Theoretical Justifications of the Right to Free Speech in the Digital Era

Yıl 2024, Sayı: 114, 139 - 154, 22.06.2024

İlyas Fırat Cengiz

https://doi.org/10.36484/liberal.1308457

Öz

Speech is information and communication expressing thoughts, ideas or emotions such as science, poetry, politics, promises, answers, complaints, etc. It is fundamental for individual and social levels to interact. The right to free speech with various theoretical justifications, such as self-fulfillment, personal autonomy, the marketplace for ideas, the search for truth, democracy, tolerance, and pluralism, is the integral existence of individuals and society. These justifications reflect the interrelation between the right to freedom of speech and other rights. Free speech causes individual and social good by achieving these justifications, yet it may result in harmful consequences or conflict with other rights. The digital era advances a new medium to promote the right to free speech within cyberspace. This era shapes individuals and social interrelation for specific ideas and actions in a short time. This represents communication in a new form through the internet, information, and communication technologies rather than print and broadcasting. The international system has been established based on expanding and diffusing cyberspace. Therefore, the coherence of these justifications is analysed within the recent digital transformation process, creating positive and negative impacts on freedom of speech.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Free Speech, Digital Era, Theoretical Justifications

Dijital Çağda İfade Özgürlüğü Teorik Gerekçeleri

Öz

İfade bir iletişim yöntemi olarak duygu, düşünce, fikir gibi olguların bilim, sanat, cevap, hayıflanma, söz verme gibi farklı formlarda oluşmasını sağlar. İfade özgürlüğü kişinin ve toplumun ayrılmaz bir parçası olarak, kişinin kendini gerçekleştirmesi, bireysel otorite, fikirler piyasası, doğrunun arayışı, demokrasi, tolerans ve çoğulculuk gibi teorik gerekçelerle açıklanabilir. Bu gerekçeler ifade özgürlüğü ve diğer haklar arasında karşılıklı ilişkiyi yansıtmaktadır. İfade özgürlüğü bu gerekçeleri gerçekleştirmek suretiyle bireysel ve toplumsal iyiyi gerçekleştirmekte fakat bazı durumlarda diğer hakların ihlali gibi olumsuz sonuçlar doğurabilmektedir. Dijital çağ siber-alanda ifade özgürlüğünün geliştirilmesinde etkili bir çevre sağlamıştır. Bu durum iletişimin internet ve bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri üzerinden yapıldığı yeni bir durumu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Dijital çağ bireylerin ve toplumun çok daha hızlı etkileşim içerisinde olabilmesini sağlamıştır. Daha da ötesi, uluslararası sistem bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin genişleme ve yayılması üzerine kurulmuştur. Bu nedenle, ifade özgürlüğünün teorik gerekçelerinin, ifade özgürlüğü açısından olumlu ve olumsuz etkiler üreten güncel dijital dönüşüm çerçevesinde ele alınması yerinde olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İfade Özgürlüğü, Dijital Çağ, Teorik Gerekçe

Kaynakça

• Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
• Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
• Baker, Edwin. (2011). Is Democracy a Sound Basis for a Free Speech Principle? Virginia Law Review, Vol: 97, 515-528.
• Balkin, Jack. (2004). How Rights Change: Freedom of Speech in the Digital Era, Sydney Law Review, Vol 26, 1-11.
• Balkin, Jack. (2004a). Commentary, Digital Speech, and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society. New York University Law Review. Vol. 79 (1): 1-55
• Barendt, Eric. (2005). Freedom of Speech. Second Ed, Oxford University Press.
• Bollinger, Lee C. (1986). The Tolerant Society. Oxford University Press.
• Brewer, Judy. (2017). ‘Standards Bodies, Access to Information Technology, and Human Rights’ in Lazar Jonathan, and Stein Michael Ashley, (Eds) Disability, Human Rights, and Information Technology, University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Chevigny, Paul G. (1980). Philosophy of Language and Free Expression. New York University Law Review, Vol. 55, 157-194.
• Cohen-Almagor, Raphael. (2006). The Scope of Tolerance Studies on the Costs of Free Expression and Freedom of the Press. Routledge.
• Dhiraj, Sharma. (2020). Communication in IT Age, Mumbai, Himalaya Pub. House
• Diresta, Renee. (2018). Free Speech Is Not the Same as Free Reach. 30.08.2018 https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-is-not-the-same-as-free-reach/
• Digital Threats to Democracy. (2019) digitaldemocracy.nz Emerson, Thomas I. (1963). Toward A General Theory of the First Amendment. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 72, 877-956.
• Golumbic, Martin Charles. (2008). Fighting Terror Online the Convergence of Security, Technology, and the Law. Springer.
• Greenawalt, Kent. (1989). Free Speech Justifications. Columbia Law Review, Vol. 89, 119-155.
• Handyside v. United Kingdom, (1976). (Application no. 5493/72)
• Heyman J. Steven. (2008). Free Speech and Human Dignity. Yale University Press.
• Kurzon, Dennis. (1998). The Speech Act Status of Incitement: Perlocutionary Acts Revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 29, 571-591.
• Massaro, Toni M. & Norton, Helen. (2016). Siri-Ously? Free Speech Rights and Artificial Intelligence. Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 110 (5). 1169-94.
• Massey, R. Calvin. (1992). Hate Speech, Cultural Diversity, and the Foundational Paradigms of Free Expression. UCLA Law Review, Vol. 40, 103-197.
• Meiklejohn, Alexander. (1961). The First Amendment is an Absolute. The Supreme Court Review, 245-266. Mill, John S. (1859). On Liberty. Batoche Books-Kitchener.
• Napel, Hans-Martien ten. (2009). The European Court of Human Rights and Political Rights: The Need for More Guidance. European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 5, 464–480.
• Nickel, W. James. (1989). Freedom of Expression in a Pluralistic Society. Law and Philosophy, Vol. 7, 281-293. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Oxford University Press.
• Raz, Joseph. (1991). Free Speech and Personal Identification. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 11, 303-324.
• Redish, Martin H. (1982). The Value of Free Speech. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 130, 591-646.
• Redish, Martin H. & Mollen Abby Marie Mollen. (2009). Understanding Post`s and Meiklejohn`s Mistakes: The Central Role of Adversary Democracy in the Theory of Free Expression. Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 103, 1303-1370.
• Redish, Martin. (1984). Freedom of Expression - A Critical Analysis, The Michie Co.
• Sadurski, Wojciech. (2001). Freedom of Speech and Its Limits. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Scanlon, T. M. (1979). Freedom of Expression and Categories of Expression. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 40, 1-14.
• Scanlon, Thomas. (1972). A Theory of Freedom of Expression. Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, 204-226.
• Schauer, Frederick. (1983). Is Government Speech a Problem. Stanford Law Review, Vol: 35, 373-386.
• Schauer, Frederick. (1983). Must Speech Be Special. Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 78, 1284-1306.
• Schauer, Frederick. (2010). Facts and The First Amendment. UCLA Law Review, Vol. 57, 897-919.
• Solum, Lawrence B. (1992). Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences. North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 70, 1231-87.
• Strauss, A. David. (1991). Persuasion, Autonomy, and Freedom of Expression. Columbia Law Review, Vol. 91, 334-371.