Search results

Academic freedom is often constrained by self-censorship. Measurement of this constraint is difficult because it is often unconscious, so it is useful to explore the underlying motivations. Greater-good arguments are an important motivator of self-censorship. Humans are social creatures who fear being accused of harming the greater good. When a scholar’s findings conflict with a paradigm alleged to serve the greater good, self-censorship is tempting. However, the greater good is not necessarily served by paradigms that invoke it. Discrepant data often lead to truths that a dominant paradigm obscures. Thus, the greater good is better served by a free flow of evidence than by conforming to a paradigm that evokes the greater good. This chapter presents an example in the Social Sciences. The paradigm of social harmony in the state of nature appears to serve the greater good, and evidence of aggression in the state of nature is often dismissed. But understanding the conflict in the state of nature can help people manage aggression today. This example can help scholars recognize and transcend the natural tendency to self-censor.

The question of how we know when censorship occurred has several sides. Problems of evidence of censorship do not only arise from practical obstacles, but also from its very nature as a knowledge-related phenomenon. Scarcity and abundance of information about censorship may be determined by the extent of the censors’ success or by uneven research efforts. These factors often make it complicated to demarcate censorship from similar restrictions and to identify patterns and trends in the relationship between power and freedom. The present chapter looks into this epistemological problem by mapping the set of concepts governing and surrounding censorship in the particular field of history. It draws up a mini-dictionary with definitions of 26 key concepts related to, larger than, and different from the censorship of history. As these definitions are interrelated, the set in its entirety forms a taxonomy.

This chapter argues that self-respect—an integral, but often overlooked value in discussions of social justice—provides a robust foundation upon which libraries might build a renewed defense of privacy and intellectual freedom in the face of today’s advanced information and communication technologies.

The chapter begins by laying out the value of self-respect for social justice as it has been defined in the domains of moral and political philosophy. From there, the author demonstrates the relevance of self-respect for libraries and, in particular, for underwriting important library values like privacy and intellectual freedom. Finally, the author presents two case examples—Library 2.0 and #AmazonFAIL—that further demonstrate how advanced ICTs have the potential to undermine libraries as a site of self-respect.

Through the use of relevant and current case examples, the chapter lays bare how the adoption of new ICTs and an uncritical adherence to Library 2.0 (and the Web 2.0 ideology that underwrites it) threatens to further marginalize users unable to navigate the increasingly complex (and increasingly opaque) systems of data collection, analysis, and dissemination.

This discussion surfaces and translates the value of self-respect from moral and political philosophy and makes it available for librarians and scholars interested in social justice issues in library and information science. Further, it preserves two key historical moments—the rise of Library 2.0 and the case of #AmazonFAIL—for current and future reflections by scholars, librarians, and other information professionals.

This chapter investigates journalistic practice in Greece during the period of the memoranda (2010–2015). By focussing on press journalism, the research probes journalistic practice and structuration by investigating how communicating with political sources and managing incoming information took place in the significant case of the Greek memoranda. Furthermore, this chapter investigates these practices in order to determine what they can reveal about the Greek press system as well. An innovative multilevel theoretical framework is introduced that combines insights from political economy and framing theory, in order to shed light on journalistic practice in content production, and media system structures. Original data stemming from 12 semistructured interviews with Greek journalists that covered that memoranda are presented, in order to reveal the structuration of Greek journalism and how the structure of the newspaper constraints journalistic practice in content production and in the collection of information from political sources. This chapter ultimately argues that Greek press journalism developed in an even further entrenched political role during and postcrisis, due to the political and economic developments of the crisis and their impact in the press system. This entrenched political role had a significant role in how incoming information regarding the memoranda was managed and what kind of options Greek journalists had when constructing news about the case.

Purpose – It may be time to reformulate the rejection of censorship. Freedom is not the only opposite of, strategic resource against, or antidote to, censorship. Methodology/Approach – This chapter argues against censorship with a Kantian-normative approach (the deontological position of the categorical imperative), using conceptual analysis, constructivism, and international legal scholarship, from the standpoint of a humanity-wide duty to safeguard and promote cultural diversity and biodiversity. Increasingly visible weaknesses of the argument against censorship from the utilitarian standpoint of freedom, a negative argument, can be avoided in this way. Findings – Especially the neoliberal approach to freedom has no provisions against corporate and only little against copyright censorship, which are both becoming increasingly acute. Diversity, on the other hand, both biological and cultural, is argued to be instrumentally good, and intrinsically good, but the latter only if balanced by equality of basic rights. Originality/Value – The resulting moral and legal imperatives are to support, safeguard, and promote diversity, and thus to minimize both censorship in culture and selection/elimination in nature, but only to minimize them, simply because they cannot themselves be eliminated. It is impossible to eliminate elimination. This becomes clear when one considers self- and soft censorship. At least in the wide sense, censorship is inevitable – but sustainable development is impossible without strict minimization of censorship.

Purpose – This chapter aims to show how media law strongly contributed to shape in Hungary what has been pictured as a U-turn. This illiberal trend was subsequently strengthened during the Covid-19 pandemic. Methodology/Approach – It considers that law also constitutes and not only orders political and social relationships. Law, including media law, has been in Hungary one of the main factors of change or rather of political-social construction. This chapter therefore moves from the study of positive law and analyzes Hungarian media laws within the theoretical framework of illiberal democracy, drawing from contributions to political science and socio-legal studies. Findings – This chapter demonstrated that media laws have outlined in Hungary a centralized regulatory system with broad powers, which lacks political independence, therefore encouraging self-censorship and limiting freedom of expression and pluralism. These laws contributed to shape the illiberal U-turn occurred in the country before the pandemic, but the coronavirus offered the occasion to reinforce government powers, giving the leeway to rule with no or minimum scrutiny for an indefinite period and further limiting dissent. The analysis enabled to argue that neither the media regulation established during the past decade nor the laws adopted during the Covid-19 pandemic are compatible with a modern democracy. Originality/Value – Based on existing literature, little research has been conducted on the appearance and endurance of non-democratic regimes, and supposedly even less within the context of the coronavirus pandemic which started only a few months ago, compared to the contributions available on democratization processes and democratic consolidation.

This chapter focuses on ways libraries can ensure the services and collections they provide do not exclude bisexual people and indulge in the “bi erasure” that is otherwise so prevalent in society. The authors share best practices for public, academic, and school libraries to add bisexual/pansexual titles to their collections, as well as provide programmatic tips that include the larger bisexual/pansexual community. Most importantly, the authors highlight community partners, advocacy organizations, or non-profits that can serve as potential collaborators as librarians brainstorm programming for bisexual/pansexual patrons. This chapter also contains staff training guidelines and resources for creating a more welcoming environment for bisexual/pansexual patrons. The chapter concludes with a list of resources that will help librarians make more inclusive collections’ decisions and resource guides. It’s purpose is to help libraries better serve bisexual/pansexual patrons who are undoubtedly already library users.

The goal of this chapter was to provide an insight into rules and norms behind generation Y social media presence and inform future research through an exploration of the norms underpinning digitally mediated interaction and behavior among college-age students in Ireland.

The authors administered a questionnaire containing both closed- and open-ended questions among 131 first-year college students in Ireland, asking them to identify online behaviors and actions with a purpose of recognizing rules and norms that guided how they handled sharing, interaction, and mediated aspects of relationships in their use of mobile devices and social media platforms.

This study reveals that the driving force is the desire for and implementation of what can be called the norm of “Do No Harm Lest Others Do Harm to You.” This norm, rather than being driven by the Hippocratic Code of principled awareness is an expression of an acute consciousness of audience segregation and the need for self-protection in online interaction. The respondents were asked about the rules and norms that guided how they handled sharing, interaction, and mediated aspects of relationships in their use of mobile devices and social media platforms. Their responses demonstrated that millennials, in their everyday and intensive use of digitally mediated technologies, have begun to observe a new social contract of “Do No Harm Lest Others Do Harm to You” where internet becomes a space of entertainment and private messaging devoid of conflict and exchanges of opinion with others. Millennials seem to be closing down the scope of online interaction which in the long run can limit the function of internet as a social sphere where various issues, including political views, are exchanged and discussed.

The research is exploratory in nature and relied up on a relatively small sample size. For this reason, while the study produces new analytic frameworks, the findings could not be generalized. Additionally, there are certain features that appear to be specifically Irish such as a blurred line between perception of bullying and harmless having the “craic.”

This research makes explicit the harm mitigation and conflict avoidance strategies underpinning the use of social and digital media as it has been deployed and shaped by Irish millennials and discusses the consequences of their reluctance to engage in the public realm of the internet.

The collision between climate science and climate policy was strikingly manifested during the Bush–Cheney Administration. Based on both the documentary record and direct observation, this chapter reviews multiple means by which the Administration controlled the flow of climate science communication from federal scientists and research programs when Administration officials saw a need to conform science communication with Administration politics. Government secrecy imposed via information control was evident, for example, in the editing of climate program reports; the suppression of official reference to an existing major climate impacts assessment; selective application of control over contacts between government scientists and the media; alteration of congressional testimony; shutting down of government Web sites; “stealth” release of reports to minimize public attention; and concealing a Supreme Court-mandated scientifically based draft document that would have triggered regulation of greenhouse gases to protect public welfare. With these political interventions, the response from the ranks of federal career science managers and research scientists varied, ranging from open criticism, anonymous leaks, and whistleblowing to silence, self-censorship, and active complicity.