Book contents
- Speech and Society in Turbulent Times
- Speech and Society in Turbulent Times
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction: Speech and Society in Comparative Perspective
- Part I Revisiting International Norms
- Part II Dewesternizing Tendencies
- Part III The West as Progenitor and Modifier of Concepts of Free Expression
- Part IV Technologies and Ideologies in Turbulent Times
- 13 Free Speech, Traditional Values, and Hinduism in the Internet Age
- 14 Cyber-Leninism: The Political Culture of the Chinese Internet
- 15 French National Values, Paternalism, and the Evolution of Digital Media
- 16 Strategies and Tactics: Re-shaping the Internet in Ethiopia
- Part V Conclusion
- Index
- References
15 - French National Values, Paternalism, and the Evolution of Digital Media
from Part IV - Technologies and Ideologies in Turbulent Times
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 November 2017
Book contents
- Speech and Society in Turbulent Times
- Speech and Society in Turbulent Times
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction: Speech and Society in Comparative Perspective
- Part I Revisiting International Norms
- Part II Dewesternizing Tendencies
- Part III The West as Progenitor and Modifier of Concepts of Free Expression
- Part IV Technologies and Ideologies in Turbulent Times
- 13 Free Speech, Traditional Values, and Hinduism in the Internet Age
- 14 Cyber-Leninism: The Political Culture of the Chinese Internet
- 15 French National Values, Paternalism, and the Evolution of Digital Media
- 16 Strategies and Tactics: Re-shaping the Internet in Ethiopia
- Part V Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Speech and Society in Turbulent TimesFreedom of Expression in Comparative Perspective, pp. 274 - 292Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Abramatic, J.-F. 1999. Développement technique de l’Internet: rapport remis à M.Christian Pierret, secrétaire d’Etat à l’industrie (Technical Development of the Internet: Report to M. Christian Pierret, Deputy Minister of the Industry). Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
Balibar, E. 1991. “The nation form: History and ideology,” in Balibar, E. and Wallerstein, I. (eds.), Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities. London: Verso, pp. 86–106, republished in Eley, G. and Suny, R. G. (eds.) 1996, Becoming National: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 132–49.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1992. “Deux impérialismes de l’universel” (“Two universalist imperialisms”), in Fauré, C. and Bishop, T. (eds.), L’Amérique des Français. Paris: Editions François Bourin, pp. 149–55.Google Scholar
Conklin, A. 1997. A Mission to Civilize: The Republican Idea of Empire in France and West Africa, 1895–1930. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Directorate-General of Global Affairs, Development and Partnerships 2011. France and the Global Challenges of Information and Communication Technologies. Paris: French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs.Google Scholar
Falque-Pierrotin, I. 1997. Internet: Enjeux juridiques. Rapport au Ministre Délégué à la Poste, aux Télécommunications et à l’Espace et au Ministre de la Culture (Internet: Legal Stakes. Report to the Deputy Minister of the Post, Telecommunications, and Space, and to the Minister of Culture). Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
Froomkin, A. M. 1997. “The Internet as a source of regulatory arbitrage,” in Kahin, B. and Nesson, C. (eds.), Borders in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 129–63.Google Scholar
Garza, C. A. 2000. “Measuring language rights along a spectrum,” Yale Law Journal 110: 379–86.Google Scholar
Hérvé, P. 1949. “Serons nous Cocacolonisés?” (“Will we be coca-colonized”) L’Humanité, November 8, 1949.Google Scholar
Hoffman, S. 2000. “Deux universalismes en conflit” (“Two conflicting universalisms”), La Revue Tocqueville 21(1): 65–71.Google Scholar
Hollihan, T. and Baaske, K. 2005. Arguments and Arguing: The Products and Process of Human Decision Making. Long Grove: Waveland.Google Scholar
Jeanneney, J.-N. 2005. “Quand Google défie l’Europe” (“When Google challenges Europe”), Le Monde, January 22, 2005.Google Scholar
Kuisel, R. F. 1991. “Coca-Cola and the Cold War: The French face Americanization 1948–1953,” French Historical Studies 17( 1): 96–116.Google Scholar
Legrand, P. 1996. “Comparer” (“To Compare”), Revue Internationale De Droit Comparé 48: 279–318.Google Scholar
Mailland, J. 2001. “Freedom of speech, the Internet, and the costs of control: The French example,” New York University Journal of International Law & Politics 33( 4): 1179–234.Google Scholar
Mailland, J. 2016. “101 online: American Minitel network and lessons from its failure,” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 38( 1): 2–18.Google Scholar
Martin-Lalande, P. 1998. L’internet: Un vrai défi pour la France: Rapport au premier ministre (The Internet: A Real Challenge for France: Report to the Prime Minister). Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
Meiklejohn, A. 1955. “Testimony on the meaning of the First Amendment, address before the US Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights,” Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, hearings, eighty-fourth Congress, first session.Google Scholar
Meyer, T. 2012. “Graduated response in France: The clash of copyright and the Internet,” Journal of Information Policy 2: 107–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nora, S. and Minc, A. 1981. The Computerization of Society. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunberg, G. 2005. “Letting the net speak for itself: Fears of an ‘Anglo-Saxon’ takeover of the online world are unfounded,” Mercury News, April 17, 2005. Available at: http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/weblg.html.Google Scholar
Price, M. 1994. “The market for loyalties: Electronic media and the global competition for allegiances,” Yale Law Journal 104: 667–705.Google Scholar
Price, M. 1995a. “Law, force and the Russian media,” Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 13: 795–846.Google Scholar
Price, M. 1995b. Television: The Public Sphere and National Identity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Price, M. 1997. “The market for loyalties and the uses of ‘comparative media law’,” Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 5: 445–65.Google Scholar
Price, M. 2002. Media and Sovereignty: The Global Information Revolution and its Challenge to State Power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Renand, E. 1882. “What is a nation?” (M. Thom, trans.), in Eley, G. and Suny, R. G. (eds.), Becoming National: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 50–5.Google Scholar
Reporters Without Borders 2012. “2012 Surveillance – France,” March 12, 2012. Available at: http://en.rsf.org/france-france-12-03-2012,42071.html.Google Scholar
Reuters 2000. “G8 complains of digital havens: French hate ‘unfettered freedom’,” May 13, 2000.Google Scholar
Schiller, H. 1976. Communication and Cultural Domination. New York: International Arts and Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Schloesser, S. 2005. Jazz Age Catholicism: Mystic Modernism in Postwar Paris, 1919–1933. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Thussu, D. K. 2006. International Communication: Continuity and Change. 2nd ed. London: Hodder Arnold Publication.Google Scholar
Weber, E. 1976. Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870–1914. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitman, J. Q. 2000. “Enforcing civility and respect: Three societies,” Yale Law Journal 109: 1279–398.Google Scholar