This paper presents an account of the ethical and conceptual relationship between free speech and press freedom. Many authors have argued that, despite there being some common ground between them, these two liberties should be treated as properly distinct, both theoretically and practically. The core of the argument, for this “unbundling” approach, is that conflating free speech and press freedom makes it too easy for reasonable democratic regulations on press freedom to be portrayed, by (...) their opponents, as part of a programme of illiberal censorship. While we acknowledge the important grain of truth in that argument, we try to show how the alternative, “unbundling” approach can also be used to undermine or mischaracterise democratically justifiable opposition to media regulations in despotic regimes. In light of the problems on both sides, we defend a contextually-variable account of the relation between these two liberties. (shrink)

Does the interaction between climactic demands, monetary resources, and freedom suggest a more general relationship between the environmental challenges that human societies face and their resources to meet those challenges? Using data on press freedom (Van de Vliert 2011a), we found no evidence of a similar interaction with natural resources (as measured by oil exports) or risk for natural disasters.

New settings for communication are being built, having, at one side, great corporations of television, radio, press and on line media, and at the other side the role of the independent / alternative press, understood as not bound to a private, public or state enterprise or to some economic group. It takes gradually shape the constitution of the opposition between the traditional media and the independent / alternative press, having as a material base the new technologies of (...) information. How can the new technology of information associated to the new settings of press freedom and the phenomenon of the contradiction of public opinion in the era of internet accomplish the mediation of the opinion in a globalized society? Or still, starting from the presupposition of the press freedom, how to guarantee that the society solves the contradiction of the public opinion? The phenomenon of the public opinion is contradicting because it has in itself, at the same time, the universality of constitutional principles of Law and Ethics, together with the peculiarity of the citizens’ rights and concerns. This contradiction finds its solution by means of the mediation of the freedom of the press itself within a frame of democratic legality. This is the power of the contradiction: to put into effect the dialectic tension between the opposed poles of the universal and the particular in the press freedom, avowing the right of every citizen to express publicly his opinion. This is Hegel’s theory of public opinion: the press freedom and the parliament, as a politic space, are privileged spheres of the mediation of the contradictory phenomenon of the public opinion. Keywords: Press freedom; public opinion; press; citizen journalists. (shrink)

Opponents and proponents alike of the freedom of the UK press to print prejudicial content about marginalised groups typically frame the debate in classic ‘free speech’ vs ‘harm principle’ terms. Those in favour of press freedom argue that the print press' right to freedom of expression beats any perceived or actual harm caused, and those against argue the opposite. Predictably, little progress is made in either party convincing the other. I suggest that we ought (...) to instead ask, what grounds the freedom of the press? I propose that one plausible answer is: the value of agential epistemic participation. And I argue that we cannot uphold that value at the same time as permitting discriminatory reporting against collectives of individuals. This offers a strong basis from which to argue for a change in UK press regulatory policy, to allow discrimination claims against groups of individuals to be heard. Further, when we consider the role of epistemic participation in one’s ability to perform as a person, we ought to find that most complaints will in practice find in the favour of the group in question, rather than the PPM. (shrink)

The history of press freedom in South Korea (hereafter Korea) has been characterized by periods of chaos. The major media companies in Korea have written a history of shame. Since Japanese colonial rule, freedom of the press has been more often restricted than protected by the laws and policies. There have been four main features of press freedom since 1910: severe restriction during the Japanese colonial rule; experiencing freedom with unstable democracy under the (...) American military rule and the First and Second republics; oppression of the military regimes; and the struggle with capital power since the advent of civilian government. Several decades of Japanese colonial rule, American military rule, and military dictators have influenced the Korean society and the media politically, economically, socially and culturally. (shrink)

The history of press freedom in South Korea has been characterized by periods of chaos. The major media companies in Korea have written a history of shame. Since Japanese colonial rule, freedom of the press has been more often restricted than protected by the laws and policies. There have been four main features of press freedom since 1910: severe restriction during the Japanese colonial rule; experiencing freedom with unstable democracy under the American military (...) rule and the First and Second republics; oppression of the military regimes; and the struggle with capital power since the advent of civilian government. Several decades of Japanese colonial rule, American military rule, and military dictators have influenced the Korean society and the media politically, economically, socially and culturally. (shrink)

Raw (pragmatic) and potential (theoretical) power is seen as the key to press freedom in various global settings. Because the locus of power determines the locus of freedom, the authors suggest a model to understand where the raw and potential power resides within a matrix consisting of the State, the Media Elite, the Journalists, or the People. Numerous questions concerning accountability and ethics are raised concerning the practical application of a model that purports to overcome cultural biases (...) inherent in traditional theories of press and society. (shrink)

The people's right to know and press rights to gather and publish information remain dominant justifications for controversial media activities. Yet, the power of the media to set the agenda for public discourse in our country warrants a careful analysis of these rights, their corresponding responsibilities, and their moral limits. This article examines the right to know and press freedom from the perspective of their shared purpose, facilitation of informed decision making. This article also demonstrates moral justification (...) of limits on right to know and press freedom based on traditional ethics theories and media impact on public discourse. (shrink)

Some argue that at least some non-liberal, non-democratic societies deserve fiill and good standing in the international community. These arguments imply that some divergence in understanding the role of the press is also justified and should be tolerated. But what are the limits of diversity here? I begin to find these limits by considering John Rawls's "decent" societies in the context of Amartya Sen's work on famine. Sen claims that a free press plays an important role in famine (...) prevention. After giving an account of press rights, I argue that a partially free press can play the role Sen attributes to the free press. I then argue that decent societies could and should accommodate such partially free presses. (shrink)

Journal of Applied Philosophy, EarlyView.

Journalism is viewed here as being in danger of becoming a profession, thereby changing the field into a narrow, monolithic, self?centered fellowship of true believers devoid of outward?looking and service orientations.

Political philosophical work on whistleblowing has thus far neglected the role of journalists. A curious oversight, given that the whistleblower’s objective - informing the public about government wrongdoing - can typically not be realized without the media. The present article, therefore, aims to start remedying this neglect by exploring some of the most pressing questions. Accordingly, the paper will be structured as follows: Section 1 will explain why the authorities have treated whistleblowers far more harshly than the journalists who publish (...) their disclosures. Still, the freedom of expression of media workers is less extensive than that of ordinary individuals. Section 2 will explain why by arguing that the freedom of expression of the press, contrary to that of individuals, is not an unconditional good; instead, it is good merely instrumentally. Section 3 considers and refutes an argument for a more expansive press freedom based on the marketplace of ideas model and, in doing so, also discusses some important differences between the ethics of the traditional and the new online media. Often journalists, like whistleblowers, will justify their publications based on leaked classified documents by appealing to the public interest. Yet, this is problematic for two reasons: the public interest is never clarified; and this argument overlooks the fact that the public interest can also be a reason for not publishing about leaked classified documents, even if the leaks are verified. Accordingly, Section 5 sets out to clarify the public interest. Section 4 then discusses two case studies – one concerning unverified leaks, and one concerning verified leaks – in order to demonstrate how we might employ the concept of the public interest in order to determine the permissibility of publishing about leaked classified information in practice. (shrink)

El volumen Aesthetic Reason and Imaginative Freedom: Friederich Schiller and Philosophy continúa un esfuerzo que se viene gestando desde hace más de quince años en el ámbito de la investigación filosófica: restituir la figura de Friedrich Schiller como filósofo.

Without the freedom of the press the road to fanaticism and totalitarianism lies wide open. This book focuses on how the press reacted under strain in a number of cases in the 20th and 21st century. Both academics and journalists give their views on censorship, self-censorship and press-ethics challenging the reader to find his own position.

Choosing Freedom is an accessible and accurate introduction to Kant’s moral philosophy that brings a Kantian way of living to life. It’s not a moral instruction manual that provides readers the ten...

When government officials can look you in the eye and invoke the Federal Freedom of Information Act, they know full well that they have donned a cloak of invisibility. They are saying, in effect, "You can't touch me," and they are calculating that you will get the message and go away. Worse yet, they are putting a premium on "access" journalism—they are elevating the importance of access, of authorized leaks, of journalists currying favor with the right government officials to (...) get information and to get information quickly, when they are on deadline and they need answers. Simply put, if journalists cannot rely on being able to go to source documents in a reasonably fast way, they are in a terribly weakened position when it comes to actually dealing day-in and day-out with high government officials. (shrink)

Book reviewed: Freedom and responsibility in Neoplatonist thought.

European Journal of Philosophy, EarlyView.

Alan Kahan’s productive professional career has been devoted primarily to translating and writing about European liberals. A partial list would include: Aristocratic Liberalism: The Social and Poli...

Mr. Bork discusses concern over press power and irresponsibility, particularly the attitude of the press that the public's "right to know" gives them the right to publish anything. He expresses concern that the public backlash could lead to excessive restrictions on the press.

Over the last eight years, there has been a sharp increase in government censorship and officially sponsored persecution of the Moroccan free press. The Moroccan press still enjoys greater freedoms now than under the late King Hassan II, thanks to the liberalization efforts he facilitated toward the end of his life, which were also continued in the early years of his son’s reign. However, the freedoms media activists worked so hard to obtain at the end of the last (...) century have rapidly begun to erode, particularly after the 2003 terrorist attacks in Casablanca. Morocco remains an important Arab ally to both the United States and Europe, but the monarchy risks that relationship by tightening the reigns on speech and violating international human rights laws. Moreover, the monarchy puts itself at risk domestically every time it imprisons a journalist or imposes a bankrupting fine on a popular periodical, as Moroccan human rights groups grow less enchanted by their king. Over the last two years, criminal charges against the media have increased significantly, causing some publications to close and leaving a number of journalists in jail for their writings. In addition, since 2008, the Moroccan government has begun to censor the Internet, arresting bloggers and satirists and temporarily suspending access to popular websites, such as YouTube. This article explores Morocco's obligations under international and domestic law relating to freedom of expression and examines some recent court cases involving the Moroccan media. (shrink)

"Provides a grounding in the philosophical, historical, and legal development of the concept of intellectual freedom by providing current thinking on a range of intellectual freedom concepts, cases, and controversies"--.

Would suppressing deepfakes violate freedom of expression norms? The question is pressing because the deepfake phenomenon in its more poisonous manifestations appears to call for a response, and automated targeting of some kind looks to be the most practically viable. Two simple answers are rejected: that deepfakes do not deserve protection under freedom of expression legislation because they are fake by definition; and that deepfakes can be targeted if but only if they are misleadingly presented as authentic. To (...) make progress, following a discussion of why freedom of expression deserves protection in a democracy, the question is reframed. At issue is not whether the arrival of deepfakes brings new and potentially serious dangers (it does), nor whether these dangers call for measures that potentially limit freedom of expression (they do), but whether the need for such measures raises any new and unfamiliar freedom-of-expression challenges. The answer to that question, surprisingly, is no. The balancing act needed to cope with the arrival of deepfakes brings plenty of difficulties, certainly, but none of the measures likely to be effective in tackling deepfake harms raises freedom-of-expression concerns that aren’t familiar from consideration of non-deepfake harms. In that respect, at least, the arrival of deepfakes makes no difference. (shrink)