Theoretical Foundations

The report, written by Nic Newman and published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism with the support of the Google News Initiative, starts straightforwardly: it declares 2024 as “another challenging year ahead for journalism.” Artificial intelligence, the disruptions it delivers to the media sector, critical elections taking place around the world, and the continuing wars force journalists and media outlets “to rethink their role and purpose with some urgency.” Journalism content will face radical distribution changes due to Search Generative Experiences and AI-driven chatbots that will reduce media outlets’ audiences. The report includes findings from a survey conducted between November and December 2023 in which over 300 digital leaders from more than 50 countries and territories participated. Despite the grim forecasts, the report still offers ways for journalists and media to adapt, “Embracing the best of AI while managing its risks will be the underlying narrative of the year ahead.” In this podcast episode of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Nic Newman discusses the report’s findings and more.

“The freedom of expression is vital to our ability to convey opinions, convictions, and beliefs, and to meaningfully participate in democracy. The state may, however, ‘limit’ the freedom of expression on certain grounds, such as national security, public order, public health, and public morals. Examples from around the world show that the freedom of individuals to express their opinions, convictions, and beliefs is often imperilled when states are not required to meet a substantial justificatory burden when limiting such freedom. This article critiques one of the common justificatory approaches employed in a number of jurisdictions to frame the state’s burden to justify limitations on the freedom of expression—the proportionality test. It presents a case for an alternative approach that builds on the merits and addresses some of the weaknesses of a typical proportionality test. This alternative may be called a ‘duty-based’ justificatory approach because it requires the state to demonstrate—through the presentation of publicly justifiable reasons—that the individual concerned owes others a duty of justice to refrain from the expressive conduct in question. The article explains how this approach is more normatively compelling than a typical proportionality test. It also illustrates how such an approach can better constrain the state’s ability to advance majoritarian interests or offload its positive obligations by limiting the freedom of expression of minorities and dissenting voices.”

In this segment of the MOOC 'Freedom of Expression in the Age of Globalization' created by Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, Agnès Callamard explores why freedom of expression and information matters, and the values and principles that are established through free speech. In this video Dr. Agnes Callamard interviews Lee C. Bollinger, First Amendment scholar, and president of Columbia University.  President Bollinger explains his work 'The Tolerant Societ'y where he argues that free speech establishes tolerance.

In this highlight from an episode of the Origins Podcast, Lawrence Krauss discusses current attitudes about free speech and expression with Noam Chomsky. The discussion spans the themes of free speech on campuses, Donald Trump’s Executive Order, the divide between and the perceptions of the right and the left, the fear of ideas/discussions which produce discomfort, the First Amendment, and, sovereign immunity.  

This book mounts a criticism of the Millian defense of freedom of expression and the underlying harm principle and provides for an alternate paradigm in the “offense principle”. Discussions are based around US First Amendment precedent.

Mill argues for limited governmental intervention in silencing or compelling speech, emphasizes the value of contrary and minority opinions and presents a principle on which any governmental action in respect of speech should be based.

In the first segment of the MOOC 'International and African Legal Framework on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and the Safety of Journalists' developed by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria with the support of UNESCO, professor Frans Viljoen gives a general introduction to Human Rights. Viljoen explains the different State obligations, the international sources from which these obligations are derived, and the monitoring mechanisms available in the universal system and in the Africa system in particular. Finally, Viljoen explains the link between freedom of expression and democracy.

This segment is part of Module 1 of the MOOC: General Introduction to the International and Regional Framework on Freedom of Expression

“In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, focuses on the freedom of opinion and expression aspects of academic freedom, highlighting the special role played by academics and academic institutions in democratic society and noting that, without academic freedom, societies lose one of the essential elements of democratic self-governance: the capacity for self-reflection, for knowledge generation and for a constant search for improvements of people’s lives and social conditions. The Special Rapporteur finds that threats to and restrictions on academic freedom limit the sharing of information and knowledge, an integral component of the right to freedom of expression. He reveals that academics and their institutions face social harassment and State repression for their research, the questions that they pursue, the points that they raise and the methodologies that they bring to bear on public policy – or simply for the stature that their academic work has given them in society. While he focuses on the ways in which the freedom of opinion and expression protects and promotes academic freedom, the Special Rapporteur also recognizes that there is no single, exclusive international human rights framework for the subject. He emphasizes one set of protections for academic freedom, while recognizing and reaffirming others. He concludes with a set of recommendations to States, academic institutions, international organizations and civil society.”

The report, compiled by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), analyzes the impact of AI on digital rights across 14 countries: Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. The study finds that unregulated AI-powered surveillance, along with “opaque content moderation practices,” chills speech and activism and restricts media freedom. CIPESA argues that without a rights-centered approach to AI, the technology “risks becoming a powerful tool that deepens existing inequalities, facilitates authoritarian control, and fundamentally undermines democratic values and human rights across the continent.”

In this segment of the MOOC 'Freedom of Expression in the Age of Globalization' created by Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, Agnès Callamard interviews Lee Bollinger, First Amendment scholar, and president of Columbia University on the US Presidential Race (2016) and the Social Cost of Tolerance