Deepfakes have been widely discussed as a media ethics issue, a free speech dilemma, or a potential threat to democratic institutions. This paper argues that deepfakes should also be understood as a cybersecurity problem, because they exploit the same trust relationships that underpin secure systems and public governance. Deepfakes are not merely “fake videos”, they are tools for identity manipulation that can bypass technical defenses and disrupt decision-making, public communication, and institutional legitimacy. The paper examines how deepfakes intersect with existing legal frameworks, including data protection, defamation, broadcast regulation, and cyber incident response, and proposes that public institutions should treat synthetic media as an emerging risk within cybersecurity governance.

The Political Funds Act stipulates provisions that prohibit political contributions from corporations or organizations, as well as contributions made using funds associated with such entities. These regulations are understood as measures intended to prevent the systemic evils arising from the collusion between politics and business, and to ensure that the democratic will-formation process or the intent of its individual members is not distorted by the disproportionate political influence of corporations or organizations. While the Constitutional Court of Korea has maintained in its rulings that the specific measure in question does not infringe upon the freedom of political expression, a meticulous review is required regarding judicial decisions that justify unilateral and comprehensive state control, especially considering the “preferred position” of free speech under the Constitution. In this regard, it is instructive to analyze and compare the legal doctrines established by the U.S. Supreme Court in similar contexts. A primary justification for banning corporate or organizational political contributions lies in the profound concern over the distortion of public will. Therefore, the critical issue is how to devise effective countermeasures against such distortion. Relying on government power to rectify these imbalances risks inviting arbitrariness and the abuse of authority, which may prove to be an imprudent choice under the ideals of liberty. Rather, it is more desirable to secure a space for evolution and progress by guaranteeing a sphere of autonomous deliberation and judgment rooted in individual freedom. To advance such institutional reform, it is essential that the principle of publicity—achieved through the transparent disclosure of relevant information—be recognized as the primary guiding principle.

The Jordanian Cybercrime Law No. 17 of 2013 has been controversial largely because of its vague wording—most notably, articles related to "false news" and other online content that is said to harm national unity or propagate depravity. These ambiguities have alarmed stakeholders as to what it could mean for free speech and the ability of journalists or activists to work unfettered within digital confines. Jordanian law to combat misinformation — fake news that undermines national unity and sparks discord, which has generated much controversy about human rights and freedom of expression. Amnesty International criticized the law as "draconian", which warned against its inclusive definitions and how individuals could be prosecuted even if nobody files a formal complaint. The legislation has been condemned by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which said it threatens the security of Jordan's digital infrastructure and tarnishes Amman's record as a moderate, reform-conscious state. Local law scholars also question whether the rule will be a political weapon and won't achieve all of what it intends. The paper shows how the 2023 law has politicized fundamental rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, digital anonymity, and civic engagement. Finally, it underlines how the tension between state security narratives and international human rights obligations is reflected.

ABSTRACT Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are meritless cases filed by powerful actors seeking to silence their critics through costly, protracted litigation. As climate change litigation (CCL) against corporations has surged since the Paris Agreement, so too has the threat of retaliatory SLAPPs against climate activists. In the US, activists must weigh the threat of being entangled in a resource-depleting SLAPP in decisions around whether, and where, to file strategic CCL. SLAPPs so burden the courts and contravene democratic values that 35 states and the District of Columbia have laws attempting to restrict them. How does spatial and temporal variation in legal protections afforded by state anti-SLAPP laws affect activists’ willingness to sue corporations over climate change? Analyzing CCL caseloads in American courts between 2015 and 2024, I find jurisdictions with anti-SLAPP protections attract corporate CCL, indicating that legislative action on free speech helps shape the development of climate law.

Free speech protections are embedded deeply within the campus experience. Naturally, students often exercise their protected speech rights in the form of protests and other on‐campus demonstrations and events. However, student expression rights also extend to the classroom in the context of course discussions and writings. They can also extend off campus to social media posts.

Abstract This essay looks at the limitations of the legal purchase of “freedom of speech” in relation to what the author terms “speech unfreedoms” or “carcerally speaking,” both expressions understood as conditions of utterance inflected and curtailed by structural racism. The essay examines the work of artists and writers whose work speaks to current political struggles over free speech, due process, bodily autonomy, and racial pessimism.

Abstract In expressing critique, the main model for understanding the merits of such expressions is through a liberal democratic tradition with its ideas of free speech. Regardless of whether discontent is expressed through aesthetic or political means, it is primarily framed through a logic of representation and the presumption that the means of expression directly mediate and thus properly represent one's perspective. Under the governance structure of liberalism and its domination as a global logic, most expressions of discontent, from aesthetic to political, become equivalent and primarily legible through a democratic aesthetics. Within the provincial logics of Western democracies that saturate our understandings of the transnational, those nations without proper individualized voting rights or space to perform and enact frank speech are seen as illiberal and unmodern. This is because the tacit benchmark for our ideas of governance and law come to be inherited from a liberal formula that relies on democratic representation as the mode for political representation. This essay examines other ways to understand governance and law beyond liberalism. The author uses the aesthetic to not only trace the dominance of democratic logics but also reconsider them through the illiberal. The author turns to the work of Ai Weiwei, engaging his 2019 sculpture Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen Cut in Nine Pieces. Ai's work allows us to understand how our fields often approach the aesthetic as a proxy form of free speech and how we might expand what the aesthetic can do in relation to governance.

ABSTRACT The past decade has seen a massive rise in the role of social media influencers in society. Disparagement, originally a common law remedy meant to protect trademark holders from unfair disparagement of their products or mark, is now being used as a tool to suppress free speech on the internet. By looking at several cases in the light of the culture theory of trademark and the right to freedom of speech and expression, this article argues that courts need to exercise caution while deciding upon cases pertaining to disparagement. Trademark law ought to be used while keeping its consumer protection rationale in mind, balancing disparagement with consumer welfare and the right to freedom of speech and expression.

The aim of this article is to examine the peculiarities of the functioning of such a widespread narrative technique in the 20th and 21st centuries as the present historical tense. Based on the material of H. Mantel's novel "The Mirror and the Light," which is the final part of the Thomas Cromwell trilogy, it analyzes the grammatical, psychological, and fictional aspects of using praesens historicum in free indirect speech, allowing the author to combine the subjective perception of time by the character with the dramatization of historical narrative, as well as to compare the events with paintings created by an artist. Special attention is paid to the role of the present tense in creating a fictional space oriented towards theatricality, eternal return, and reversibility of time, as well as in linking the individual memory of the hero with the philosophical reflection on history. The methodology of analysis is based on the combination of linguistic stylistic and narrative analyses, which allows us to consider how the grammatical technique transforms into an element of artistic poetics and influences the perception of historical time in the text. It is shown that the choice of this tense form becomes an important artistic and linguistic stylistic device that ensures the cohesion of the text and forms a particular concept of time in the trilogy. Possible areas of application for the results include commentary on Russian-language editions, revision of translation, and teaching linguistic stylistic analysis. The novelty of the work lies in demonstrating how, at the level of narration, praesens historicum forms the integrity of the text, ensuring the cohesion of disparate episodes and engaging the reader in the subjective perception of events. By combining the present tense with verbs of perception and cognitive activity, an effect of psychological presence is created, and the fate of Thomas Cromwell unfolds as a dramatic action rather than as something completed, described in the form of a chronicle. The introduction of a theatrical dimension and reference to the legacy of W. Shakespeare allows the narrative to be perceived as a stage where historical events are played out again and again.

Explore the article titled The Constitutional Contours of Free Speech and Hate Speech: An Indian Perspective from IJIRT Volume 12, Issue no. This study evaluates the effectiveness of teaching programs on waste management knowledge among women.

Explore the article titled Balancing Free Speech and Social Harmony - The Challenge of Hate Speech in India from IJIRT Volume 12, Issue no. This study evaluates the effectiveness of teaching programs on waste management knowledge among women.

Abstract This paper draws two themes from Orwell’s writing on free speech. The first is that free speech is valuable because speech has the power to motivate political action. I develop an argument, building on resources drawn from Orwell, that allowing free speech is likely to produce good political action. The second (which I develop by connecting Orwell’s view with contemporary writing on hermeneutical injustice) is that free speech requires adequate conceptual and linguistic resources, and hence that free speech can be significantly limited by depriving people of conceptual and linguistic resources.

Following Zuckerberg’s decision to terminate third-party fact-checking and his association of fact-checkers with censorship, this article examines how platforms respond to falsehoods post-debunking and explores fact-checkers’ views on effective content moderation, particularly regarding content removal or reduced visibility. A comparative content analysis of 2053 debunking articles by 16 Meta partners across 8 European and Latin American countries reveals that most false content was labeled or remained online, with deletion occurring in approximately 30% of cases—though it remains unclear whether the removal was carried out by Facebook or by the original spreaders. In addition to 30 expert interviews, the study finds that fact-checkers prioritize counter-speech and transparency, rejecting a permissive “anything goes” stance. Some support removals in cases involving incitement to violence, illegality, or harmful health misinformation. Most agree that freedom of expression should not guarantee algorithmic amplification. Concerns were also raised about the politicization and potential manipulation of Community Notes.

Flags, Anthems, and the Politics of Free Speech in a Trump White House

Free speech protections are embedded deeply within the campus experience. Naturally, students often exercise their protected speech rights in the form of protests and other on‐campus demonstrations and events. However, student expression rights also extend to the classroom in the context of course discussions and writings. They can also extend off campus to social media posts.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the narrative and poetological features of the latest novel by the renowned Turkish fiction writer Ömer Zülfü Livaneli, titled “Wait for Me” (2025). The article argues that this novel is written in the tradition of the Turkish subjective-psychological political “March 12” novel (S. Soysal, E. Öz, Ç. Altan, et al.), which dominated the Turkish literary landscape in the 1970s and subsequently significantly influenced the country’s artistic process. The subjective-psychological “March 12” novel moved away from descriptions of broad social backgrounds and societal collisions, turning instead to the inner world of a socially active individual full of moral contradictions who internalizes social conflicts. It depicted the spiritual maturation of the protagonist in the face of severe trials. The aim of the study is to prove that the artistic strategies in Z. Livaneli’s novel are typologically close to the principles of the “March 12” subjective-psychological novel but develop these principles in a different direction. The article explores these strategies at the narrative-compositional level, focusing on the structure of the protagonist’s image (a shift away from the persona of socially active engagement), whose spiritual evolution is examined by the writer in a “lyrical” key (through inner monologues, free indirect speech, diary entries, and letters). The scientific originality of the research lies in the fact that Livaneli’s novel is being analytically examined for the first time in Russian Turkological literary studies. For the first time, this novelistic structure is analyzed from the perspective of modern Turkish politicized prose, providing insight into the genre diversity of the author’s own works and Turkish fiction in general. As a result, it is proven that the poetics and narrative structure of the work align with the typological features of the subjective-psychological political novel, while incorporating features unique to the writer himself.

James Edwards, the protagonist in the incident, heard the song “Money for Nothing” on Spotify and wondered why this song was not flagged as explicit. Spotify was a digital music, podcast, and video service that provided users with access to millions of songs and other content from creators all over the world. It was one of the largest music streaming service providers. This critical incident examines free speech and censorship regarding Spotify’s Explicit Content Policy as it applies to the Dire Straits top 40 hit song “Money for Nothing.” This decision-based critical incident is well suited for undergraduate courses in journalism, ethics, law, and government policy courses.

Abstract This article investigates the constitutional narratives on freedom of expression employed by digital populist movements in the United States and Italy to oppose fact checking on social media platforms, which is where much of their political propaganda circulates. It argues that the platformisation of the public sphere has created a disintermediated media environment ideally suited to populist disinformation and post-truth discourse. Building on existing scholarship that characterises the populist constitutional approach as ‘mimetic’ and ‘parasitic’, the paper explores how digital populism exploits freedom of expression clauses to resist measures – whether public or private – aimed at countering disinformation on social media. Using prototypical cases from the United States and the European Union, it compares constitutional frameworks, populist strategies concerning platform regulation, and efforts to combat online disinformation, ultimately concluding that digital populists – an expression of media populism – employ constitutional rhetoric to shield social media spaces from any intermediation grounded in fact-based politics.

This paper examines the crisis of dissent in India through a dual framework. The first phase revisits the foundational constitutional deliberations (1946–1950) and early judicial decisions that culminated in the First Constitutional Amendment, which expanded the scope of permissible restrictions on free speech and expression under Article 19. The second phase investigates contemporary expansions, judicial interpretations, regulatory frameworks, and executive measures that have constrained critical liberties. Particular attention is paid to the regulation of digital governance regimes, the labelling of secular ideologies as “anti-national,” and the disproportionate suppression of dissenting voices. The study highlights how ultra-nationalist narratives, institutional dependence, and global security-driven legislative paradigms have intersected to institutionalize limitations on speech and political expression. Crucially, it underscores the significance of judicial dissent as a safeguard against majoritarian excesses and as an instrument for preserving constitutional values. By reconstructing dissent—historically valorised as a civic principle—into a subversive act, the state has fostered an atmosphere of deterrence inimical to constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. Judicial dissent, in this context, emerges as a vital corrective voice that sustains the spirit of democracy and reaffirms the role of the judiciary as the guardian of fundamental rights.

Is erasure the antithesis of expression? That is the customary view. I will argue, however, that erasure is, in fact, expressions secret self, always present when expression takes place, haunting the scene of articulation. Looking at examples of everyday erasure, I will explore how they intersect with larger historical erasures and draw out the wider implications for cultural politics, in particular the role of cultural expression in the search for social justice. This is particularly pertinent within our contemporary moment when ‘free speech’ has become one of the principal sites of political contestation and controversy. The dominant understanding of ‘free speech’ rests on an antithesis between expression and erasure, so what happens when that opposition is dismantled? And what are the implications for those who want to address long-standing social injustices and inequalities? The essay argues that the practice and politics of cultural expression must also-always involve an ethics of erasure that is attuned to the charismatic singularity of each situation in which difficult judgements must be made.