Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 2 - Positive Free Speech from Media Studies and Law

  • Andrew T. Kenyon
  • Book:
    Democracy of Expression
    Published online:
    28 May 2021
    Print publication:
    17 June 2021, pp 38-63

  • Summary

    This chapter examines the idea of ‘sustained plural public speech’ and the place of positive free speech within it. Two models of diverse media, taken from media studies, illustrate the structural diversity within positive free speech. They suggest how constitutional speech protections could frame a democratic architecture for public speech, which should aim to support sustained plural public speech through diverse media entities, funding, missions and people. Legal research is used to consider how courts determine the meaning of freedom within free speech law, the positive freedom’s democratic rationale, some dubious assumptions that can underlie negative approaches to free speech, and the breadth of the positive freedom. Possible roles for judges and other actors are also considered. Later examples suggest the theoretical value in courts doing more, where others fail to act sufficiently, to support positive free speech by framing obligations for legislative, executive and regulatory action. This need may not be rare but central to democracy’s communicative requirements.