Search results

This article argues that civil mental health laws operate to constrict how people think, understand, and speak about psychosocial disability, madness, and mental distress. It does so with reference to views and experiences of mental health service users and psychiatric survivors (users and survivors) and their/our accounts of disability, madness, and distress, such as those articulated by the emerging field of Mad studies. The analysis considers the application of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression that are enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international human rights instruments to the mental health context. The article explores the suppression of freedom of opinion and expression that is effected through the symbolic violence of psychiatry and the mental health paradigm. Focusing on Australian legal frameworks, the article discusses how the material violence and coercion characterising mental health laws compound this process. It is further argued that civil mental health laws, by codifying the tenets of psychiatry and the mental health paradigm so as to render them largely unassailable, validate the ontological nullification of users and survivors. The foregoing analysis exposes dangers of adopting a functional test of mental capacity as the pre-eminent legal standard for authorising involuntary mental health interventions. It is suggested that considering freedom of opinion and expression from the perspective of psychosocial disability and madness reinforces the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities' interpretation that such interventions are incompatible with international human rights standards.

The rise of disinformation on social media has prompted governments around the world to enact legislation that may affect every person's right to freedom of opinion and expression. This Note seeks to explore the rise of disinformation and the legal framework that applies and to highlight some of the recent proposals to combat disinformation on social media.

One of the key tenets (a principle or belief) of democratic and legal state is providing the highest level of media freedom, and it alludes to freedom of expression and freedom of thought and belief. Executive always attempts for seduction and keeping the media under his wing, the Government funding through the media or through government advertising, but the Republic of Macedonia has made several amendments to the improvement of Government advertising during the election campaign and beyond. The Republic of Macedonia needs the existence of a healthy critical awareness and public, with an emphasis on fostering and defending the public debate and freedom of expression. The existence of different opinions, discussions, debates and openness of institutions would justify the existence of the community. Freedom of expression stems from many international legal acts, which were later ratified by the Parliament of Republic of Macedonia. The most important deed is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which clearly stipulates that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom advocacy of opinions and the freedom to seek, give and receive information and ideas through any media . Keywords: expression, debate, freedom, conscience

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Article 19 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights are approximately the same. Regarded as a human right, freedom of expression is a moral claim on any political order. To be legitimate, a political order has to guarantee this right. In constitutional democracies, freedom of expression is transformed into positive law and has the status of a constitutional right. Generally, a right is a relation between the holder (a), the addressees (b), and the object (R) of the right. If we speak of a constitutional right, (b) is a polity and (a) every citizen. That (a) has a right to (R) means, conversely, that (b) is obliged to guarantee (R) to (a). Any constitutional right gives rise to questions about how (c) is to be understood: What is the right a right to, i.e. what does it entitle citizens to do (or not to do) and what does it oblige the polity to do (or not to do)? These questions concerning rights as legal positions and relations can be distinguished from questions concerning the justification of rights, on the one hand, and the application and implementation of entrenched rights, on the other (Alexy 1991: 164-168). The reasons for rights answer the question "what entitles (a) to (R)" or "in virtue of what does (a) have the right to (R)". Of course, questions on the three levels are interrelated. How we answer questions of justification has implications for how we answer questions of legal positions and relations as well as questions of application and implementation, and vice versa. In the present article, we will focus on the justificatory level, more specifically on the view developed by the Norwegian Governmental Commission on Freedom of Expression (1996-1999). On the basis of its justificatory considerations, the Commission proposed a new Article 100 in the Norwegian Constitution 1. The Commission's amendment reflected its considerations quite literally. The Commission presented three reasons for why freedom of expression should be protected. All three were incorporated in the proposed amendment: "No person may be held liable in law for having imparted or received information, ideas or messages unless such liability can be justified in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression, which are the seeking of truth, the promotion of democracy and the individual's freedom to form opinions."2 Today, this passage is part of Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution. The Commission's view strongly relies on the Norwegian philosopher Gunnar Skirbekk's attempt to clarify the normative foundation of freedom of expression as a constitutional right.3 Skirbekk was himself a member of the Commission. Moreover, the Commission itself very explicitly states in its report – in the chapter on justification ("Why freedom of expression?") – that it follows Skirbekk's explication of the three reasons for freedom of expression (19, n. 7).4 The three reasons are referred to as the principle of truth, the principle of democracy and the principle of autonomy. Together, the Commission says, these principles give a robust and potentially universal justification of the freedom of expression (25). 5 We start out by presenting the Commission's argument for freedom of expression and Skirbekk's philosophical elaboration of it. In the following paragraphs, we clarify and discuss the argument more thoroughly, and argue that the Commission and its philosopher have chosen a questionable justificatory strategy. ; publishedVersion

Abstract
The article investigates whether there is a need for legislative action in social networks—which are similar to broadcasting—to ensure that diversity of opinion can be sufficiently expressed to protect freedom of opinion-forming. The investigation focuses on Facebook because it has the largest number of registered users worldwide and is thus the network with the greatest reach. First and foremost, it will be debated whether social networks have a power of opinion comparable to broadcasting. Based on this foundation, it is possible to assess the extent to which diversity of opinion is expressed in social networks and the extent to which freedom to form opinions is actually under threat.

Abstract: The present work analyses Content Moderation, focusing on ethical concerns and cognitive effects. Starting from a general description and history of the moderation process, it stresses some ethical problems: quality of moderation, transparency, and the working conditions of human moderators. Using some of Facebook leaked slides offering examples of moderation, we define some controversial rules and principles for Commercial Content Moderation. These examples highlight a general lack of coherency and transparency, which has the potential to affect users' cognitive attitudes, their perception of reality, and their freedom of speech. Such effects are studied in comparison to other well-known online cognitive phenomena (bubbles and echo chambers) and in relation to the most recent dedicated legislation in EU countries. The current Content Moderation scheme leaves users at risk of specific cognitive distortions, highlighting the urgent need for greater transparency throughout the moderation process and better working conditions for moderators.Keywords: Content Moderation; Freedom of Speech; Epistemic Bubble; Technology EthicsCommercial Content Moderation: un oscuro labirinto per la libertà d'espressione e le opinioni degli utentiRiassunto: Il presente lavoro offre un'analisi approfondita della moderazione di contenuti, concentrandosi sulle problematiche etiche e sugli effetti cognitivi. A partire da una introduzione ai concetti chiave e alla storia della moderazione di contenuti online, si concentra su alcuni problemi etici primari: la qualità della moderazione, la sua trasparenza e le condizioni di lavoro dei lavoratori. Utilizzando dei documenti formativi interni di Facebook, pubblicati da un quotidiano e dagli esempi in essi contenuti, definiremo le controverse regole e i principi della Commercial Content Moderation. Ne emerge una generale mancanza di coerenza organizzativa e di trasparenza nel processo, che mostra potenziali effetti dannosi sulle attitudini degli utenti, sulla loro percezione della realtà e la loro libertà di parola. Tali effetti saranno studiati in confronto con i più conosciuti effetti cognitivi del mondo dei social (epistemic bubble, filter bubble, echo chamber) ed in relazione alle più recenti disposizioni di leggi europee in merito. Gli schemi attualmente in uso producono degli specifici effetti di distorsione cognitiva e conseguentemente mostrano l'importanza di una maggiore attenzione alla trasparenza del processo e alle condizioni di lavoro dei moderatori.Parole chiave: Moderazione di contenuti; Libertà di parola; Bolla epistemica; Etica della tecnologia

Freedom of expression is enshrined in the Constitution as a sacred right of the American people. The appeal is clear: Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. Yet the ink had barely dried on the Constitution before the first landmark freedom of expression issue exploded onto the scene. This student resource traces 11 such issues that have polarized the nation. These events show the variety, complexity, and intensity that freedom of speech and expression issues engender.||Magee illustrates how the United States has worked through these contentious periods wi

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table Of Contents -- Introduction: First Freedom -- Chapter 1: America's First Amendment -- Chapter 2: Freedom's Around The World -- Chapter 3: Promoting Freedom Of Speech -- Glossary -- In FDR's Words -- Additional Resources -- Index/About The Author -- Back Cover

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." (Article 19, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights) / "Dear President Bush, I'm sure you'll be having a nice little tea party with your fellow war criminal, Tony Blair. Please wash the cucumber sandwiches down with a glass of blood." (Harold Pinter, the Guardian, 18 November 2003) / Two years after composing the above letter Harold Pinter was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. Many had thought that his outspoken views might preclude any chance of such an honour, but in the last decade the Nobel Prize judges have increasingly linked the award with a politics of human rights, and a championing of freedom of expression. In their citation the judges praised Pinter as a dramatist 'who uncovers the precipice under everyday prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms'. Pinter's insistence on speaking out, like other recent Nobel prize-winners, exemplifies the spirit of article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. His blunt rage against the American/British invasion of Iraq had been made public in his poetry, in letters, and in speeches long before public opinion in the West turned anti-war; and his castigation of American imperialism has not ceased since the 1980s. In his controversial Nobel acceptance speech Pinter contended that 'the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought' in communist Eastern Europe since 1945 have been fully acknowledged and documented, but that US crimes in the same era have scarcely been admitted, 'let alone recognised as crimes'.

A large number of studies have been devoted to the impact of perceptions of opinion distributions on the expression of public opinion. In the present study, we propose that perceptions of opinion distributions have implications that go beyond influencing individual issue stances, also influencing respondents' willingness to engage in political activities. Specifically, we examine the link between opinion perceptions & two dimensions of political participation: participatory behavior involving public expression of opinion, & participatory behavior that does not involve the public expression of a person's opinion. Based on data collected as part of the 1996 American National Election Study, we examine the role that communication variables, group membership, attitude strength, & perceptions of public opinion play in predicting public & nonpublic forms of participation in the US. Implications for research in the areas of political participation & public opinion expression are outlined. 4 Tables, 2 Figures, 29 References. Adapted from the source document.