua atuação social. O trabalho de produção de notícias e informações, desenvolvido pela imprensa, foi configurado por movimentos históricos originados no Iluminismo, que projetava essa atividade como forma de propiciar ao cidadão as ferramentas para atuar na esfera pública, desde que respeitadas proposições que permitissem que os diferentes discursos fossem levados ao conhecimento do público. No processo histórico que levou ao desenho institucional da imprensa brasileira, essa condição ficou prejudicada, dentre outros motivos por ter a imprensa se tornado objeto de interesse de grupos sociais específicos, o que produziu conflitos com os governos. A tese concluiu que o processo histórico de elaboração das leis que deveriam regular o trabalho da imprensa teve uma recepção negativa pelos jornais, que argumentaram ser essa legislação uma tentativa de obstruir o trabalho por eles desenvolvido. No entanto, como se demonstrou, o processo resultou da disputa política e social protagonizada pelos diferentes grupos de interesse – imprensa e jornais – colocando em lados opostos os governos e as organizações jornalísticas, em torno da liderança pela atuação como mediador entre os cidadãos e o Estado. / This paper analyzes bills intended to regulate Brazilian press activities, as well as discusses the receptivity of the legislation submitted and passed by newspapers and the Parliament during the republican period in the years 1923, 1934, 1953 and 1967, in addition to the bill which was rejected in 1956. All these regulations, which were submitted to the National Congress by different governments, were shown and highlighted to the public through information published in selected newspapers and meetings promoted by congressmen and recorded in official documentation, which enabled the identification of arguments used by both newspapers and the political system, thus demonstrating that the theme of freedom of the press was rather a rhetorical discourse used by both parties – governments and newspapers – in the defense of their social performance. The task of producing news and information developed by the press has been shaped up by historical movements originated in the Enlightenment period, which projected this activity as a way of providing the citizen with the tools to act in the public sphere, on condition that the propositions allowing that different speeches brought to the attention of the public were respected. In the historical process that led to the institutional design of the Brazilian press, this condition was impaired, among other reasons because the press became an object of interest of specific social groups, giving rise to conflicts with governments. The thesis concluded that the historical process of drafting laws which should regulate the work of the press was not welcome by newspapers, which argued that this legislation was an attempt to interfere with their work. Nevertheless, as it has been shown, the process resulted from a political and social dispute between different interest groups – press and newspapers – placing governments and news organizations on opposite sides as to who should lead the mediation between citizens and the State.

John Milton (1608 1674) é conhecido não só como o poeta do épico Paraíso perdido, mas também como um dos grandes teóricos e polemistas do período das Guerras Civis Inglesas. Seu principal tema é o problema da liberdade em um reino que se transformou segundo ele em uma tirania de reis e potentados religiosos, onde o súdito não era mais adequadamente representado por seu soberano; de acordo com Milton, como o rei não era mais o representante justo do reino, ele não deveria mais exercer as suas funções, sendo necessária a sua deposição e, em alguns casos extremos, o regicídio (como foi defendido pelo próprio poeta); assim, a solução proposta junto com outros panfletários anti-realistas, que nunca atingiram a riqueza retórica e a ousadia teórica de Milton é o surgimento de uma república inglesa, inspirada nos moldes ciceronianos e de clara influência secular-humanista. A partir de agora, o verdadeiro representante do governo deve ser o povo, mais precisamente a commonwealth, formada por indivíduos capazes de dominar as paixões que os podem transformá-los em escravos e viver de acordo com a vontade da razão e da prudência. A liberdade interior dos membros desta república se dá dentro desta commonwealth, onde eles podem exercer a liberdade civil (em que o indivíduo pode viver com tranqüilidade desde que respeite as leis da república), a liberdade doméstica (em que se pode escolher qual é o tipo de educação que pretende ter, quais são as pessoas com quem pretende se relacionar, etc.) e a liberdade religiosa (a possibilidade de escolher uma religião sem a interferência do governo ou de qualquer outra seita religiosa que se classifique como oficial). / John Milton (1608 - 1674) is known not only for his epic Paradise Lost, but also as one of the great theorists and polemicists of the period of the English Civil Wars. Its main theme is the problem of freedom in a kingdom that has become a tyranny of kings and religious potentates, where the subject was not properly represented by his sovereign; according to Milton, as the king was no longer the right representative of the kingdom, he should no longer perform his duties, requiring the deposition and in some extreme cases, the regicide (as argued by him); thus, the proposed solution along with other anti-royalist pamphleteers, who never reached Milton´s rhetoric and the theoretical boldness is the emergence of an English republic. From now on, the true representative of the government should be the people, specifically the commonwealth, made up of individuals able to master the passions that can turn them into slaves and live according to the will of reason and prudence. The Freedom of the Republic takes place within this commonwealth, where its members can exercise civil liberty (in which the individual can live with peace of mind provided if it complies with the laws of the Republic), domestic freedom (where you can choose what kind education you want to have, who are the people you want to relate, etc.) and religious freedom (the ability to choose a religion without interference from the government or any other religious sect that classify them as \"official\").

This paper’s purpose is to assess Kurdistan Region of Iraq’s democracy, in two different points in time: one stretching from 1992 to 2003 and another stretching from 2003 to 2017. Robert A. Dahl’s polyarchy model is used as the theoretic framework and an ideal type. The polyarchy model contains seven different criteria (referred to as “institutions” by Dahl) that all need to be met for the “country” to be considered a polyarchy (which is what is most usually referred to as a “democracy”). The material is mostly based on annual reports and other source material from human rights organizations such as Reporters without Borders and Freedom House, but also from independent election observers. The conclusion of this paper is that Kurdistan Region of Iraq in the second time period fulfills the criteria for having “Free and Fair elections”, which it did not in the first time period (1992 – 2003). The criteria “Alternative sources of information” was however fulfilled in the first time period, but not the second. Although the most basic institutions of polyarchy, such as elected officials and universal suffrage, are present in the first time period (1992 – 2003) the actual restrictions on freedom of speech and alternative sources of information, makes Kurdistan Region of Iraq fall short of polyarchy in that time period. Although there is an overall improvement in some of the criterion from the first time period to the second, Kurdistan Region of Iraq does not fulfill all of the necessary criterion to be considered a polyarchy in the second time period either.