Freedom of Speech and Democratic Constraint
Abstract
There is a significant literature justifying why freedom of speech should be seen as a fundamental right. At the individual level, freedom of speech should be protected to further autonomy. In the public domain, freedom of speech is not only essential for the discovery of truth through the marketplace of ideas, but also fosters citizens’ checks over public officials. The present essay takes an alternative but at the same time integrative approach, by stating that freedom of speech is a necessary condition of political legitimacy and democratic equality. This is particularly important to understand the limits of freedom of speech, as certain laws forbidding free speech may also annihilate political legitimacy to enforce non-discriminatory regulation. In this regard, special laws that protect public officials defamation produce an unintended effect over dissident voices, as these laws exclude them from public debates. Conversely, legitimacy of non-discriminatory laws is justified when opinions are publicly expressed. Advancing this unintended effect of non-discriminatory regulation enforcement, this essay explores the close interdependency of public opinion, political legitimacy and democratic equality. Particularly the Ecuadorian case serves well to illustrate this viewpoint.
Downloads
References
Bibliografía
Ávila, R.. (2011). El Neoconstitucionalismo Transformador, en el Estado y el Derecho en la Constitución de 2008. Editorial Abya-Yala. Quito.
Bayón, J. C. (2000). Democracia y derechos: problemas de fundamentación del constitucionalismo. Plan Nacional de Investigación Científica, Desarrollo E Innovación Tecnológica, Financiado Por El Ministerio de Ciencia Y Tecnología. Recuperado desde https://www.upf.edu/filosofiadeldret/_pdf/bayon-democracia.pdf
Buchanan, A. (2002). Political Legitimacy and Democracy. Ethics, 112(4), 689–719. http://doi.org/10.1086/340313
Dworkin, R. (2009). Foreword to Extreme Speech and Democracy. Ivan Hare & James Weinstein eds.
Conaghan, C. (2015). Surveil and Sanction: The Return of the State and Societal Regulation in Ecuador. ERLACS.
Dahl, R. (1985). Controlling nuclear weapons: Democracy versus guardianship. Syracuse Univ. Press,Syracuse, NY.
Farber, D. A. (1991). Free Speech without Romance: Public Choice and the First Amendment. Harvard Law Review, 105(2), 554. http://doi.org/10.2307/1341698
Feldman, S. M. (2013). Hate Speech and Democracy. Criminal Justice Ethics, 32(1), 78–90. http://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2013.777254
Fiss, O. M. (1985). Free Speech and Social Structure. Iowa Law Review, 71. Recuperado desde http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr71&id=1417&div=&collection=
Føllesdal, A. (2006). EU Legitimacy and Normative Political Theory, 151–173. http://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522671_9
H. Nie, N., Bingham Powell, G., & Kenneth Prewitt. (1969). Social Structure and Political Participation: Developmental Relationships, II. American Political Science Review, 63(03), 808–832. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400258607
Isabel, M., & Larrea, P. (2011). Rafael Correa y la Prensa Ecuatoriana. Una relación de intrigas y odios. Razón Y Palabra. Revista Electrónica En América Latina Especializada En Comunicación, 75.
Jacoby, W. G. (2000). Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending. American Journal of Political Science, 44(4), 750. http://doi.org/10.2307/2669279
Johnston, R. (1997). Who Deliberates? Mass Media in Modern Democracy Benjamin I. Page Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996, pp. ix, 167. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 30(02), 385. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900015675
Kant, I. (2000). The Metaphysics of Morals. Political Writings. Recuperado desde http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/Kant%20-%20groundwork%20for%20the%20metaphysics%20of%20morals%20with%20essays.pdf
Kelsen, H. (1945). General Theory of Law and State. Law And State (Vol. I). Recuperado desde http://books.google.com/books?id=4dAr24lK4BEC&pgis=1
Martinez Dalmau, R. (2016). Democratic Constitutionalism and Constitutional Innovation in Ecuador: The 2008 Constitution. Latin American Perspectives, 43(1), 158–174. http://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X15571277
Neisser, E. (1985). Charging for Free Speech: User Fees and Insurance in the Marketplace of Ideas. Geo. LJ, 74, 257.
Peter, F. (n.d.). Democratic Legitimacy and Proceduralist Social Epistemology.
Posner, R. A. (1986). Free Speech in an Economic Perspective. Suffolk University Law Review, 20. Recuperado desde http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/sufflr20&id=31&div=&collection=
Ramos, I. (2013). Trayectorias de democratización y desdemocratización de la comunicación en Ecuador. Íconos - Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 0(46), 67. http://doi.org/10.17141/iconos.46.2013.133
Rawls, J. (1990). John Rawls : A Theory of Justice. Polity, 35, 272–289. http://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhq006
Redish, M. H. (1982). The Value of Free Speech. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 130(3), 591. http://doi.org/10.2307/3311836
Richardst, D. A. J. (1970). Free Speech and Obscenity Law: Toward a Moral Theory of the First Amendment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 122(45).
Santamaría, R. Á. (2011). El Neoconstitucionalismo Transformador y el Derecho en la Constitución de 2008. Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala.
Schamis, H. E., Díaz-Bonilla, E., Schamis, H. E., Frieden, J., Stein, E., Schamis, H. E., … Balza, M. (2002). Argentina: Crisis and Democratic Consolidation. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 81–94. http://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0030
Sunstein, C. (1995). Democracy and the problem of free speech. Publishing Research Quarterly, 11(4), 58–72. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02680544
Tyler, T. R. (2000). Multiculturalism and the Willingness of Citizens to Defer to Law and to Legal Authorities. Law and Social Inquiry, 25(4), 983–1019. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2000.tb00314.x
Waldron, J. (2012). The harm in hate speech. Harvard University Press.
Waldron, J. (1987). Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 37(147), 127. http://doi.org/10.2307/2220334
Weber, M. (2009). The theory of social and economic organization. Recuperado desde https://books.google.com/books?hl=es&lr=lang_en&id=G3TYBu6-4G0C&oi=fnd&pg=PT17&dq=The+Theory+of+Social+and+Economic+Organization+&ots=XqOeYMlBH0&sig=01YIV4V0sTgnO8MYc2eFvKP1DU8
Wellman, C. H. (1996). Liberalism, Samaritanism, and Political Legitimacy. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 25(3), 211–237. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1996.tb00040.x
Weinstein, J. (1999). Hate speech, pornography, and the radical attack on free speech doctrine. Westview Press.
Zolo, D.. (1989). [Review of The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Part 1: The Contemporary Debate; The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Part 2: The Classical Issues]. Ethics, 99(2), 431–433.
Copyright (c) 2017 José Luis Castro-Montero
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors publishing in our Journal comply to the following terms:
1. Authors keep their work’s copyrights, but they guarantee Ius Humani Law Journal to be the first publisher of their papers. They grant the Journal will a Creative Commons Attribution License, under which their work can be shared with the condition that it is appropriately cited.
2. Authors are aware and accept that the Ius Humani Team will try to give the greatest diffusion to the Journal, which means, among other things, that its printed and electronic editions will be distributed among different databases and scientific indexes.
3. Authors can establish further clauses for non exclusive distribution, such as publication on a separate book or placing in an institutional data-base. Nevertheless, a note should be always added to explain that the paper was originally published in Ius Humani Law Journal.
4. We permit and encourage authors to share their work through Internet before and during the editorial process to receive further recommendations and wider references (we recommend you read the article The Effect of Open Access).
