In modern society, public spheres are recognised as the mass medium in which individuals are informed about current social, cultural and political issues. Therefore, I recognise that Twitter is personally one of the most informative.
This media-dominated environment is fuelled by differing independent perceptions, becoming a compressed domain for subject engagement. On Twitter, I typically interact with issues of political weighting — due to the topical status of American affairs of state. Twitter allows the masses to input their personal beliefs regarding this particular topic, becoming in itself, a public sphere — hence the foundation for free speech.
Conservatives aka. The nature of Twitter has been remoulded from typical social updating to a flourishing political public sphere. Being a growing medium to debate certain perspectives and ideologies of the controversy encircling government; enabling an international province to interchange personal opinions. Consequentially, the global accessibility to this public sphere provides a platform for negative interaction, due to contradictory views, in addition to the lacking physicalities of the sphere.
This is a really interesting take on the topic of public spheres! It was interesting, engaging and original! I would have liked to have read your thoughts on social media and twitter in particular changing the initial idea of what a public sphere is, and if this has positively or negatively effected the way we communicate.
Is debate an effective way of combating extremism? No
Like Liked by 1 person. With you there, it is weirdly intriguing! Twitter has allowed minorities and those affected by trauma a platform to voice issues, which is empowering like the movements you mentioned. It is a topic that truly shows the dualism present in a singular public sphere! Like Like. You are commenting using your WordPress.
A Soft Power Approach to Eradicating Extremism in Africa
You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook if i no be nyash download. Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email. Close Menu Home. Introduction to Communication and Media Studies. Who even am I? Public Spheres for Political Debate.
Why the Government Should Not Regulate Content Moderation of Social Media
Introduction to Screen Media. International Media and Communication. Globalisation, Media Flows and Saturation Coverage. Internationalising higher education: learning and teaching. Making Media.However well-intentioned, these proposals are a minefield for human rights.
They risk targeting satire, journalism, activism and community organizing, political protest, and other forms of expression, as well as undercutting existing rule of law and protections for both privacy and speech. For this reason, all stakeholders — including public officials, policymakers, companies that run web platforms and social media services, and civil society — should be extremely cautious about advancing, supporting, or implementing them.
Following is an overview of risks that CVE programs can pose to human rights online. Our three-pager also provides a summary of the principles we propose, which we explain in detail in the full paper. Vague definitions, lack of transparency and accountability.
Language is powerful, and in the context of proposals to counter violent extremism online, lack of clarity can be dangerous. Any CVE proposal or practice that implicates human rights must be grounded in clearly defined legal provisions, in the context of an accountable and independent legal system with adequate oversight.
Public-private partnerships are also an area of deep concern. It is also imperative that CVE efforts do not become channels by which governments directly or indirectly pressure online platforms to privilege certain speech, or otherwise interfere with how people access information online.
If government agencies and companies forge partnerships and conduct programs in this area, they must reject approaches that only favor particular perspectives, and commit to increased transparency and oversight. State-directed actions that interfere with online content or otherwise impact the ability of users to freely express themselves and access information are subject to the limitations placed under human rights law, including those specified by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
We must also stand on guard against using technical solutions, such as filtering or proactive content takedowns, for CVE efforts, simply because they are already in use for other purposes such as in the context of efforts to combat child porn. They would be risky and ill-suited to CVE programs given the lack of clear definitions for content, context, or legal mandate. Some CVE proposals argue for approaches that are tantamount to surveillance, threatening the fundamental right to privacy.
It is not exempt from human rights scrutiny merely because it is proposed under a CVE banner. The internet can help foster education, provide access to knowledge, and open channels for dialogue that can prevent conflict and counter incitement to violence.
If we do not protect that freedom and openness, it will destroy trust in the internet globally. That would play right into the hands of those who wish to inflame conflict — feeding, not discouraging, extremism. We have developed this guide over the past year with input from many experts and stakeholders, taking into consideration the human rights statements and norms that have been emerging in this field. This subject is complex, and is likely to become even more so as CVE programs are implemented and assessed.
We welcome the discussion to come, and hope to work with stakeholders in every sphere — public, private, and civic — to ensure that fundamental rights are protected. It will include the voices of at-risk users — activists, journalists, dissidents, and members of marginalized communities — from across the globe.This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. This ban on hate speech, though, catches only a narrow category of extreme expression — speech that vilifies the members of a group — and does not extend to more commonplace forms of bigotry.
Despite our commitment to freedom of expression, we recognize that the extreme or radical edge of discriminatory speech that is hateful in its content, and visceral or irrational in its appeal, carries significant risks.
Because less extreme forms of discriminatory speech circulate widely in society, they cannot simply be removed through censorship. Any attempt to do so would require extraordinary intervention by the state. Because odious attitudes are so pervasive, it is vital that they be confronted and contested in the public sphere. But this does not mean they should be treated as legitimate positions and offered a platform to which few others have access.
Most but probably not all of the coded or racist words uttered by individuals like Steve Bannon or Faith Goldy are not extreme enough to breach Canadian hate speech law. And so, when Goldy is invited to speak to university students, or Bannon is invited to participate in the Munk Debates, the issue is not whether their words should be censored, as if that were possible in the era of the internet.
Instead it is whether they should be given a platform from which to speak. Even if Bannon and Goldy have a right to say the things they say, that is not a reason to amplify their words, and give them legitimacy. Opposing view: Is debate an effective way of combating extremism?
In a formal debate, each of the opposing positions is presented as worthy of serious consideration, and as potentially persuasive. The claim that the members of a particular religious or racial group are duplicitous or violent, and so ought to be forcibly excluded from the larger community, should not be treated as a debatable proposition that the audience might decide to accept or reject. Whatever the formal outcome of the debate, the inclusion of such a proposition gives it legitimacy in the public sphere and will be counted as a success.
What gets said in the debate, or who is judged to have prevailed, is less important than the invitation onto the platform. This is why for people like Bannon, the withdrawal of an invitation to speak, or being prevented from speaking by protestors, counts as a success. It brings publicity, and publicity is what they crave. An invitation rescinded also has the great benefit of allowing them to present as victims of political correctness and defenders of free speech.
Whatever its past virtues, the contemporary political debate is a poor vehicle for advancing public understanding of an issue. A debate is organized around diametrically opposed positions, and tends to emphasize performance and competition over understanding and agreement. It does not allow for the development of complex or nuanced arguments or the settling of factual differences.
This means that their opponent must spend most of his or her allocated time correcting these falsehoods. To lie takes a moment, to refute a lie always takes longer.
Moreover, because religious or racial bigotry is not based on reasoned argument or a careful assessment of the facts, there is little reason to think that those who hold such views will be persuaded by facts or evidence. The views held by Bannon and Goldy and their ilk circulate widely and openly.
They cannot be ignored. They need to be opposed. Reasonable people may disagree about the best strategy for doing this, but treating these views as reasonable, debatable contributions to public conversation is not one of them. Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited.
All rights reserved. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www. By Richard Moon Opinion Tue. Have your say. Get more opinion in your inbox Go straight to the heart of an issue with the Star's Opinion newsletter, featuring the latest from our top columnists and more. Richard Moon is distinguished professor at the University of Windsor. Report an error. Journalistic Standards.Using the UK to dynamically exemplify the issues, this paper assesses the manner in which the laws curtailing extremist expressions comply with international human rights law.
Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?
Since September the international community has witnessed a proliferation of legislation ostensibly designed and intended to protect citizens from individuals and groups in the process of and prepared to use acts of violence against society. Broadly speaking, terrorists pursue political or societal change through violent means. Ideological motive distinguishes terrorism from other criminal violence and willingness to kill or harm civilians to achieve their ends marks terrorists out from other political activists.
In particular, it is doubtful whether any sufficiently precise definition of extremism can be constructed to satisfy legality; though governments are empowered and expected to protect their people from harm it is debatable whether curtailing extremist speech serves any legitimate objective; and, the need to eliminate a portion of free speech to protect at all is very much open for discussion. This paper addresses that gap, investigating the considerations and concerns that domestic legal reliance on the concept of extremism raises in connection with international human rights law.
It examines extremism in connection with the right to freedom of expression and asks from a theoretical perspective whether domestic legislation restricting extremist speech does or can comply with the tripartite test for restrictions set out in Article 19 3 ICCPR. As a whole, the paper adopts a black-letter interpretive approach, testing the fit of the content and rationale of domestic laws referencing extremism with the established precepts of international law.
In view of the nuanced legal, political and socio-legal dynamics involved in extremism, the paper draws upon an array of multi-disciplinary sources to interpret international law and inform its analysis.
Further, as the relationship between national and international law can be more easily analysed in abstract when referring to a specific legal order, the paper grounds its theoretical discussion by using UK definitions and documents to dynamically exemplify the real-world application of its arguments and conclusions. The UK is selected for illustrative purposes because it has a detailed counter-extremism policy which is already acting as a benchmark for other liberal States 18 and its international political standing together with the intense deliberations of its legislative process may particularly give its Counter-Extremism Bill if and once enacted a wider legitimising and emboldening impact in both liberal and proto-liberal States.
However, as it unpacks the layers and facets of extremism this paper takes care not to limit its analysis to any particular extremist ideology.Poland : The Road Of Revival
Crucially, though the three limbs of Article 19 3 collectively concern the rule of law, discussion of the object of and need for fundamental rights restrictions a priori requires the terms of restrictive legislation to be internally lawful. It is well-established in international law that laws must be clear, accessible and formulated with sufficient precision to enable individuals to regulate their conduct accordingly.
Further, whether seeking to restrict speech under Article 19 3 or Article 20 2 a close nexus between the relevant expression and a risk of it causing harm is vital for legality. That established, this paper now questions whether and how formulation of such a definition could be possible. As identified above, legislation restricting extremist speech needs to refer to a definition of extremism which targets with precision an identified harm.
Terminology is important not only to satisfy legality; language chosen here also impacts on the second and third limbs of Article 19 3. Consequently, to assess what, if any, terminology can accurately capture the threat of extremism without also being illegitimately broad, vague or discriminatory, this paper first seeks to understand how contemporary conceptions of extremism have come to be permeated by an enduring link between extremists and terrorists. Focusing on the dangers of extremist ideologies supposes that individuals develop extremist political views then seek to put them into practice.
Even accepting that empirical evidence points to extremism as being a partial contributor to terrorism, expressions of extremism generally include no direct calls to terrorist action; these would in any event fall within the strictures of Article 20 2 ICCPR and be prima facie outlawed.
In fact, when recalling the particular importance of narrowness where restrictions upon freedom of expression are concerned, it is arguable that only expressions of extremism meeting the threshold of Article 20 2 do or could comprise the causal nexus to harm necessary for legality: in the absence of linear progression from speech to action, without incitement even the most vitriolic statement of extremism is arguably too far removed from any eventual violence for legality to be satisfied.
Indirect causality must be approached with caution though: the more stretched the link between extremism and terrorism becomes, the greater strength there is to arguments that only where incitement exists and speech becomes categorised under Article 20 2 might legality be satisfied. Extremism has no agreed definition in international law.
Delegating to States the responsibility for constructing individual definitions of extremism, the Plan of Action gives no guidance on the substantive content to extremism, merely reminding States that they must enact law that complies with international human rights standards. A joint NGO submission to the UN in February outlined severe concerns that State-generated definitions of extremism presently capture angry but non-threatening expressions of unpopular ideas and government criticism along with truly dangerous expressions of bigoted and violent ideologies.
Whether or not defining at an international level, however, translating extremism into adequate and appropriate legal terminology still presents a Herculean task. One scholar does stand out as having proffered a list of extremism traits that could potentially found a rule-of-law compliant definition.
The NGO joint submission to the UN referenced above additionally identified that extremism definitions frequently either inadvertently encompass or are being deliberately used to suppress unwanted democratic debate, dissent and minority opinions.
Assuming extremism legislation to be legal, this section now considers whether extremism legislation does or could serve any legitimate purpose. Article 19 3 ICCPR provides for two umbrella reasons to restrict free expression: protecting national security, public order, public health or morals; and, respecting the rights or reputations of others.
As identified above, liberal States enacting extremism legislation claim that it links to terrorism: the UK explicitly identifies extremism as posing an intense and palpable threat to life and limb, democratic values and the fabric of society. Taking each purpose in turn, this section unpacks the relevant international law and evaluates whether extremism legislation does or could conceptually fit.
Second, these identified legal standards must be applied to delimit if and how expressions of extremism in fact threaten national security. Third, providing extremism does in law and fact pose a national security threat, it must be established whether measures restricting it are in practice genuinely directed at countering that threat.
Nonetheless, under the ICCPR as it stands States may apparently invoke this objective against any perceived threat provided they can justify their reasoning.The spread of social media highlights controversial changes in the public sphere: new opportunities of access and expression in fact go alongside aberrant phenomena of extremist propaganda.
In recent years, civil society institutions and bodies have responded to the wave of hatred and violence on social media through online awareness-raising campaigns aimed at combating ideological propaganda and offering alternative narratives to vulnerable individuals. The essay develops a critical reflection on some of these initiatives in view of social media affordances and the communication strategies adopted by promoters. What is the role of social media campaigns in consideration of the public sphere at risk?
What are the limits and criticalities for issuers? What are the potential effects on audiences? Starting with a number of case histories, the contribution highlights that issuers often find themselves facing the conservative dilemma between the possibility of using social media strategically and the risk of legitimising extremist organisations that use the same media channels.
The study also reveals that awareness-raising messages, developed in the form of a counter-narrative or alternative narrative, can trigger counterproductive actions such as the backfire effect which reinforce, rather than mitigate, the polarisation between individuals, particularly online, and which thereby invalidate the arguments and critical intentions of the campaigns.
I dati possono differire da quelli visualizzati in reportistica. Si consiglia il caricamento di immagini con una proporzione tra larghezza e altezza. IRIS Pol. File in questo prodotto:. I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione. Annulla Invia. La simulazione si basa sui dati IRIS e sugli indicatori bibliometrici alla data indicata e non tiene conto di eventuali periodi di congedo obbligatorio, che in sede di domanda ASN danno diritto a incrementi percentuali dei valori.
Si consideri che Anvur calcola i valori degli indicatori all'ultima data utile per la presentazione delle domande. Si specifica inoltre che la simulazione contiene calcoli effettuati con dati e algoritmi di pubblico dominio e deve quindi essere considerata come un mero ausilio al calcolo svolgibile manualmente o con strumenti equivalenti. Annulla procedi. Combating extremism in a public sphere at risk: platforms' affordances, dilemmas and opportunities of social media campaigns.Canada faces the threat of violence by a small number of individuals who have become radicalized for political, religious or other ideological reasons.
The Government of Canada is concerned with all forms of violent extremism, not associating this phenomenon with any particular religious, political, national, ethnic, or cultural group. While Canada has faced a variety of threats stemming from violent extremism in recent decades, the main terrorist threat to Canada continues to be violent extremists inspired by terrorist groups such as Daesh and al-Qaeda.
However, individuals espousing and engaging in violence can be inspired by any extremist group promoting such behaviour. For example, some individuals within the far-right movement have espoused, glorified, promoted, and even engaged in violence. As well, historically, some far-left extremists have taken part in violent acts such as pipeline bombings. The Government of Canada is also alerted to the dangers of lesser-known forms of violent extremism.
In its ongoing efforts to keep Canadians safe, the Government of Canada is expanding how it responds to violent extremism. Specifically, the federal government is investing in the prevention of radicalization to violence as articulated through the National Strategy on Countering Radicalization to Violence.
Prevention aims to thwart violent radicalization from happening in the first place and to intervene as early as possible when it is occurring. Preventing and countering violent extremism is an effective complement to security agencies' traditional methods of safeguarding national security. The Government of Canada is focused on preventing radicalization to violence and also recognizes the increasing concern about expressions of intolerance and hate in the public and online spheres.
While implementing the National Strategy, the Government of Canada will be examining how to increase individual and group resilience to extreme expressions of intolerance and hate, and how to prevent expressions of hate and intolerance from escalating into incidents of violence. The National Strategy is articulating the Government of Canada's approach to countering radicalization to violence and is a means to discuss this subject with key partners and Canadians. The landscape of the threat is constantly changing, as are local and global realities.
Therefore, the Government of Canada will aim to keep the National Strategy adaptable and responsive in an effort to increase our collective strength in preventing radicalization to violence and the harms it can cause. The National Strategy on Countering Radicalization to Violence engages with a variety of actors from police to community organizations to identify and prevent radicalization to violence before tragedies occur.
There is substantial knowledge, experience, expertise, and evidence at the local, national, and international levels to rely on in developing approaches to countering radicalization to violence. In this context, the National Strategy on Countering Radicalization to Violence identifies areas where expertise and capability exist, and how the Government of Canada and its partners are investing to enhance our collective strengths.
The National Strategy has three main purposes:. Countering radicalization to violence is a key priority of the Government of Canada. The Canada Centre was officially launched in Located at Public Safety Canada headquarters in Ottawa, the Canada Centre is made up of a group of professionals with expertise in countering radicalization to violence.
As a centre of excellence, the Canada Centre provides national leadership on Canada's efforts to counter radicalization to violence. This work includes:. Community Resilience Fund : The Canada Centre administers the Community Resilience Fund to support research and programs to build the evidence base along with local capability and capacity to counter radicalization to violence in Canada. The Canada Centre also actively engages in multilateral forums such as the United Nations and the Global Counterterrorism Forum GCTFwhich strengthen and coordinate international efforts and build civilian capacity to combat terrorism, including efforts to prevent and counter violent extremism.
The Government of Canada also engages in the Global Coalition against Daesh, which is a partnership of 79 countries that are united in efforts to defeat Daesh through multiple fronts, including preventing the flow of foreign terrorist fighters across borders and countering the group's communications.
It is important to recognize that radicalization, or having radical thoughts, is not illegal or necessarily problematic in and of itself. The Canadian Constitution, through the Charter of Rights and Freedomsprotects Canadians' freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.The recent massacre of innocent university students in Kenya following a siege by operatives of the extremist group Al-Shabaab has raised concerns whether eradicating extremism is possible.
Extremism and radicalization have fueled the violence and terrorism that afflict communities around the world today. See also Trevor P. These scourges are borderless in their effects, and countering them is in the interest of all states.
An extremist is a person who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics, religion, or culture. Radicalism denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways. The diverging ideological influences from the colonial era Arabic, English and Frenchand the clashes among religious models, have resulted in socioeconomic and religious imbalances in several countries in Africa.
At the same time, political instability, which creates power vacuums and security lapses, discrimination, religious marginalization, and economic crises, including social penury and the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, has contributed to the breeding of extremist groups.
With steady funding from drug trafficking and hostage taking, the transnational nature of the actors and the porosity of borders, along with the reduction of the area through modern means of communication, tend to favor the propagation of extremism on the continent.
In Nigeria and neighboring countries, Boko Haram kills and kidnaps innocent men, women, and children, especially girls. The infiltration into North Africa of the terrorist organization Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham ISIS has caused panic and brought to the fore the search for effective strategies to counter extremism.
Although military force can hypothetically annihilate extremists, it cannot eliminate an ideology. Extremists are made, not born, and are therefore receptive to de-radicalization. Date of publication not known. It involves undermining leadership, challenging ideology, exposing hypocrisy, and providing incentives to withdraw from extremist groups. Usually desperate for legitimacy, extremists manipulate ideologies to justify their violence and recruitment. Categorically condemning all acts of violent extremism and correcting misinterpreted ideologies espoused by extremists is thus imperative.
Since extremists brainwash young impressionable individuals, leaders and clerics at all levels should provide clear and correct understanding of cultural, religious, and political diversity, including the principle of unity in diversity, and promote tolerance and cooperation among youths.
Oftentimes, counterterrorism programs trample on human rights. Strategies such as gathering intelligence, using military force, and enforcing the law cannot by themselves solve—and, when misused, can exacerbate—the problem of violent extremism.