Constitutional Law. Freedom of Speech and of the Press. Recent Decisions

1916 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 170
Author(s):  
B. W.
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The Press

ДО ПИТАННЯ ПРО ОСОБЛИВОСТІ ТЕАТРАЛЬНО-КРИТИЧНОГО ПРОЦЕСУ В УКРАЇНІ 1920-х РОКІВ

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Admink Admink
Keyword(s):  
Editorial Policy ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Professional Status ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Artistic Process ◽  
The Press ◽  
Theater Criticism ◽  
Ideological Attitudes ◽  
Theatrical Criticism ◽  
Political Realities

Досліджуються закономірності розвитку театральної критики на тлі культурно-мистецького процесу та складних суспільно-політичних реалій 1920-х років. В Україні у першій пол. 1920-х рр. мав місце спонтанний вихід багатьох нових видань, для яких характерна несистематична поява, короткотривалість існування та нечітка редакційна політика. На відміну від політизованої преси ІІ пол. 1920-х рр. періодика І пол. 1920-х рр. не завжди відповідала ідеологічним настановам влади. Це обумовлено ситуацією у країні, невпорядкованою системою друку та, відповідно, відносною свободою слова. Зосереджено увагу на зміні мистецьких орієнтирів, вагомості та професійному стані театральної критики ІІ пол. 1920-х рр. у порівнянні з попереднім періодом. Адже саме тоді відбувається активізація представників різних поколінь театральних критиків. Ключові слова: театральна критика, 1920 роки, суспільно-політичні реалії, періодичні видання. The objectives of the article are to study the patterns of the theatrical criticism development against the turbulent cultural and artistic process and the complex of socio-political realities of the 1920 s. In Ukraine in the 1st half of the 1920 s there was a spontaneous output of many new publications, which are characterized by a non-systematic appearance, short-term existence and a rather fuzzy editorial policy in Ukraine in the first half of the 1920 s. Unlike the politicized press of the 2 nd half of 1920 s, periodicals of the 1st half of the 1920 s not always corresponded to the ideological attitudes of the authorities. This was due to the situation in the country, the disorderly system of the press and, accordingly, the relative freedom of speech. The article also focuses on the changing of artistic guidelines, the weight and professional status of theater criticism of the 2 nd half of 1920 s, compared with the previous period. It is at this time that the representatives of different generations of theater critics become more active. Key words: theater criticism, 1920-s, socio-political realities, periodicals.

PERSECUTION AND THE ART OF FREEDOM: ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF FREE PRESS AND FREE SPEECH IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-208
Author(s):  
Khalil M. Habib
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Alexis De Tocqueville ◽  
Free Society ◽  
Free Press ◽  
Constituent Element ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Right ◽  
Shed Light

AbstractAccording to Tocqueville, the freedom of the press, which he treats as an extension of the freedom of speech, is a primary constituent element of liberty. Tocqueville treats the freedom of the press in relation to and as an extension of the right to assemble and govern one’s own affairs, both of which he argues are essential to preserving liberty in a free society. Although scholars acknowledge the importance of civil associations to liberty in Tocqueville’s political thought, they routinely ignore the importance he places on the freedom of the press and speech. His reflections on the importance of the free press and speech may help to shed light on the dangers of recent attempts to censor the press and speech.

scholarly journals Discarding Dariano: The Heckler's Veto and a New School Speech Doctrine

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien M. Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
New School ◽  
The Press ◽  
Spoken Words

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 26 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Of all of the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, perhaps none inspire the level of interest and debate among both scholars and laypersons as the freedom of speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and it has long been held that “speech” encompasses not merely spoken words butany conduct which is “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

The Dominant American View of Freedoms of Press and Speech, in the Decade Leading Up to Ratification of the Federal Bill of Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 303-336
Author(s):  
Wendell Bird
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Source Material ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Original Source ◽  
Narrow View ◽  
The Press ◽  
Freedom Of Press ◽  
The World

In the 1780s in America, the advocates of broad understandings of freedom of press and freedom of speech continued to argue, as “Junius Wilkes” did in 1782, that “[i]f a printer is liable to prosecution and restraint, for publishing pieces on public measures, conceived libellous, the liberty of the press is annihilated and ruined. . . . The danger is precisely the same to liberty, in punishing a person after the performance appears to the world, as in preventing its publication in the first instance. The doctrine of libels, is of pernicious consequence to the freedom of the press.” Many other essays in the 1780s showed the dominance of an expansive understanding of freedoms of press and speech, as did the declarations of rights of nine states. That was the context in which the First Amendment was adopted and ratified in 1789–1791. These conclusions about the prevalent and dominant understanding after the mid-1760s are flatly contrary to the narrow view of freedoms of press and speech stated by Blackstone and Mansfield, and restated by the neo-Blackstonians, who claim that the narrow understanding was not only predominant but exclusive through the ratification of the First Amendment and onward until 1798. This book’s conclusions are based on far more original source material than the neo-Blackstonians’ conclusions.

Piety, Purity, and Nationalism

2020 ◽  
pp. 161-193
Author(s):  
Mary E. McCoy
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Religious Tolerance ◽  
Religious Expression ◽  
Islamic Fundamentalism ◽  
Modern Democracy ◽  
Political Pluralism ◽  
Religious Intolerance ◽  
The Press ◽  
New Democracy ◽  
The Relationship

In the post-Suharto era, freedom of speech, particularly the press, quickly gained stronger legal protections in the constitutional reforms of the early 2000s. Its exercise by citizens and journalists alike has been a key force in warding off a democratic reversal. Yet, following the unshackling of religious expression, a rise in Islamic fundamentalism and a backlash against Western liberalism have inspired new religious intolerance that has circumscribed certain forms of speech and threatened the embrace of diversity long central to Indonesia’s identity. Chapter 6 examines the intersection of religious tolerance, freedom of speech, and political pluralism to understand the relationship between regulating blasphemy and the future of Indonesia’s new democracy. Specifically, it studies the way Indonesia surged forward economically and politically in establishing a more modern democracy while atavistic elements from its past continue to complicate its transition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document