Freedom of the Press/Culture and Politics/Country intepretation: Difference between revisions
Import-sysop (talk | contribs) (transformed) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|questionHeading=Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively | |questionHeading=Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively | ||
|pageLevel=Question | |pageLevel=Question | ||
|contents=In [[Probable year::2017]], Freedom House estimated that only 13% of the world’s population lived in states with free press (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 8). Thirteen percent is low and creates little incentive for less-free media states to improve media freedoms (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 16). 45% of the population lived in states with ‘not free’ press, while 42% of the population lived in states with ‘partly free’ press (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 8). Freedom House defines free press on a spectrum, with free press being an environment that allows the right to seek and distribute information without interruption or censorship. These can take many forms, such as arresting or threatening journalists, being influenced by the government (monetarily or otherwise), or restricting access to news sources (i.e., disabling the internet) (Repucci, [[Probable year::2019]]) . The presence of these elements decreased media in the state and hinders citizens’ ability to get impartial information. In [[Probable year::2017]], free states were, generally, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 14-15). Partially free states were prominent in South America, Southern Africa, Western Africa, Oceania, Central America, and Central and Eastern Europe, with the additions of India and Mongolia (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 14-15). Not free states were common in Eastern Africa and Asia (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 14-15). | |contents=In [[Probable year:: 2017]], Freedom House estimated that only 13% of the world’s population lived in states with free press (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 8). Thirteen percent is low and creates little incentive for less-free media states to improve media freedoms (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 16). 45% of the population lived in states with ‘not free’ press, while 42% of the population lived in states with ‘partly free’ press (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 8). Freedom House defines free press on a spectrum, with free press being an environment that allows the right to seek and distribute information without interruption or censorship. These can take many forms, such as arresting or threatening journalists, being influenced by the government (monetarily or otherwise), or restricting access to news sources (i.e., disabling the internet) (Repucci, [[Probable year:: 2019]]) . The presence of these elements decreased media in the state and hinders citizens’ ability to get impartial information. In [[Probable year:: 2017]], free states were, generally, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 14-15). Partially free states were prominent in South America, Southern Africa, Western Africa, Oceania, Central America, and Central and Eastern Europe, with the additions of India and Mongolia (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 14-15). Not free states were common in Eastern Africa and Asia (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 14-15). | ||
Freedom of expression is called for and agreed upon in many international conventions: the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 19, American Convention on Human Rights Article 13, and the African Charter of Human Rights Article 9 (ARTICLE 19, [[Probable year::2004]], 2). The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly calls out freedom of the press (ARTICLE 19, [[Probable year::2004]], 2; Stier, [[Probable year::2015]], [[Probable year::1274]]) . These conventions and declarations pave the way for freedom of the press in many states, though it is recognized that freedom of expression may be limited, mostly for the protection of something or someone. Exceptions, according to the Human Rights Committee, must be provided by law to safeguard a legitimate interest and must also be necessary to secure this interest (ARTICLE 19, [[Probable year::2004]], 2). | Freedom of expression is called for and agreed upon in many international conventions: the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 19, American Convention on Human Rights Article 13, and the African Charter of Human Rights Article 9 (ARTICLE 19, [[Probable year:: 2004]], 2). The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly calls out freedom of the press (ARTICLE 19, [[Probable year:: 2004]], 2; Stier, [[Probable year:: 2015]], [[Probable year:: 1274]]) . These conventions and declarations pave the way for freedom of the press in many states, though it is recognized that freedom of expression may be limited, mostly for the protection of something or someone. Exceptions, according to the Human Rights Committee, must be provided by law to safeguard a legitimate interest and must also be necessary to secure this interest (ARTICLE 19, [[Probable year:: 2004]], 2). | ||
Free: Though credited with some of the freest press in the world in [[Probable year::2017]], freedom of the press in the United States looked to be declining (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 1). Factors such as media polarization, mistrust, undermining, and profit-motivated media coupled with changing business models were contributing factors in this decline, though constitutional checks prevented even more decline (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 1). Additionally, recent presidents’ actions have trended toward more restrictive of the media (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 1-2). Despite the Freedom Act of [[Probable year::2015]], media monitoring is prominent in the United States, as well as other free media states such as Canada, Britain, Germany, and France, and becomes more prominent with less free media (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 16). | Free: Though credited with some of the freest press in the world in [[Probable year:: 2017]], freedom of the press in the United States looked to be declining (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 1). Factors such as media polarization, mistrust, undermining, and profit-motivated media coupled with changing business models were contributing factors in this decline, though constitutional checks prevented even more decline (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 1). Additionally, recent presidents’ actions have trended toward more restrictive of the media (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 1-2). Despite the Freedom Act of [[Probable year:: 2015]], media monitoring is prominent in the United States, as well as other free media states such as Canada, Britain, Germany, and France, and becomes more prominent with less free media (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 16). | ||
Partly Free: In partly free media states, generally, media is not explicitly restricted or censored, but actions taken by the government have demonstrated restrictions. In Hungary, pro-government media was monetarily rewarded by Hungary’s government was only selling stories to specific media outlets (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 6; Banks, [[Probable year::2020]]) . These actions “unfairly starved independent media channels” while publicly funding channels that were politically advantageous to the government (Banks, [[Probable year::2020]]) . This practice began after Hungary adopted a new constitution in [[Probable year::2011]] and the incident was taken up for investigation in accordance with the ECHR in [[Probable year::2020]] after multiple complaints (Banks, [[Probable year::2020]]) . Brazil used five journalists’ trials as a warning toward journalists and potential stories rather than explicitly restricting the media (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 21). The five journalists were taken to court for 50 counts exposing the high earnings of judiciary members but placed the trials all over the country (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 21). This action imposed a large monetary and temporal cost on the journalists, causing journalists to think twice about a story before publishing. | Partly Free: In partly free media states, generally, media is not explicitly restricted or censored, but actions taken by the government have demonstrated restrictions. In Hungary, pro-government media was monetarily rewarded by Hungary’s government was only selling stories to specific media outlets (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 6; Banks, [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . These actions “unfairly starved independent media channels” while publicly funding channels that were politically advantageous to the government (Banks, [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . This practice began after Hungary adopted a new constitution in [[Probable year:: 2011]] and the incident was taken up for investigation in accordance with the ECHR in [[Probable year:: 2020]] after multiple complaints (Banks, [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . Brazil used five journalists’ trials as a warning toward journalists and potential stories rather than explicitly restricting the media (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 21). The five journalists were taken to court for 50 counts exposing the high earnings of judiciary members but placed the trials all over the country (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 21). This action imposed a large monetary and temporal cost on the journalists, causing journalists to think twice about a story before publishing. | ||
Not Free: | Not Free: | ||
The ten states with the least amount of press freedom are North Korea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Crimea, Eritrea, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Syria (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 9). States such as these have restrictive media guidelines, such as media monitoring or elimination. In many states, from Ethiopia to Zimbabwe to Turkey, media has been shut down at crucial political moments such as elections or protests (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 5, 9, 20). Turkey is a state with constitutional protection of media, though it has laws that contradict this protection and criminalize reporting on some topics (Whitten-Woodring, [[Probable year::2009]], 599). In Egypt, the military influences the media, preventing private, independent media (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 17). In Syria, many journalists are exiled, and many surrounding states make it difficult for them to continue their work (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 4). In Venezuela, some actions against the media have consisted of preventing international journalists from covering a planned protest and reacting with violence when some chose to cover it anyway (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 13). Russia and China are restrictive of their press with both censorship and market influence, but they take advantage of the freedoms in the United States and France to try to influence perceptions in these areas for their state’s political gain (Repucci & Slipowitz, [[Probable year::2021]]; Stier, [[Probable year::2015]], [[Probable year::1275]]) . Russia takes similar actions with its Russian-speaking neighbors, especially Ukraine, for similar reasons, and has begun to try to influence the EU as well (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 9). China is also restrictive due to its very strict penalties and monitoring for criticism, while also preventing its people from giving information to outside sources (Abramowitz, [[Probable year::2017]], 16). | The ten states with the least amount of press freedom are North Korea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Crimea, Eritrea, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Syria (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 9). States such as these have restrictive media guidelines, such as media monitoring or elimination. In many states, from Ethiopia to Zimbabwe to Turkey, media has been shut down at crucial political moments such as elections or protests (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 5, 9, 20). Turkey is a state with constitutional protection of media, though it has laws that contradict this protection and criminalize reporting on some topics (Whitten-Woodring, [[Probable year:: 2009]], 599). In Egypt, the military influences the media, preventing private, independent media (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 17). In Syria, many journalists are exiled, and many surrounding states make it difficult for them to continue their work (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 4). In Venezuela, some actions against the media have consisted of preventing international journalists from covering a planned protest and reacting with violence when some chose to cover it anyway (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 13). Russia and China are restrictive of their press with both censorship and market influence, but they take advantage of the freedoms in the United States and France to try to influence perceptions in these areas for their state’s political gain (Repucci & Slipowitz, [[Probable year:: 2021]]; Stier, [[Probable year:: 2015]], [[Probable year:: 1275]]) . Russia takes similar actions with its Russian-speaking neighbors, especially Ukraine, for similar reasons, and has begun to try to influence the EU as well (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 9). China is also restrictive due to its very strict penalties and monitoring for criticism, while also preventing its people from giving information to outside sources (Abramowitz, [[Probable year:: 2017]], 16). | ||
Exceptions | Exceptions | ||
Exceptions to freedom of the press vary between states. Pew Research Center found that Americans are most likely to accept all types of free speech and people in most states are content with protecting speech against the government under freedom of expression, even if it may cause instability (Poushter & Givens, [[Probable year::2015]]) . However, this acceptance varies by region; there is over 90% support for this idea in North American and Europe, while there is less support, around 70% in the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa (Wike & Simmons, [[Probable year::2015]]) . Exceptions begin to appear beyond these boundaries (Wike & Simmons, [[Probable year::2015]]) . For instance, support for being able to say offensive words to minorities or about religious beliefs is below 50% in all regions of the world surveyed except for the United States and Canada (Wike & Simmons). Exceptions against freedom of the press with the most support are comments that are sexually explicit or call for violent protests. Each of these types has less than 40% support to be a protected form of speech (Wike & Simmons, [[Probable year::2015]]) . | Exceptions to freedom of the press vary between states. Pew Research Center found that Americans are most likely to accept all types of free speech and people in most states are content with protecting speech against the government under freedom of expression, even if it may cause instability (Poushter & Givens, [[Probable year:: 2015]]) . However, this acceptance varies by region; there is over 90% support for this idea in North American and Europe, while there is less support, around 70% in the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa (Wike & Simmons, [[Probable year:: 2015]]) . Exceptions begin to appear beyond these boundaries (Wike & Simmons, [[Probable year:: 2015]]) . For instance, support for being able to say offensive words to minorities or about religious beliefs is below 50% in all regions of the world surveyed except for the United States and Canada (Wike & Simmons). Exceptions against freedom of the press with the most support are comments that are sexually explicit or call for violent protests. Each of these types has less than 40% support to be a protected form of speech (Wike & Simmons, [[Probable year:: 2015]]) . | ||
Defamation: Most common in media is defamation law, in which strictness varies between states based on the written laws, strictness of implementation, burden of proof, and punishment (Botsford). Internationally, defamation’s burden of proof is typically just the intent to make the statement, not that it was made in bad faith (Botsford). In most places, defamation is a criminal offense, though there are some advocates for a change toward a civil offense (Botsford). Defamation charges are somewhat common with just over half of EU states convicting a journalist of defamation between [[Probable year::2010]] and [[Probable year::2015]], though imprisonment was rare, and some states have such laws but do not enforce them (Botsford). | Defamation: Most common in media is defamation law, in which strictness varies between states based on the written laws, strictness of implementation, burden of proof, and punishment (Botsford). Internationally, defamation’s burden of proof is typically just the intent to make the statement, not that it was made in bad faith (Botsford). In most places, defamation is a criminal offense, though there are some advocates for a change toward a civil offense (Botsford). Defamation charges are somewhat common with just over half of EU states convicting a journalist of defamation between [[Probable year:: 2010]] and [[Probable year:: 2015]], though imprisonment was rare, and some states have such laws but do not enforce them (Botsford). | ||
Investigation for defamation can be very disruptive due to the seizure of personal and professional assets, preventing further journalism at the time (Botsford). Libel and insult charges against Russian Mikhail Afanasyev resulting from a piece he authored were quite disruptive to the media in the region (Botsford; Committee to Protect Journalists, [[Probable year::2013]]) . In the piece, Afanasyev claimed that Alexander Zlotnikov, who had testified to a court that Afanasyev had attempted to record a police arrest and was obstructive while doing so, was lying and immoral, among other things (Committee to Protect Journalists, [[Probable year::2013]]) . A defamation claim was immediately filed against Afanasyev, and a four-month investigation commenced (Committee to Protect Journalists, [[Probable year::2013]]) . Despite his eventual acquittal, the Russian investigation into Mikhail Afanasyev ruined media in his region of Siberia, as he was the only independent source (Botsford). This instance was not the first time he was targeted for his work at the Novy Fokus (Committee to Protect Journalists, [[Probable year::2013]]) . | Investigation for defamation can be very disruptive due to the seizure of personal and professional assets, preventing further journalism at the time (Botsford). Libel and insult charges against Russian Mikhail Afanasyev resulting from a piece he authored were quite disruptive to the media in the region (Botsford; Committee to Protect Journalists, [[Probable year:: 2013]]) . In the piece, Afanasyev claimed that Alexander Zlotnikov, who had testified to a court that Afanasyev had attempted to record a police arrest and was obstructive while doing so, was lying and immoral, among other things (Committee to Protect Journalists, [[Probable year:: 2013]]) . A defamation claim was immediately filed against Afanasyev, and a four-month investigation commenced (Committee to Protect Journalists, [[Probable year:: 2013]]) . Despite his eventual acquittal, the Russian investigation into Mikhail Afanasyev ruined media in his region of Siberia, as he was the only independent source (Botsford). This instance was not the first time he was targeted for his work at the Novy Fokus (Committee to Protect Journalists, [[Probable year:: 2013]]) . | ||
Turkey also strictly implements defamation law, so that it not only is affecting journalists but those in other professions as well (Botsford). Italy, a partly free media state, routinely uses these laws and imprisons journalists for libel – the only EU state to do so (Botsford). On the other hand, Ireland and the United Kingdom, free media states, have repealed their libel laws, and South Africa, a partly free media state, has taken steps to eliminate the law as well (Botsford). | Turkey also strictly implements defamation law, so that it not only is affecting journalists but those in other professions as well (Botsford). Italy, a partly free media state, routinely uses these laws and imprisons journalists for libel – the only EU state to do so (Botsford). On the other hand, Ireland and the United Kingdom, free media states, have repealed their libel laws, and South Africa, a partly free media state, has taken steps to eliminate the law as well (Botsford). | ||
References | References: | ||
Abramowitz, M. ( | Abramowitz, M. (2017, Apr.). Freedom of the press 2017. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FOTP_2017_booklet_FINAL_April28_1.pdf | ||
ARTICLE 19. (2004, Feb.). Briefing note on international and comparative defamation standards. https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/analysis/defamation-standards.pdf | |||
Banks, M. (2020, Oct. 26). EU investigating whether Hungarian state aid spending is undermining media freedom. https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/eu-investigating-whether-hungarian-state-aid-spending-is-undermining-media-freedom | |||
Botsford, P. (n.d.). Word crimes – defamation and freedom of expression. International Bar Association. https://www.ibanet.org/article/9E40E124-20BB-4533-A919-C7B5345F34C4 Committee to Protect Journalists. (2013, Apr. 15). Online journalist in Siberia faces defamation charges. https://cpj.org/2013/04/online-journalist-in-siberia-faces-defamation-char/ | |||
Poushter, J. & Givens, G. (2015, Nov. 18). Where the world sees limits to free speech. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/18/where-the-world-sees-limits-to-free-speech/ | |||
Repucci, S. (2019). Freedom and the media 2019. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral. | |||
Repucci, S. & Slipowitz, A. (2021). Freedom in the world 2021. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2021/democracy-under-siege | |||
Stier, S. (2015). Democracy, autocracy and the news: the impact of regime type on media freedom. Democratization, 22(7), 1273-1295. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.964643 | |||
Whitten-Woodring, J. (2009). Watchdog or lapdog? Media freedom, regime type, and government respect for human rights. International Studies Quarterly 53, 595-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00548.x | |||
Wike, R. & Simmons, K. (2015, Nov. 18). 2. The boundaries of free speech and a free press. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/18/2-the-boundaries-of-free-speech-and-a-free-press/ | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:18, 10 April 2023
Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively
In 2017, Freedom House estimated that only 13% of the world’s population lived in states with free press (Abramowitz, 2017, 8). Thirteen percent is low and creates little incentive for less-free media states to improve media freedoms (Abramowitz, 2017, 16). 45% of the population lived in states with ‘not free’ press, while 42% of the population lived in states with ‘partly free’ press (Abramowitz, 2017, 8). Freedom House defines free press on a spectrum, with free press being an environment that allows the right to seek and distribute information without interruption or censorship. These can take many forms, such as arresting or threatening journalists, being influenced by the government (monetarily or otherwise), or restricting access to news sources (i.e., disabling the internet) (Repucci, 2019) . The presence of these elements decreased media in the state and hinders citizens’ ability to get impartial information. In 2017, free states were, generally, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe (Abramowitz, 2017, 14-15). Partially free states were prominent in South America, Southern Africa, Western Africa, Oceania, Central America, and Central and Eastern Europe, with the additions of India and Mongolia (Abramowitz, 2017, 14-15). Not free states were common in Eastern Africa and Asia (Abramowitz, 2017, 14-15). Freedom of expression is called for and agreed upon in many international conventions: the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 19, American Convention on Human Rights Article 13, and the African Charter of Human Rights Article 9 (ARTICLE 19, 2004, 2). The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly calls out freedom of the press (ARTICLE 19, 2004, 2; Stier, 2015, 1274) . These conventions and declarations pave the way for freedom of the press in many states, though it is recognized that freedom of expression may be limited, mostly for the protection of something or someone. Exceptions, according to the Human Rights Committee, must be provided by law to safeguard a legitimate interest and must also be necessary to secure this interest (ARTICLE 19, 2004, 2).
Free: Though credited with some of the freest press in the world in 2017, freedom of the press in the United States looked to be declining (Abramowitz, 2017, 1). Factors such as media polarization, mistrust, undermining, and profit-motivated media coupled with changing business models were contributing factors in this decline, though constitutional checks prevented even more decline (Abramowitz, 2017, 1). Additionally, recent presidents’ actions have trended toward more restrictive of the media (Abramowitz, 2017, 1-2). Despite the Freedom Act of 2015, media monitoring is prominent in the United States, as well as other free media states such as Canada, Britain, Germany, and France, and becomes more prominent with less free media (Abramowitz, 2017, 16).
Partly Free: In partly free media states, generally, media is not explicitly restricted or censored, but actions taken by the government have demonstrated restrictions. In Hungary, pro-government media was monetarily rewarded by Hungary’s government was only selling stories to specific media outlets (Abramowitz, 2017, 6; Banks, 2020) . These actions “unfairly starved independent media channels” while publicly funding channels that were politically advantageous to the government (Banks, 2020) . This practice began after Hungary adopted a new constitution in 2011 and the incident was taken up for investigation in accordance with the ECHR in 2020 after multiple complaints (Banks, 2020) . Brazil used five journalists’ trials as a warning toward journalists and potential stories rather than explicitly restricting the media (Abramowitz, 2017, 21). The five journalists were taken to court for 50 counts exposing the high earnings of judiciary members but placed the trials all over the country (Abramowitz, 2017, 21). This action imposed a large monetary and temporal cost on the journalists, causing journalists to think twice about a story before publishing.
Not Free: The ten states with the least amount of press freedom are North Korea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Crimea, Eritrea, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Syria (Abramowitz, 2017, 9). States such as these have restrictive media guidelines, such as media monitoring or elimination. In many states, from Ethiopia to Zimbabwe to Turkey, media has been shut down at crucial political moments such as elections or protests (Abramowitz, 2017, 5, 9, 20). Turkey is a state with constitutional protection of media, though it has laws that contradict this protection and criminalize reporting on some topics (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 599). In Egypt, the military influences the media, preventing private, independent media (Abramowitz, 2017, 17). In Syria, many journalists are exiled, and many surrounding states make it difficult for them to continue their work (Abramowitz, 2017, 4). In Venezuela, some actions against the media have consisted of preventing international journalists from covering a planned protest and reacting with violence when some chose to cover it anyway (Abramowitz, 2017, 13). Russia and China are restrictive of their press with both censorship and market influence, but they take advantage of the freedoms in the United States and France to try to influence perceptions in these areas for their state’s political gain (Repucci & Slipowitz, 2021; Stier, 2015, 1275) . Russia takes similar actions with its Russian-speaking neighbors, especially Ukraine, for similar reasons, and has begun to try to influence the EU as well (Abramowitz, 2017, 9). China is also restrictive due to its very strict penalties and monitoring for criticism, while also preventing its people from giving information to outside sources (Abramowitz, 2017, 16).
Exceptions
Exceptions to freedom of the press vary between states. Pew Research Center found that Americans are most likely to accept all types of free speech and people in most states are content with protecting speech against the government under freedom of expression, even if it may cause instability (Poushter & Givens, 2015) . However, this acceptance varies by region; there is over 90% support for this idea in North American and Europe, while there is less support, around 70% in the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa (Wike & Simmons, 2015) . Exceptions begin to appear beyond these boundaries (Wike & Simmons, 2015) . For instance, support for being able to say offensive words to minorities or about religious beliefs is below 50% in all regions of the world surveyed except for the United States and Canada (Wike & Simmons). Exceptions against freedom of the press with the most support are comments that are sexually explicit or call for violent protests. Each of these types has less than 40% support to be a protected form of speech (Wike & Simmons, 2015) . Defamation: Most common in media is defamation law, in which strictness varies between states based on the written laws, strictness of implementation, burden of proof, and punishment (Botsford). Internationally, defamation’s burden of proof is typically just the intent to make the statement, not that it was made in bad faith (Botsford). In most places, defamation is a criminal offense, though there are some advocates for a change toward a civil offense (Botsford). Defamation charges are somewhat common with just over half of EU states convicting a journalist of defamation between 2010 and 2015, though imprisonment was rare, and some states have such laws but do not enforce them (Botsford).
Investigation for defamation can be very disruptive due to the seizure of personal and professional assets, preventing further journalism at the time (Botsford). Libel and insult charges against Russian Mikhail Afanasyev resulting from a piece he authored were quite disruptive to the media in the region (Botsford; Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013) . In the piece, Afanasyev claimed that Alexander Zlotnikov, who had testified to a court that Afanasyev had attempted to record a police arrest and was obstructive while doing so, was lying and immoral, among other things (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013) . A defamation claim was immediately filed against Afanasyev, and a four-month investigation commenced (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013) . Despite his eventual acquittal, the Russian investigation into Mikhail Afanasyev ruined media in his region of Siberia, as he was the only independent source (Botsford). This instance was not the first time he was targeted for his work at the Novy Fokus (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013) . Turkey also strictly implements defamation law, so that it not only is affecting journalists but those in other professions as well (Botsford). Italy, a partly free media state, routinely uses these laws and imprisons journalists for libel – the only EU state to do so (Botsford). On the other hand, Ireland and the United Kingdom, free media states, have repealed their libel laws, and South Africa, a partly free media state, has taken steps to eliminate the law as well (Botsford).
References:
Abramowitz, M. (2017, Apr.). Freedom of the press 2017. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FOTP_2017_booklet_FINAL_April28_1.pdf
ARTICLE 19. (2004, Feb.). Briefing note on international and comparative defamation standards. https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/analysis/defamation-standards.pdf
Banks, M. (2020, Oct. 26). EU investigating whether Hungarian state aid spending is undermining media freedom. https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/eu-investigating-whether-hungarian-state-aid-spending-is-undermining-media-freedom
Botsford, P. (n.d.). Word crimes – defamation and freedom of expression. International Bar Association. https://www.ibanet.org/article/9E40E124-20BB-4533-A919-C7B5345F34C4 Committee to Protect Journalists. (2013, Apr. 15). Online journalist in Siberia faces defamation charges. https://cpj.org/2013/04/online-journalist-in-siberia-faces-defamation-char/
Poushter, J. & Givens, G. (2015, Nov. 18). Where the world sees limits to free speech. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/18/where-the-world-sees-limits-to-free-speech/
Repucci, S. (2019). Freedom and the media 2019. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral.
Repucci, S. & Slipowitz, A. (2021). Freedom in the world 2021. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2021/democracy-under-siege Stier, S. (2015). Democracy, autocracy and the news: the impact of regime type on media freedom. Democratization, 22(7), 1273-1295. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.964643
Whitten-Woodring, J. (2009). Watchdog or lapdog? Media freedom, regime type, and government respect for human rights. International Studies Quarterly 53, 595-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00548.x
Wike, R. & Simmons, K. (2015, Nov. 18). 2. The boundaries of free speech and a free press. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/18/2-the-boundaries-of-free-speech-and-a-free-press/