Freedom of Expression in the Dutch Constitution: Censorship and Sense Construction

Abstract

Models of communication,frequently used in legal semiotics, offeran analytic framework for the relationshipbetween legal rules on the one hand andcorresponding behaviour on the other.Semiotic models seek to clarify(un)successful legal communication; theytry to reveal the processes ofinterpretation and sense construction. Theessence of these models is that thesubstantive meaning of a rule can (orcannot) be transmitted in a `flow model'of information. The models are based upona linear causality of ruleinformation. In this paper, the processesof sense construction are described,taking the freedom of expression, as laiddown in Article 7 of the DutchConstitution, as an example. Although thetext of Article 7 remained unalteredsince its first drafting in 1815, itssubstantive meaning has changedfundamentally. The transformation wascaused by complex processes that tookplace in social practice. These complexprocesses with respect to Article 7 arecompared with the transformation processesanalysed with respect to Article 96 of theDutch Constitution, published in anearlier paper. A comparison between bothArticles leads to the question: `Do weneed to construct an analytical model forlegal communication in whichreciprocal relations between legislatorand citizens are highlighted?' On thebasis of the two case studies, whichdescribe the influence of social practiceon the substantive meaning of the(textually unaltered) Articles, we have toanswer the question in the affirmative.