Freedom of Expression

Zeno-Zencovich, Vincenzo

doi:10.4324/9780203893081

Cited by 14 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, these freedoms mitigate challenges to initiating and engaging in illicit activities. Zeno-Zencovich (2008, 52–53) describes freedom of expression as “the social dimension of the individual and the right to communicate his or her ideas to others,” and he underscores that this communication is not necessarily used toward good ends. Greater abilities to communicate can, in fact, be used to gather information about corruption opportunities and to identify co-conspirators.…”

Section: Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Low Levels of Democracy Promote Corruption and High Levels Diminish It

McMann

Seim

Teorell

et al. 2019

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theory predicts democracy should reduce corruption. Yet, scholars have found that while corruption is low at high levels of democracy, it is high at modest levels, as well as low when democracy is absent. A weakness of studies that aim to explain this inverted curvilinear relationship is that they do not disaggregate the complex concepts of democracy and corruption. By contrast, this paper disaggregates both. We demonstrate that the curvilinear relationship results from the collective impact of different components of democracy on different types of corruption. Using Varieties of Democracy data, we examine 173 countries from 1900 to 2015, and we find freedom of expression and freedom of association each exhibit an inverted curvilinear relationship with corruption—both overall corruption and four different types. The introduction of elections and the quality of elections each act in a linear fashion—positively and negatively with corruption, respectively—but jointly form a curvilinear relationship with both overall corruption and many of its types. Judicial and legislative constraints exhibit a negative linear relationship with executive corruption. We offer a framework that suggests how these components affect costs and benefits of engaging in different types of corruption and, therefore, the level of corruption overall.

show abstract

Section: Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Low Levels of Democracy Promote Corruption and High Levels Diminish It

McMann

Seim

Teorell

et al. 2019

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a consequence of understanding information as a public good, Keane (1991: 164) goes on to advocate a democratic restructuring of the media, “a new constitutional settlement, state regulation and restriction of private media markets and the development of a plurality of non-market, non-state communication systems.” In a similar vein, Vincenzo Zeno-Zencovich (2008: 8) argues that undue emphasis has historically been placed on “freedom of the press” as opposed to “freedom to print,” a point that clearly redirects freedom-of-expression theory toward the perspective of positive liberty. Zeno-Zencovich too sees the solution in a renegotiation of the social contract with respect to the role of the media: “Affirming the freedom of the press, as a constitutionally privileged regime for business engaged in mass communication, thus entails a consideration of what the quid pro quo of that freedom might be” (9).…”

Section: Freedom Of Expression Liberalism and Socialism For The Twementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Though it speaks out on behalf of the private sector, critics argued that Fundamedios refused to denounce acts of aggression and intimidation against public-sector journalists during the violent protests in August 2015 (TeleSUR, 2015). Fundamedios’s role is indicative of the paradox of freedom of the press expounded by Zeno-Zencovich (2008: 19–20): “Through the centuries there has been a struggle with de facto or self-proclaimed power and a struggle to bring it within the ambit of rules and counterweights. .…”

Section: Human Rights Observatories’ Partisan Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whose Rights? Freedom-of-Expression Critiques of Ecuadorian Media Democratization

Tym¹

2018

Latin American Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its media reforms designed to democratize the country’s media landscape, the Ecuadorian government has been subject to constant condemnation from major U.S.-based human rights organizations on freedom-of-expression grounds. A close examination of these critiques and the Ecuadorian media reforms to which they correspond and a comparison of the Ecuadorian government’s and critical human rights organizations’ positions with liberal scholarship on the right to freedom of expression leads to the conclusion that Ecuadorian media reform is consistent with liberal social-democratic principles and, by contrast, human rights organizations uphold an early-modern interpretation of liberalism that is marginal within scholarship on freedom of expression. A pesar de su programa de reformas para democratizar el campo de los medios de difusión, el gobierno ecuatoriano ha sido objeto de una condena permanente por parte de las principales organizaciones de los derechos humanos de los Estados Unidos por motivos de la libertad de expresión. Un examen minucioso de estas críticas y de las reformas del gobierno ecuatoriano, así como una comparación de las posiciones del gobierno ecuatoriano y las de las organizaciones de derechos humanos con los estudios liberales sobre el derecho a la libertad de expression, revelan que estas reformas son consistentes con los principios liberales y socialdemócratas y que, en cambio, las organizaciones de derechos humanos defienden una interpretación del liberalismo correspondiente al principio de la era moderna temprana que queda marginal dentro de los estudios sobre la libertad de expresión.

show abstract

“…By the public use of one’s own reason I understand the use that anyone as a scholar makes of reason before the entire literate world.” With the word “literate” Kant linked the public debate that he so highly valued with the media, in this case, the press. In 1789 in France, the Declaration of the Rights of Man guaranteed freedom of expression as an inalienable right in its Article 11 and added: “Every Citizen can speak, write, and print freely,” thus establishing the link with the medium of expression or communication (Zeno-Zenovich, 2008: 6). In 1791 the first amendment to the Bill of Rights of the United States guaranteed freedom of expression, together with that of the press, religion, and assembly.…”

Section: Freedom Of Expression and The Media: Genesismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Media and Power in Postliberal Venezuela

Sapiezynska¹

2016

Latin American Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two narratives dominate the literature about the state of freedom of expression in postliberal Venezuela, and they have few points in common, since they depend on different conceptualizations of the notion of freedom of expression. While the traditional liberal narrative focuses on the negative freedom that prohibits state interference, the postliberal narrative is based on positive freedom that encompasses the collective right of self-realization, particularly for the previously marginalized. During the government of Hugo Chávez, the discourse of freedom of expression was renewed, placing it in the context of power relations, accentuating positive freedom, and emphasizing the role of the public and community media. The establishment of the international public channel TeleSUR has revived the 1970s debate about the right to communication and contributed to the creation of a new Latin American-ness. En la literatura predominan dos narrativas acerca del estado de la libertad de expresión en la Venezuela posliberal las que tienen pocos puntos en común porque parten de visiones distintas del concepto de la libertad de expresión. Mientras la narrativa liberal tradicional enfoca sólo en la libertad negativa que previene la injerencia estatal, la narrativa posliberal se centra en la libertad positiva que abarca la autorrealización del derecho colectivo, también de los previamente marginalizados. Durante el gobierno de Hugo Chávez el discurso acerca de la libertad de expresión se renueva, insertando el concepto en el contexto de las relaciones de poder, acentuando la libertad positiva y enfatizando el rol de los medios públicos y comunitarios. El establecimiento del medio público internacional TeleSUR revive los debates sobre el derecho a la comunicación de la década de los 70 y aporta a la creación de una nueva Latinoamericanidad.

show abstract

Freedom of Expression

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Why Low Levels of Democracy Promote Corruption and High Levels Diminish It

Why Low Levels of Democracy Promote Corruption and High Levels Diminish It

Whose Rights? Freedom-of-Expression Critiques of Ecuadorian Media Democratization

The Media and Power in Postliberal Venezuela

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About