This book delivers an original, theoretically informed analysis of the legal regulation of online speech. Rejecting the narrow pluralism of elitist and deliberative accounts of the citizen's role in political discourse, the book defends a participatory account of speech in non-deliberative settings. The latter account of political pluralism best captures the republican democratic aspiration for popular, on-going authorship of the laws and the centrality of freedom to dissent in democratic theory. The legal and policy implications for governments and social media platforms of this inclusive envisioning of public discourse are then elaborated upon. In the digital world, anyone with access to the internet can be a speaker. Speech on public platforms has become democratised. At the same time, aspects of online speech are plainly problematic. Concerns exist about disinformation, 'fake news', 'deep fakes', 'weaponised speech' and 'trolls'. Offensive speech and the polarising effects of robustly expressed political opinion are also troublesome. These assorted downsides of democratised speech are said to undermine the integrity of democratic processes and institutions. Public debate is distorted and coarsened and the electorate are misled. How ought the liberal democratic state respond to these challenges? The discussion is intended to be read by academics and researchers with interests in democratic theory, digital communications and freedom of expression. It offers a stimulating and distinctive contribution to debates about online speech.

Even more than the occasional and fleeting right to vote, citizens' equal and peremptory prerogatives of expression within public discourse distinguish post-World War II democracies from all earlier and rival forms of government. In fundamentally transforming public discourse, electronic media transform the very conditions of political legitimacy. Ian Cram continues to innovate at the forefront of the free speech debates by exploring that historical shift in the way we speak, and therefore in the way we govern ourselves.' - Eric Heinze, Queen Mary, University of London, UKThis monograph explores the phenomenon of 'citizen journalism' from a legal and constitutional perspective. It describes and evaluates emerging patterns of communication between a new and diverse set of speakers and their audiences. Drawing upon political theory, the book considers the extent to which the constitutional and legal frameworks of modern liberal states allow for a 'contestatory space' that advances the scope for non-traditional speakers to participate in policy debates and to hold elites to account. Topics covered include the regulation of offensive, abusive and anonymous speech, online defamation, compelled disclosure of 'journalists'' sources, private online research by jurors and analysis of the application of pre-Web 2.0 laws to non-traditional media speakers and outlets. After surveying a range of criminal and civil law provisions that impair the communicative reach of non-mainstream speakers, the broad conclusion casts doubt upon the capacity of 'citizen journalists' to effect a significant shift towards republican self-rule. Offering an original analysis of the phenomenon of 'citizen journalism' with developments from a broad range of jurisdictions, this book is a valuable resource for students, academics, policymakers and law reform agencies in the fields of constitutional law, human rights, media freedom, journalism and comparative media regulation.

This edited collection addresses a number of free speech vs security concerns that are engaged by counter-terrorism law and policy makers across a number of liberal democracies, and explores the delicate balance between free speech and the censoring of views that promote hatred or clash with fundamental democratic values. It does this by looking at the perspectives and level of disagreement between those who consider today's counter-terrorism and extremism strategies to be a soft and liberal approach, and those who believe these strategies disproportionately impact freedom of expression and association and non-violent political dissent. The contributors include academics, practicing lawyers, and think-tank analysts who examine whether universities and schools incubators of violent radicalism and debate, and whether the views of 'extremist' speakers and hate preachers need to be censored. Outside the UK, critical discussion of the regulation of counter-terrorism, extremism, and free speech in other liberal democracies is also offered. This book will be of great interest to researchers and practitioners with interests in extremism, terrorism, civil rights, and freedom of speech.

In modern liberal democracies, rights-based judicial intervention in the policy choices of elected bodies has always been controversial. For some, such judicial intervention has trivialized and impoverished democratic politics. For others judges have contributed to a dynamic and healthy dialogue between the different spheres of the constitution, removed from pressures imposed on elected representatives to respond to popular sentiment. This book provides a critical evaluation of ongoing debates surrounding the judicial role in protecting fundamental human rights, focusing in particular on legislative/executive abridgment of a core freedom in western society - namely, liberty of expression. A range of types of expression are considered, including expression related to electoral processes, political expression in general and sexually explicit forms of expression.

In modern liberal democracies, rights-based judicial intervention in the policy choices of elected bodies has always been controversial. For some, such judicial intervention has trivialized and impoverished democratic politics. For others, judges have contributed to a dynamic and healthy dialogue between the different spheres of the constitution, removed from pressures imposed on elected representatives to respond to popular sentiment. This book provides a critical evaluation of ongoing debates surrounding the judicial role in protecting fundamental human rights, focusing in particular on legislative/executive abridgment of a core freedom in western society - namely, liberty of expression. A range of types of expression are considered, including expression related to electoral processes, political expression in general and sexually explicit forms of expression.

Whilst paying lip service to the importance of public access to court proceedings and its corollary of unfettered media reporting,a trawl through common law jurisdictions reveals that judges and legislators have been responsible for substantial inroads into the ideal of open justice. Outside of the US, judges and legislators have long subordinated media freedom to report and comment upon matters relating to the administration of justice in order to safeguard the fairness of individual proceedings, public confidence in the administration of justice more generally or even individual privacy concerns. The subject matter of this book is a comparative treatment of constitutional protection for open justice. Focusing on developments in the legal systems of the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia, the monograph draws upon the constitutionalization of expression interests across the common law world to engage in a much needed re-assessment of the basis and extent of permissible restraints on speech.

Located within wider debates about security versus liberty in our post 9/11 world, the book analyses the new landscape of UK counter terrorism powers and offences and focuses upon the deleterious consequences of the so-called war on terror on freedom of political expression and association. Questioning the compatibility of recent speech-limiting measures with liberalism 's established commitment to free speech and international human rights norms, the book takes a critical look at new powers to proscribe extremist political parties, possession offences and other criminal controls (eg. Official Secrets Act prosecutions) as well as new offences such as glorification of terrorism. Less visible, extra-legal forms of censorship are also evaluated. The monograph concludes by asking how a more vigorous defence of unorthodox and unpopular forms of expression might be safeguarded in the UK.

Located within wider debates about 'security versus liberty' in our post 9/11 world, the book analyses the new landscape of UK counter terrorism powers and offences and focuses upon the deleterious consequences of the so-called 'war on terror' on freedom of political expression and association. Questioning the compatibility of recent speech-limiting measures with liberalism's established commitment to free speech and international human rights norms, the book takes a critical look at new powers to proscribe 'extremist' political parties, possession offences and other criminal controls (eg. Official Secrets Act prosecutions) as well as new offences such as 'glorification' of terrorism. Less visible, extra-legal forms of censorship are also evaluated. The monograph concludes by asking how a more vigorous defence of unorthodox and unpopular forms of expression might be safeguarded in the UK.

This edited collection addresses a number of free speech vs security concerns that are engaged by counter-terrorism law and policy makers across a number of liberal democracies, and explores the delicate balance between free speech and the censoring of views that promote hatred or clash with fundamental democratic values. It does this by looking at the perspectives and level of disagreement between those who consider today's counter-terrorism and extremism strategies to be a soft and liberal approach, and those who believe these strategies disproportionately impact freedom of expression and association and non-violent political dissent. The contributors include academics, practicing lawyers, and think-tank analysts who examine whether universities and schools incubators of violent radicalism and debate, and whether the views of 'extremist' speakers and hate preachers need to be censored. Outside the UK, critical discussion of the regulation of counter-terrorism, extremism, and free speech in other liberal democracies is also offered. This book will be of great interest to researchers and practitioners with interests in extremism, terrorism, civil rights, and freedom of speech.

This book delivers an original, theoretically informed analysis of the legal regulation of online speech. Rejecting the narrow pluralism of elitist and deliberative accounts of the citizen’s role in political discourse, the book defends a participatory account of speech in non-deliberative settings. The latter account of political pluralism best captures the republican democratic aspiration for popular, on-going authorship of the laws and the centrality of freedom to dissent in democratic theory. The legal and policy implications for governments and social media platforms of this inclusive envisioning of public discourse are then elaborated upon. In the digital world, anyone with access to the internet can be a speaker. Speech on public platforms has become democratised. At the same time, aspects of online speech are plainly problematic. Concerns exist about disinformation, ‘fake news’, ‘deep fakes’, ‘weaponised speech’ and ‘trolls’. Offensive speech and the polarising effects of robustly expressed political opinion are also troublesome. These assorted downsides of democratised speech are said to undermine the integrity of democratic processes and institutions. Public debate is distorted and coarsened and the electorate are misled. How ought the liberal democratic state respond to these challenges? The discussion is intended to be read by academics and researchers with interests in democratic theory, digital communications and freedom of expression. It offers a stimulating and distinctive contribution to debates about online speech.