No abstract

Internettet har sat nye betingelser for den demokratiske offentlighed. Den journalistiske praksis er født ind i nogle opgaver, der opstod sammen med massemediernes fremkomst. I takt med at de traditionelle massemedier (tryk, radio, tv) afløses af internetmedier, rejser spørgsmålet sig, om vi stadig har brug for journalistikken. Jeg vil argumentere for, at der i forhold til idealer om en deliberativ offentlighed ligger tre overordnede journalistiske opgaver: (a) traditionelle opgaver som formidling, efterforskning og kritik; (b) moderation af dialoger (sikre en passende diversitet mellem de talende); (c) moderation af tavshed (give stemme til de tavse interesser i samfundet).

<!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --> Denne artikel sætter spørgsmålstegn ved ytringsfriheden. Grundlæggende argumenteres der for, at ytringsfriheden kun har en eksistensberettigelse, hvis vi kan diskutere den uden at skulle være bange for at miste den. Det vises, at ytringsfriheden grundlæggende set må være begrænset, og derfor er det altid påtrængende, at diskutere om de konkrete grænser er de mest oplagte i enhver given samfundsmæssig situation. Artiklen viser hvorledes ytringsfriheden er et barn af ytringsfriheden, hvor demokratisk politik tænkes som en fortløbende rationel legitimeringsproces. Denne forståelse af politikken fungerede fint i en samfundsformation, der klart adskiller det politiske fra det økonomiske. Med fremvæksten af globalt orienterede kommunikative medier, er det imidlertid spørgsmålet om denne adskillelse kan opretholdes. Derfor er det påtrængende at få nyartikuleret grundlaget og formen på den gældende ytringsfrihed.

No abstract

This paper proposes the following question: Is it possible to transfer human rights like the freedom of expression -or at least to preserve the formal protections guarding speech acts from arbitrary suppression -in a post-national setting? The question arises as an urgent matter in the context of our global system of connected markets and distributed telecommunications networks -the Internet -since, as many academics and policy makers have noted, the two tend to undermine nationals boundaries, putting into question the power of individual states to continue function as the traditional legal and identity-generating entities of last resort.If this analysis is reliable the dialectical union between the autonomous individual citizen and the legally regulated nation state is broken. In this paper I will draw the consequences of that supposed break, exploring the question of the extent to which it makes sense to accord "rights" -freedom of expression -to entities that are not classical autonomous humans, and to confer them by entities that no longer bear the marks of nation-state sovereignty. The question thus is: Is it possible to transfer the normative approach of the classic liberal nation states into a global system? The paper explores this question through an elaboration of problems for the preservation of the human right to freedom of expression: On the one hand communication on the Internet is regulated by an immense legal body, but on the other hand, the machinery for enforcement controlled by this legal body is dependent on various agencies that don't necessarily recognize its legitimacy. I will then explore whether a more technologically oriented approach could be a more fruitful approach in defining the actual limitations to freedom of expression in the new global system. My answer is that ultimately the control paradigm fails, because it is too clumsy at incorporating self-correcting measures. Thirdly, I suggest that the best solution to the challenges to freedom of expression in the global system must be a Global Government of the Internet, a government that is defined by democratic elections, a constitutional body, and deliberative institutions