On the Freedom of Speech and Expression: Interview with Noam Chomsky

Chomsky, Noam; Popescu, Beatrice

doi:10.1037/e562792013-003

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In context to press freedom, which is ‘far from just a façade’, Chomsky’s (1999) claims that there cannot be ‘absolute control even in a totalitarian state or military dictatorship or slave society’. The severity of the restrictions does not imply complete submission of the fourth estate.…”

Section: (En)countering the Expanding Censorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Embedded authoritarianism: the politics of poor press freedom in Indian Kashmir

Majeed

2022

Media, Culture & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current article explores journalism practice amid waning press freedom in Indian Kashmir. Contextualising the recent renovation and introduction of authoritative new media policy 2020, the article maps the constant struggles of the journalists in the region. I consulted five working journalists to have a broader understanding of press freedom in Indian Kashmir, one of the world’s most dangerous places for journalists. I argue that frequent internet shutdowns, disinformation, declining dissent and direct control on the press contribute to the amassing struggles of Kashmiri journalists. The strategic politics endorse jingoism and punitive populism, which affects the overall image of Kashmiris including the journalists. Constructive journalism practice, however, aids Chomsky’s claim of “openings”, which keep the press viable during the severe authoritarian siege on the press freedom in Kashmir.

show abstract

Section: (En)countering the Expanding Censorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tiwari (2019) argues, ‘Pendrive’ journalism was born as a tactical approach to reporting. It broadens the scope of Chomsky’s (1999) ‘openings’ that exist in an authoritarian environment.…”

Section: The Dilemma Of Internet Curbs and Risky Journalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embedded authoritarianism: the politics of poor press freedom in Indian Kashmir

Majeed

2022

Media, Culture & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their conclusion, Carrette and Trigeaud (2013:22) bring up Fitzgerald's discussion of the famous televised discussion between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault in 1971 in the Netherlands (Chomsky 2011). At its root is the question of whether speech can ever really be free, whether we can liberate ourselves using language -language which is itself a product of the present ideological configuration in which we are a part.…”

Section: Religious Ngos?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From the interview conducted by Levy for this chapter, he appears to take a pragmatic position towards it. He has said in the past that he has "no general argument against religion" (Chomsky 2013). Levy asked him to clarify this position.…”

Section: Religious Ngos?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Religion, State and the United Nations

Levy¹,

Kyselo²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, we examine free speech at the United Nations (UN) and seek to address the question of why no Jewish or Israeli non-governmental organizations (NGOs) supported the Defamation of Religion campaign (see chapter three)? Was it merely because it was supported by The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) or was there something else at work? We argue for the latter, and explore the concepts of blasphemy and the nature of (free) speech from a Jewish epistemological perspective. We take up the example of Noam Chomsky, and his role as an international actor at the UN, Jew, and free speech advocate in order to explore the issue more deeply. Chomsky's approach to both politics and language serves to mediate our theoretical position. Finally, we take a look on various Jewish NGOs involved in the continuous process of carving out a religious space in the territory of international politics. Philosophical context People talk about the UN as if it were a thing, a substance, though it is not clear what kind of thing it could be. It starts from here. Our friend, Erik, for example, says he worked there, in New York, at the UN-there was some initiative from a Norwegian prime minister. It didn't work out. There are news reports: BBC, NPR, NRK, they talk about it too. Chomsky spoke there, to a large audience. We read about it. We speak about it together. People tell stories. People are thinking very abstractly about global governance. The UN is something that exists, but it exists in different senses: as an agent, as a location, as an object. It is also assumed that the UN enacts values. Value politics at the UN is just politics, and all politics are value laden. All values are communicative, intersubjective, ways of presenting the self to others and oneself. The same goes for institutions, though they operate differently. There is a logic of institutions, logics of money, sex, and God (Friedland 2002). They are self-organizing systems with a drive for self-preservation. Narratives hold them together. But they miss something. The reality of speech is kaleidoscopic, jagged, like shards of shattered glass. The usual presentation of the way the UN is organized and structureddifferentiating between political, administrative, and activist spheres (see Introduction, this volume)-is a useful starting point; a view about the reality of

show abstract

“…12 Formal rationality is so applicable to modern life that it extends to what are probably the two greatest threats to life on earth today: nuclear holocaust and climate catastrophe. 13 In terms of the first, just before the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, Raul Hilberg ominously alluded to the new world powers' formally rational pursuit of what is a far more efficient, predictable, calculable, and controlling method of genocide than Auschwitz's gassing system:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%