Special Edition - Dunja Mijatović
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
Release Date: 05/04/2020
Episode 41 - Free Speech and Racial Justice: Friends or Foes?
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
This episode will focus on what role the dynamic between censorship and free speech has played in maintaining and challenging racist and oppressive societies. The episode will use American slavery and segregation, British colonialism, and South African apartheid as case studies.
info_outline
Special Edition - Suzanne Nossel
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
In this Special Edition, we will zoom in on current challenges to free speech – specifically in the US. With me to discuss this timely subject, I have CEO of PEN America, Suzanne Nossel, who has just published her new book Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All.
info_outline
Special Edition - Daphne Keller & Kate Klonick
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
“Internet Speech Will Never Go Back to Normal” read a recent Atlantic article, that stated that “governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.”
info_outline
Special Edition - Dunja Mijatović
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
Since the coronavirus became a pandemic, governments around the world have adopted a wide range of measures affecting basic human rights. This includes many of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe all of whom are legally bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.
info_outline
Special Edition - Monika Bickert
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
The Coronavirus has disrupted life as we know it. And the Internet overflows with torrents of data, news and updates about the ongoing crisis. But in parallel with the corona pandemic, WHO has warned of an “infodemic” of mis- and disinformation spreading through social media and messaging apps.
info_outline
Episode 40 - The Age of Human Rights: Tragedy and Triumph
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
In this episode we will explore:
info_outline
Episode 39 - The Totalitarian Temptation – Part II - Der Untergang
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
Weimar Germany was deeply conflicted about the value of free speech. On the one hand, freedom of expression was constitutionally protected. On the other hand, the constitution allowed censorship of cinema and “trash and filth” in literature.
info_outline
Episode 38 - The Totalitarian Temptation – Part I
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
In this first of a two-part episode on totalitarianism in Communist Russia, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany, we will focus on the rise of communism and Italian fascism and the effects of these ideologies on free expression. Hopefully this journey into the darkest of pasts will help shed light on how to grapple with one of democracy’s eternal and inevitable dilemmas: What should be the limits of free speech?
info_outline
Episode 37 - Expert opinion: The History of Mass Surveillance, with Andreas Marklund
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
In this episode, we discuss the history of mass surveillance and its consequences for freedom of expression and information. With me is Andreas Marklund who is the head of research at the ENIGMA Museum of Communication, in Copenhagen.
info_outline
Episode 36 - Expert opinion: Thomas Healy on how Oliver Wendell Holmes changed the history of free speech in America
Clear and Present Danger - A history of free speech
In this conversation, professor Thomas Healy explains how Wendell Holmes changed his mind on free speech and laid the foundation for the current strong legal protection of the First Amendment. Thomas Healy is a professor of law at Seton Hall University School of Law and the author of the award-winning book “The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind--And Changed the History of Free Speech in America”.
info_outlineSince the coronavirus became a pandemic, governments around the world have adopted a wide range of measures affecting basic human rights. This includes many of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe all of whom are legally bound by the European Convention on Human Rights. Most states have limited the freedoms of assembly and movement, some have also limited privacy and data protection and then there are some who have restricted freedom of expression through laws or policies banning false information.
To discuss the implications for freedom of expression is none other than the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, who previously served as the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.
In a statement on April 3rd, Dunja Mijatović wrote: “The global health problems caused by COVID-19 require effective measures to protect people’s health and lives. This includes combating disinformation that may cause panic and social unrest. Regrettably some governments are using this imperative as a pretext to introduce disproportionate restrictions to press freedom; this is a counterproductive approach that must stop. Particularly in times of crisis, we need to protect our precious liberties and rights."
In this conversation we discuss:
- The measures countries like Hungary, Romania, Russia and Azerbaijan, that typically target false information, have taken during the crisis.
- How bad the situation has become for free expression in Europe because of corona-related restrictions.
- Which types of restrictions that are particularly worrying and which countries that are of specific concern.
- If combating misinformation is vital during this crisis, why is it a problem if states adopt exceptional measures? Article 10 paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights allows governments to interfere with free expression for the purpose of “public safety” and the “protection of health.”
- According to case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the member states have a certain margin of appreciation when it comes to finding the right balance between convention rights (free speech) and competing interests (such as health and public safety). On the one hand the threat from Covid-19 give states a wide margin on appreciation, but on the other hand one could argue that access to information and scrutiny and debate of emergency measures is just as important.
- What types of measures that would be consistent with freedom of expression. Would it be legitimate to ban or remove statements that contradicted health advice by WHO or the national health authorities?
- Should journalists and media have more freedom than ordinary citizens expressing themselves on social media, blogs and so on.
Full Text of the April 3rd statement
Home page for Dunja Mijatović