Članak analizira medijatizaciju kao empirijski proces i novi teorijski pristup. Raspravlja se razlika između pojmova medijacije i medijatizacije te drugi novi koncepti koje uvodi taj teorijski pristup u analizi interakcije medija i društvenih promjena. U članku se prezentiraju tri glavne perspektive u teoriji medijatizacije i najvažniji autori te prethodnici u komunikacijskoj i medijskoj teoriji i široj društveno-znanstvenoj (uglavnom sociološkoj) teoriji na kojima se istraživanja dinamike i posljedica medijatizacije danas temelje. Kulturna, materijalna i institucionalna perspektiva medijatizacije (posljednja uključuje i medijatizaciju politike) analiziraju se u odnosu na razumijevanje povijesnog perioda u kojem se odvija medijatizacija, komunikacijskih medija, širih teorijskih gabarita i rezultata empirijskih istraživanja. Zaključno se razmatra recepcija pristupa u Hrvatskoj u svjetlu napredovanja medijatizacijskih promjena iz makro perspektive medijskog sustava i iz mikro perspektive informativnih navika medijskih publika.
{"title":"Medijatizacija i društvena promjena","authors":"Zrinjka Peruško","doi":"10.20901/PM.56.1.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20901/PM.56.1.06","url":null,"abstract":"Članak analizira medijatizaciju kao empirijski proces i novi teorijski pristup. Raspravlja se razlika između pojmova medijacije i medijatizacije te drugi novi koncepti koje uvodi taj teorijski pristup u analizi interakcije medija i društvenih promjena. U članku se prezentiraju tri glavne perspektive u teoriji medijatizacije i najvažniji autori te prethodnici u komunikacijskoj i medijskoj teoriji i široj društveno-znanstvenoj (uglavnom sociološkoj) teoriji na kojima se istraživanja dinamike i posljedica medijatizacije danas temelje. Kulturna, materijalna i institucionalna perspektiva medijatizacije (posljednja uključuje i medijatizaciju politike) analiziraju se u odnosu na razumijevanje povijesnog perioda u kojem se odvija medijatizacija, komunikacijskih medija, širih teorijskih gabarita i rezultata empirijskih istraživanja. Zaključno se razmatra recepcija pristupa u Hrvatskoj u svjetlu napredovanja medijatizacijskih promjena iz makro perspektive medijskog sustava i iz mikro perspektive informativnih navika medijskih publika.","PeriodicalId":43401,"journal":{"name":"Politicka Misao-Croatian Political Science Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.20901/PM.56.1.06","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67614152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
U radu se polazi od teze da orijentalizam, kao oblik kulturnog nasilja, predstavlja strukturu dugog trajanja čija se matrica reprodukuje kroz diskurse i prakse različitih društvenih poredaka. Koristeći genealoški i longue durée pristup, autori analiziraju diskurse kolonijalizma, antisemitizma, nacionalizma i humanitarizma kako bi ukazali na dugotrajnost identitetske podele po liniji Zapad-Istok (Orijent), kao i na kontinuitet određenog kulturnog sadržaja koji implicira superiornost jedne i inferiornost druge strane. Analiza pokazuje i da svi ovi diskursi, iako međusobno različiti, mogu da se ukorene u orijentalističku matricu i da tako postanu instrument legitimacije i opravdavanja različitih oblika indirektnog (represija, eksploatacija) i direktnog nasilja (ratovi, genocid, etničko čišćenje). Cilj rada je razumevanje različitih oblika nasilja i njihove složenosti kao preduslov za bavljenje prevencijom nasilja.
这是一个很好的例子，我是nasilja，我是trajanjačija，我是prakse različitih društvenih poredaka。作者采用系谱和长期方法分析了对殖民主义、反犹太主义、民族主义和人道主义的讨论，以指出东西方（东方）身份划分的长期性，以及暗示一方优越另一方自卑的特定文化内容的连续性。分析表明，所有这些讨论虽然不同，但都可以植根于东方主义矩阵，从而成为各种形式的间接（镇压、剥削）和直接暴力（战争、种族灭绝、种族清洗）的合法性和正当性的工具。这项工作的目的是了解不同形式的暴力及其复杂性，以此作为预防暴力的先决条件。
{"title":"Kulturno nasilje kao proces dugog trajanja","authors":"Goran Tepšić, Milan Vukelić","doi":"10.20901/PM.56.1.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20901/PM.56.1.04","url":null,"abstract":"U radu se polazi od teze da orijentalizam, kao oblik kulturnog nasilja, predstavlja strukturu dugog trajanja čija se matrica reprodukuje kroz diskurse i prakse različitih društvenih poredaka. Koristeći genealoški i longue durée pristup, autori analiziraju diskurse kolonijalizma, antisemitizma, nacionalizma i humanitarizma kako bi ukazali na dugotrajnost identitetske podele po liniji Zapad-Istok (Orijent), kao i na kontinuitet određenog kulturnog sadržaja koji implicira superiornost jedne i inferiornost druge strane. Analiza pokazuje i da svi ovi diskursi, iako međusobno različiti, mogu da se ukorene u orijentalističku matricu i da tako postanu instrument legitimacije i opravdavanja različitih oblika indirektnog (represija, eksploatacija) i direktnog nasilja (ratovi, genocid, etničko čišćenje). Cilj rada je razumevanje različitih oblika nasilja i njihove složenosti kao preduslov za bavljenje prevencijom nasilja.","PeriodicalId":43401,"journal":{"name":"Politicka Misao-Croatian Political Science Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.20901/PM.56.1.04","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67613772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Autor u radu iz teorijske perspektive historijskog institucionalizma i koncepta promjene politike detektira i analizira pokretače promjene te ključne uvjete koji su omogućili ili spriječili promjenu politike osiguravanja kvalitete na javnim sveučilištima u Hrvatskoj u periodu od 2001. do 2013. godine. Radom je obuhvaćeno sedam javnih sveučilišta – Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Sveučilište u Splitu, Sveučilište u Rijeci, Sveučilište Josipa Jurja Strossmayera u Osijeku, Sveučilište u Zadru, Sveučilište u Dubrovniku, te Sveučilište Jurja Dobrile u Puli. Koristeći se kvalitativnim metodama (usmjerena analiza sadržaja i polustrukturirani intervjui) kojima se prati proces promjene politike utvrđeno je da su glavni pokretači promjene izvanjski. Glavni zaključak je da institucionalna struktura može biti preduvjet koji omogućuje akterima provedbu promjene, ali da su pojedine karakteristike aktera, poput njihovih kapaciteta, nužne da bi se promjena i dogodila.
作者从历史制度主义和政策变化概念的理论角度，发现并分析了2001年期间克罗地亚公立大学质量保证政策的变化以及促成或阻止变化的关键条件。直到2013年。年这项工作包括七所公立大学：萨格勒布大学、斯普利特大学、里弗大学、奥西耶克的约西普·尤里·斯特罗斯迈尔大学、扎德鲁大学、杜布罗夫尼克大学和普拉的尤里·多布里勒大学。Koristeći se kvalitationim metodama（usmjerena analiza sadržaja i polustrukturirani intervjui）kojima在政治进程中的实践是非常重要的。主要结论是，体制结构可能是使行动者能够实施变革的先决条件，但某些行动者，如他们的能力，是变革和发生的必要条件。
{"title":"Promjena politike osiguravanja kvalitete na javnim sveučilištima u Hrvatskoj u periodu od 2001. do 2013. godine","authors":"Nikola Baketa","doi":"10.20901/PM.56.1.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20901/PM.56.1.02","url":null,"abstract":"Autor u radu iz teorijske perspektive historijskog institucionalizma i koncepta promjene politike detektira i analizira pokretače promjene te ključne uvjete koji su omogućili ili spriječili promjenu politike osiguravanja kvalitete na javnim sveučilištima u Hrvatskoj u periodu od 2001. do 2013. godine. Radom je obuhvaćeno sedam javnih sveučilišta – Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Sveučilište u Splitu, Sveučilište u Rijeci, Sveučilište Josipa Jurja Strossmayera u Osijeku, Sveučilište u Zadru, Sveučilište u Dubrovniku, te Sveučilište Jurja Dobrile u Puli. Koristeći se kvalitativnim metodama (usmjerena analiza sadržaja i polustrukturirani intervjui) kojima se prati proces promjene politike utvrđeno je da su glavni pokretači promjene izvanjski. Glavni zaključak je da institucionalna struktura može biti preduvjet koji omogućuje akterima provedbu promjene, ali da su pojedine karakteristike aktera, poput njihovih kapaciteta, nužne da bi se promjena i dogodila.","PeriodicalId":43401,"journal":{"name":"Politicka Misao-Croatian Political Science Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.20901/PM.56.1.02","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67614151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Paradoks privatnosti označava diskrepanciju između deklariranog izražavanja visoke zabrinutosti za privatnost (privacy concerns) i istovremenog manifestiranja ponašanja kojim se iskazuje nebriga za privatnost, osobito kada su u pitanju društvene mreže i korištenje interneta. Cilj istraživanja bio je provjeriti manifestiraju li pojedinci koji su visoko zabrinuti za svoju privatnost ponašanja kojima je štite. Za istraživanje paradoksa privatnosti korištena je skala zabrinutosti za privatnost, konstruirana za ovo istraživanje na osnovi rezultata predistraživanja o načinima kako ispitanici razumiju privatnost i ugrožavanje privatnosti. Za mjerenje bihevioralnih varijabli korištene su tri skale prilagođene za primjenu u Hrvatskoj: društvena dimenzija kontrole ponašanja, opći oprez i tehnička zaštita. Sudionicima je postavljeno i nekoliko konkretnih pitanja o korištenju interneta i društvenih mreža. Istraživanje je provedeno primjenom ankete na prigodnom uzorku od ukupno 966 sudionika. Dobiveni rezultati pokazali su postojanje paradoksa privatnosti na sve tri usporedbe na nivou p < 0,001. Unatoč tome što je 90,7% sudionika navelo kako im je privatnost važna ili izrazito važna, velik broj sudionika koristi usluge onih tvrtki čiji je cijeli poslovni model baziran na prikupljanju, analiziranju i dijeljenju korisničkih podataka. Njih 99,3% koristi jednu od takvih tražilica, 86% neki od takvih servisa e-pošte, 88% koristi društvenu mrežu Facebook, na kojoj ih više od 73% ima navedeno svoje pravo ime i prezime te osobnu fotografiju. Dobiveni rezultati pokazuju kako je sudionicima deklarativno važna njihova privatnost, no kako je se vrlo lako odriču kada se radi o korištenju interneta i društvenih mreža, što ima značajne implikacije na aktualnu raspravu o zaštiti privatnosti i osobnih podataka u digitalnom okruženju.
隐私悖论标志着高度关注隐私与同时表现出关注隐私的行为之间的差异，尤其是在社交网络和互联网使用方面。Cilj istraživanja bio je provjeriti manifetiraju li pojedinci koji su visoko zabrinuti za svoju privatnost ponašanja kojima ještite。隐私悖论研究已被用作隐私问题量表，该量表是根据受试者理解隐私和隐私威胁的方式的研究结果设计的。对于生物变量测量，克罗地亚调整了三个量表：行为控制的社会层面、一般谨慎和技术保护。参与者还被问及一些关于互联网和社交网络使用的具体问题。这项研究使用了966名参与者的适当样本进行。结果表明，在所有三个层面上都存在隐私悖论，p＜0.001。虽然90.7%的参与者表示他们的隐私很重要或极为重要，但大量参与者受益于这些公司的服务，这些公司的整个商业模式都建立在收集、分析和共享用户数据的基础上。Njih 99,3%的koristi jednu od takvih tražilica，86%的neki od takvich servisa e-pošte，88%的koristi društvenu mrežu Facebook，73%的na-kojoj ih više od ima navedeno svoje pravo ime i prezime te osobnu fotografiju。所获得的结果表明，参与者对自己的隐私很重要，但很容易放弃互联网和社交网络的使用，这对当前关于数字环境中隐私和个人数据保护的辩论具有重要意义。
{"title":"Paradoks privatnosti","authors":"Andro Pavuna","doi":"10.20901/PM.56.1.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20901/PM.56.1.05","url":null,"abstract":"Paradoks privatnosti označava diskrepanciju između deklariranog izražavanja visoke zabrinutosti za privatnost (privacy concerns) i istovremenog manifestiranja ponašanja kojim se iskazuje nebriga za privatnost, osobito kada su u pitanju društvene mreže i korištenje interneta. Cilj istraživanja bio je provjeriti manifestiraju li pojedinci koji su visoko zabrinuti za svoju privatnost ponašanja kojima je štite. Za istraživanje paradoksa privatnosti korištena je skala zabrinutosti za privatnost, konstruirana za ovo istraživanje na osnovi rezultata predistraživanja o načinima kako ispitanici razumiju privatnost i ugrožavanje privatnosti. Za mjerenje bihevioralnih varijabli korištene su tri skale prilagođene za primjenu u Hrvatskoj: društvena dimenzija kontrole ponašanja, opći oprez i tehnička zaštita. Sudionicima je postavljeno i nekoliko konkretnih pitanja o korištenju interneta i društvenih mreža. Istraživanje je provedeno primjenom ankete na prigodnom uzorku od ukupno 966 sudionika. Dobiveni rezultati pokazali su postojanje paradoksa privatnosti na sve tri usporedbe na nivou p < 0,001. Unatoč tome što je 90,7% sudionika navelo kako im je privatnost važna ili izrazito važna, velik broj sudionika koristi usluge onih tvrtki čiji je cijeli poslovni model baziran na prikupljanju, analiziranju i dijeljenju korisničkih podataka. Njih 99,3% koristi jednu od takvih tražilica, 86% neki od takvih servisa e-pošte, 88% koristi društvenu mrežu Facebook, na kojoj ih više od 73% ima navedeno svoje pravo ime i prezime te osobnu fotografiju. Dobiveni rezultati pokazuju kako je sudionicima deklarativno važna njihova privatnost, no kako je se vrlo lako odriču kada se radi o korištenju interneta i društvenih mreža, što ima značajne implikacije na aktualnu raspravu o zaštiti privatnosti i osobnih podataka u digitalnom okruženju.","PeriodicalId":43401,"journal":{"name":"Politicka Misao-Croatian Political Science Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.20901/PM.56.1.05","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67613786","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Švarc, Drago Čengić, Saša Poljanec-Borić, Jasminka Lažnjak
Vlada Republike Hrvatske provela je 2013. godine niz reformi znanstvenoistraživačkog sustava s ciljem povećanja njegove izvrsnosti i međunarodne konkurentnosti. Želeći analizirati dosege spomenutih reformi, 2017. godine provedeno je istraživanje o tome kako znanstvenici, nakon četiri godine rada u novom sustavu, percipiraju promjene u strukturi znanstvenoistraživačkog rada. Empirijsko istraživanje provedeno je dvoetapno, kvalitativnom i kvantitativnom metodom, na namjernom kvotnom uzorku prema znanstvenim disciplinama, institucijama i zvanjima. Rezultati pokazuju da su reforme dovele do određenih organizacijskih unapređenja te do uvođenja veće kompetitivnosti u istraživačkoj zajednici, ali da su istovremeno proizvele i niz neželjenih posljedica, ugrozivši među ostalim materijalnu osnovu znanstvenog rada te transparentnost i javnost djelovanja znanstvenog sustava. Zbog toga je opravdano postaviti pitanje: je li potreban novi zaokret u hrvatskoj znanstvenoj politici.
Vlada Republike Hrvatske于2013年发布。多年的科研体制改革，以提高其能力和国际竞争力。想要分析上述改革的剂量，2017年。科学家们在新系统工作了四年后，如何解读科学研究结构的变化，已经进行了一年的研究。帝国的研究采用了两阶段、定性和定量的方法，根据科学学科、机构和呼吁，采用深思熟虑的配额模型。结果表明，改革导致了研究界的某些组织改进和能力提高，但也产生了一些不必要的后果，危及科学工作的其他基本原则以及科学系统的透明度和公共行动。因此，有理由提出这样一个问题：是否有必要扭转克罗地亚的科学政策？
{"title":"Znanstvenici o reformama znanosti iz 2013.","authors":"J. Švarc, Drago Čengić, Saša Poljanec-Borić, Jasminka Lažnjak","doi":"10.20901/PM.56.1.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20901/PM.56.1.01","url":null,"abstract":"Vlada Republike Hrvatske provela je 2013. godine niz reformi znanstvenoistraživačkog sustava s ciljem povećanja njegove izvrsnosti i međunarodne konkurentnosti. Želeći analizirati dosege spomenutih reformi, 2017. godine provedeno je istraživanje o tome kako znanstvenici, nakon četiri godine rada u novom sustavu, percipiraju promjene u strukturi znanstvenoistraživačkog rada. Empirijsko istraživanje provedeno je dvoetapno, kvalitativnom i kvantitativnom metodom, na namjernom kvotnom uzorku prema znanstvenim disciplinama, institucijama i zvanjima. Rezultati pokazuju da su reforme dovele do određenih organizacijskih unapređenja te do uvođenja veće kompetitivnosti u istraživačkoj zajednici, ali da su istovremeno proizvele i niz neželjenih posljedica, ugrozivši među ostalim materijalnu osnovu znanstvenog rada te transparentnost i javnost djelovanja znanstvenog sustava. Zbog toga je opravdano postaviti pitanje: je li potreban novi zaokret u hrvatskoj znanstvenoj politici.","PeriodicalId":43401,"journal":{"name":"Politicka Misao-Croatian Political Science Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.20901/PM.56.1.01","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67613968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Seneca’s De Clementia. An Overlooked Chapter in the Genealogies of Representation and Sovereignty","authors":"Gonzalo Bustamante Kuschel","doi":"10.20901/pm.55.4.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20901/pm.55.4.02","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43401,"journal":{"name":"Politicka Misao-Croatian Political Science Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.20901/pm.55.4.02","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49631786","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Thomas Hobbes and the Political Economy of Peace","authors":"P. Springborg","doi":"10.20901/PM.55.4.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20901/PM.55.4.01","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43401,"journal":{"name":"Politicka Misao-Croatian Political Science Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.20901/PM.55.4.01","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67614003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How should higher education respond to legally mandated limits on hateful, discriminatory, or provocative speech? Should public universities fortify government rules in the name of equal dignity for vulnerable groups, by imposing even further restrictions of their own? Or should they oppose such restrictions in the name of free speech? Or should they do neither, seeking neither amplification nor repeal, instead simply joining in whatever the government status quo happens to be, as they would do with most other background legal rules? This article advocates the second position: through a brief examination of ‘no-platforming’ and ‘safe space’ polices, it is argued that, within fully-fledged democracies, viewpoint-selective censorship is always indefensible for higher education. Examples are drawn from high-profile controversies involving far-right speakers as well as pro- and anti-Israel speech. Viewpoint-based censorship generates one of two scenarios, neither of which coheres with the mission of higher education. One the one hand, no-platformers’ declared principles could never be applied with ethical coherence without becoming so broad as to require massive censorship. On the other hand, if those principles are to apply only rarely, then they lose internal consistency and become outright ad hoc impositions of campus decision-makers’ own political preferences.
{"title":"No-platforming and Safe Spaces: Should Universities Censor more (or less) Speech than the Law Requires?","authors":"Eric Heinze","doi":"10.20901/PM.55.4.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20901/PM.55.4.04","url":null,"abstract":"How should higher education respond to legally mandated limits on hateful, discriminatory, or provocative speech? Should public universities fortify government rules in the name of equal dignity for vulnerable groups, by imposing even further restrictions of their own? Or should they oppose such restrictions in the name of free speech? Or should they do neither, seeking neither amplification nor repeal, instead simply joining in whatever the government status quo happens to be, as they would do with most other background legal rules? This article advocates the second position: through a brief examination of ‘no-platforming’ and ‘safe space’ polices, it is argued that, within fully-fledged democracies, viewpoint-selective censorship is always indefensible for higher education. Examples are drawn from high-profile controversies involving far-right speakers as well as pro- and anti-Israel speech. Viewpoint-based censorship generates one of two scenarios, neither of which coheres with the mission of higher education. One the one hand, no-platformers’ declared principles could never be applied with ethical coherence without becoming so broad as to require massive censorship. On the other hand, if those principles are to apply only rarely, then they lose internal consistency and become outright ad hoc impositions of campus decision-makers’ own political preferences.","PeriodicalId":43401,"journal":{"name":"Politicka Misao-Croatian Political Science Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.20901/PM.55.4.04","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67614123","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hate speech is a threat to the proper functioning of a democratic society and a damning force to central values such as respect and solidarity. It harms us on an interpersonal, community and societal level and ‘is speech that intentionally attacks a person or a group based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion, or any other prohibited criterion.’ In a world of rising populism and far-right extremism, hate speech, as a by-product of such phenomena needs seriously to be addressed. On an international and European level, the tools that have been developed to this end are mechanisms, which directly prohibit certain types of speech. At the same time, international and European documents provide for the restriction of free speech if such speech, inter alia, violates the rights of others. The documents that will be discussed in this paper also include non-destruction clauses, an avenue which has been used predominantly by the European Court of Human Rights to oust negationst and revisionist speech from Convention protection. This paper will assess the relevant provisions that exist on an international (United Nations) and European (European Union and Council of Europe) level, to tackle hate speech. As a first step, the paper will elaborate on the definitional and contextual arena of hate speech and will proceed to look at the United Nations (UN). In particular, it will analyse Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which prohibits, amongst others, the dissemination of ideas of racial superiority. It will then assess Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on the prohibition of any advocacy for religious, national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. As well as the substance of the aforementioned articles and the related jurisprudence of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the Human Rights Committee (HRC), the paper will also consider other documents such as General Recommendations and Concluding Observations. Following the UN framework, the paper will look at the Framework Decision on Combating Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia by means of Criminal Law, which is the only legal tool existing at a European Union (EU) level to tackle hate speech. As reflected in its title, it is limited to racist and xenophobic speech. The paper will subsequently consider the Council of Europe’s Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, Concerning the Criminalisation of Acts of a Racist and Xenophobic Nature Committed through Computer Systems as the only tool on this level, to tackle hate speech directly, albeit only that appearing online. It will close with the key case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which sets out the position of the Court in interpreting the limits of Article 10 of the Eu
{"title":"The Legal Regulation of Hate Speech: The International and European Frameworks","authors":"Natalie Alkiviadou","doi":"10.20901/PM.55.4.08","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20901/PM.55.4.08","url":null,"abstract":"Hate speech is a threat to the proper functioning of a democratic society and a damning force to central values such as respect and solidarity. It harms us on an interpersonal, community and societal level and ‘is speech that intentionally attacks a person or a group based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion, or any other prohibited criterion.’ In a world of rising populism and far-right extremism, hate speech, as a by-product of such phenomena needs seriously to be addressed. On an international and European level, the tools that have been developed to this end are mechanisms, which directly prohibit certain types of speech. At the same time, international and European documents provide for the restriction of free speech if such speech, inter alia, violates the rights of others. The documents that will be discussed in this paper also include non-destruction clauses, an avenue which has been used predominantly by the European Court of Human Rights to oust negationst and revisionist speech from Convention protection. This paper will assess the relevant provisions that exist on an international (United Nations) and European (European Union and Council of Europe) level, to tackle hate speech. As a first step, the paper will elaborate on the definitional and contextual arena of hate speech and will proceed to look at the United Nations (UN). In particular, it will analyse Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which prohibits, amongst others, the dissemination of ideas of racial superiority. It will then assess Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on the prohibition of any advocacy for religious, national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. As well as the substance of the aforementioned articles and the related jurisprudence of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the Human Rights Committee (HRC), the paper will also consider other documents such as General Recommendations and Concluding Observations. Following the UN framework, the paper will look at the Framework Decision on Combating Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia by means of Criminal Law, which is the only legal tool existing at a European Union (EU) level to tackle hate speech. As reflected in its title, it is limited to racist and xenophobic speech. The paper will subsequently consider the Council of Europe’s Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, Concerning the Criminalisation of Acts of a Racist and Xenophobic Nature Committed through Computer Systems as the only tool on this level, to tackle hate speech directly, albeit only that appearing online. It will close with the key case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which sets out the position of the Court in interpreting the limits of Article 10 of the Eu","PeriodicalId":43401,"journal":{"name":"Politicka Misao-Croatian Political Science Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.20901/PM.55.4.08","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67613810","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The authors are presenting and interpreting the data on Croatian citizens’ attitudes on regulating hate speech, contentious symbols and public commemoration. The data was collected in two nation-wide surveys conducted in 2016 and 2018. The data is analyzed within a normative framework of militant democracy versus anti-democratic tendencies. In the conclusion the authors, invoking the available data, advocate a minimal model of regulating public speech by focusing on public utterances of direct and symbolic hate speech.
{"title":"Hate Speech, Contentious Symbols and Politics of Memory: Survey Research on Croatian Citizens’ Attitudes","authors":"N. Blanuša, Enes Kulenović","doi":"10.20901/PM.55.4.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20901/PM.55.4.07","url":null,"abstract":"The authors are presenting and interpreting the data on Croatian citizens’ attitudes on regulating hate speech, contentious symbols and public commemoration. The data was collected in two nation-wide surveys conducted in 2016 and 2018. The data is analyzed within a normative framework of militant democracy versus anti-democratic tendencies. In the conclusion the authors, invoking the available data, advocate a minimal model of regulating public speech by focusing on public utterances of direct and symbolic hate speech.","PeriodicalId":43401,"journal":{"name":"Politicka Misao-Croatian Political Science Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.20901/PM.55.4.07","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47386452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：