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
Berlin, I. (1958). Two concepts of liberty. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Blasi, V. (1977). The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory. Law & Social Inquiry, 2(3), 521-649.
Bonil (8-II-2015). Donde yo veo un asambleísta, ellos ven a un negro o un afro. Diario El Universo. En http://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/2015/02/08/nota/4529421/ donde-yo-veo-asambleista-ellos-ven-negro-o-afro (recuperado el 9-I-2017).
Bork, R.H. (1971). Neutral Principles and some First Amendment Problems. Ind. Lj, 47, 1.
Colburn, B. (2010). Autonomy and Liberalism. New York: Routledge.
Conaghan, C. (2015). Surveil and Sanction: The Return of the State and Societal Regulation in Ecuador. ERLACS, (98), 7. doi: 10.18352/erlacs.9979
Dworkin, G. (1988). The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dworkin, R. (2009). A Foreword to Extreme speech and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dahl, R. (1985). Controlling nuclear weapons. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.
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&di v =&collection (recuperado el 9-I-2017).
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Nie, N.H., Powell, G.B. & Prewitt, K. (1969). Social Structure and Political Participation: Developmental Relationships, II. American Political Science Review, 63(03), 808–832. doi: 10.1017/S0003055400258607
Jacoby, W. G. (2000). Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending. American Journal of Political Science, 44(4), 750. doi: 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. doi: 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 (recuperado el 9-I-2017).
Kelsen, H. (1961). General Theory of Law and State. New York: Russell & Russell.
Meiklejohn, A. (1961). The First Amendment is an absolute. The Supreme Court Review, 1961, 245-266.
Mill, J. S. (2003). On liberty. New Heaven: Yale University Press.
Milton, J. (1897). Areopagitica. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co.
Peter, F. (2007). Democratic legitimacy and proceduralist social epistemology. Politics, Philosophy &Amp; Economics, 6(3), 329-353. doi: 10.1177/1470594x07081303
Posner, R. A. (1986). Free Speech in an Economic Perspective. Suffolk University Law Review, 20. En http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/sufflr20 &id=31&div=&collection= (recuperado el 8-I-2017).
Ramos, I. (2013). Trayectorias de democratización y desdemocratización de la comunicación en Ecuador. Íconos - Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 0(46), 67.
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).
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. doi: 10.1353/jod.2002.0030
Scharpf, F. W. (2009). Legitimacy in the multilevel European polity. European Political Science Review, 1(02), 173-204.
Sunstein, C. (1995). Democracy and the problem of free speech. Publishing Research Quarterly, 11(4), 58–72. doi: 10.1007/BF02680544
Superintendencia de la Información y Comunicación (26-III-2015). Más de 300 ciudadanos reciben informe de Rendición de Cuentas de la Supercom. En el sitio oficial de la institución: http://www.supercom.gob.ec/es/sala-de-prensa/noticias/22-mas-de-300-ciudadanos-reciben-informe-de-rendicion-de-cuentas-de-la-supercom (recuperado el 9-I-2017).
Superintendencia de la Información y Comunicación (31-I-2014). Resolución 001-DNGJPO-INPS. En http://www.eluniverso.com/sites/default/files/archivos/ 2014/01/resolucion_tramite_002_xavier_bonillauniverso_31-01-2014.pdf (recuperado el 9-I-2017).
Tribe, L. H. (1978). Toward a Metatheory of Free Speech. Sw. UL Rev., 10, 237.
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.
Waldron, J. (2012). The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Weber, M. (2009). The theory of social and economic organization. En https://books. google.com/books?hl=es&lr=lang_en&id=G3TYBu6-4G0C&oi=fnd&pg=PT 17&dq=The+Theory+of+Social+and+Economic+Organization+&ots=XqOeYMlBH0&sig=01YIV4V0sTgnO8MYc2eFvKP1DU8 (recuperado el 9-I-2017).
Weinstein, J. (1999). Hate speech, pornography, and the radical attack on free speech doctrine. Boulder: Westview Press.
Wellington, H. (1979). On freedom of expression. The Yale Law Journal, 88(6), 1105-1142.
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).
