256>24 Liberdade de Expressão - Draft, news, notícias
Aug. 2024
The fine line between providing campus security and allowing for free speech, by NPR
“It’s Not OK Any More”: The United Kingdom Cracks Down on Free Speech , by Jonathan Turley. The crackdown on free speech continues in the United Kingdom as officials use recent rioting to justify a roundup of citizens who they view as “pushing harmful and hateful beliefs.” The government is ramping up arrests of those with “extremist ideologies” in the latest wave of arrests.
The EU Just Declared War on Free Speech in America. It is Time to Fight Back Jonathan Turley, on the move of the European Union to force Elon Musk to censor X users, including political speech leading up to the 2024 election. ... In the 1940s, people like Edgerton had to travel to small board meetings or public spaces to speak their mind. Today, the vast majority of political speech occurs over the Internet and specifically social media. That is why the internet is the single greatest advancement for free speech since the printing press.
Americans love free speech, survey finds − until they realize everyone else has it, too, by the Conversation - Americans’ views on free speech change directions every so often. One of those times was during the protests at U.S. universities about the Israel-Hamas war. As scholars of free speech and public opinion, we set out to find out what happened and why. ... We found that the vast majority of Americans – both then and now [1939 and 2024]– agree that democracy requires freedom of speech. That’s in the abstract. When the questions get more concrete, though, their support wanes. --- Our surveys (march and june 2024) found that the public has a nuanced view of free speech. For instance, in our June 2024 survey we added some additional categories of potential speakers to the list we had asked about in March. More respondents were comfortable with a pro-Palestinian speaker than a leader of Hamas and with a scientist who believes that IQ varies by race rather than an outright white supremacist. This pattern suggests that the public distinguishes between extreme and more moderate positions and is less tolerant of the rights of those with more extreme views. This shift runs against the purpose of the First Amendment, which was intended to protect unpopular speech. The amendment very specifically was not intended to apply only to certain speakers or viewpoints.
Liberdade de Expressão
MintPress conducted a quantitative analysis of the media coverage of two political figures who recently died in prison: Alexey Navalny and Gonzalo Lira. Both were controversial characters and critics of the governments that imprisoned them. Both died under suspicious circumstances (their families both maintain they were effectively murdered). And both died in the past six weeks, Navalny in February and Lira in January. A crucial difference in their stories, however, is that Navalny perished in an Arctic penal colony after being arrested in Russia (an enemy state), while Lira’s life ended in a Ukrainian prison, abandoned by the pro-Kiev government in Washington, D.C.
In total, the five outlets collectively ran 731 articles or segments that discussed or mentioned Navalny’s death, including 151 from the Times, 75 from the Post, 177 from ABC, 215 from Fox, and 113 from CNN. This means that each organization studied ran more than one piece per hour.
This media storm stands in stark contrast to the Lira case, where the entire corporate media coverage of his death boiled down to a single Fox News article. Moreover, the article in question described him as “spreading pro-Russian propaganda” in its headline, did not inform readers that there was anything suspicious about his death, and appeared to be doing its best to justify his treatment in the body of the article. Aside from that, there was radio silence.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/worthy-vs-unworthy-victims-study-reveals-media-selective-coverage-navalny-lira/286911/
Manifestação anterior da AGU apontava riscos à liberdade de expressão na perda da concessão; governo emite novo posicionamento
5 de março de 2024, 04:22 h"
https://www.brasil247.com/midia/jorge-messias-ministro-da-agu-nega-que-o-governo-queira-defender-a-jovem-pan-diante-do-risco-de-perda-de-concessao#:~:text=Jorge%20Messias%2C%20ministro,04%3A22%20h
Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU) diz que medidas do MPF seriam censura prévia; MPF aponta estímulo da emissora à indisciplina militar
...
Nesta segunda-feira (4/3), a AGU alegou liberdade de expressão para defender a emissora, e citou que o Ministério das Comunicações já havia adotado esse entendimento
O MPF afirmou à Justiça que, em 2022, a Jovem Pan veiculou, de forma sistemática, “conteúdos desinformativos a respeito do funcionamento de instituições públicas nacionais, contextualmente atrelados a conteúdos incitatórios à violência e à ruptura do regime democrático brasileiro”.
Ainda segundo o MPF, a Jovem Pan abusou da liberdade de expressão e veiculou notícias falsas que colocaram em risco a ordem pública do país, inclusive incitando a indisciplina nas Forças Armadas. Além de pedir a cassação dos veículos do grupo, o Ministério Público defendeu que a União tomasse algumas medidas sobre o caso, como fiscalizar eventuais punições impostas à Jovem Pan e produzir conteúdos para serem transmitidos pela Jovem Pan. Esse conteúdo abordaria a confiabilidade das eleições.
Guilherme Amado, Eduardo Barretto
04/03/2024 22:01,"
020323 Are Democracies more susceptible to disinformation?
"When asked by host Rachel Maddow whether America is just as susceptible to disinformation as other countries, McQuade argued that it is even more vulnerable.
“Actually, Rachel, I think we’re more susceptible to it than other countries, and that’s because some of our greatest strengths can also be our Achilles Heel,” McQuade said. “So, for example, our deep commitment to free speech in our First Amendment. It is a cherished right. It’s an important right in democracy, and nobody wants to get rid of it, but it makes us vulnerable to claims [that] anything we want to do related to speech is censorship.”"
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário