Suchergebnisse

International audience ; In a digital context that is profoundly transforming social interactions in different domains and at different levels, the label "communication rights" (CRs) has emerged in recent years suggesting the need to better articulate the principles and rights pertaining to communication processes in society: principles and rights which should be recognized as guidelines to set normative standards of behavior in such a transformed communicative environment. A plurality of reflections and initiatives have evolved around this concept, many of which stressed the need for a democratization of media systems, discourses and practices in a glocal environment that is more and more characterized by the diffusion and use of information and communication technologies that can be both democracy enabling - thanks to their potential in fostering transparency, publicity, and participation - but also democracy constraining, if we consider the several challenges posed by the possibility to interfere with and control individual data and personal communications, individual and collective access to information and people's freedom to express their views and ideas. Yet, the CRs concept remains controversial and further efforts are needed to contribute to a conceptual clarification that is required if such concept and related principles are to inform policy-making processes. We therefore propose a contribution that focuses on evolving discourses concerning fundamental rights and freedoms in communication societies, bringing our different disciplinary perspectives into a dialogue; we look at different settings where the discourse on human rights and communication is being elaborated, and we build on a shared constructivist approach to assess if we are in fact witnessing the emergence of communication rightsrelated norms in the transnational context.

International audience ; In a digital context that is profoundly transforming social interactions in different domains and at different levels, the label "communication rights" (CRs) has emerged in recent years suggesting the need to better articulate the principles and rights pertaining to communication processes in society: principles and rights which should be recognized as guidelines to set normative standards of behavior in such a transformed communicative environment. A plurality of reflections and initiatives have evolved around this concept, many of which stressed the need for a democratization of media systems, discourses and practices in a glocal environment that is more and more characterized by the diffusion and use of information and communication technologies that can be both democracy enabling - thanks to their potential in fostering transparency, publicity, and participation - but also democracy constraining, if we consider the several challenges posed by the possibility to interfere with and control individual data and personal communications, individual and collective access to information and people's freedom to express their views and ideas. Yet, the CRs concept remains controversial and further efforts are needed to contribute to a conceptual clarification that is required if such concept and related principles are to inform policy-making processes. We therefore propose a contribution that focuses on evolving discourses concerning fundamental rights and freedoms in communication societies, bringing our different disciplinary perspectives into a dialogue; we look at different settings where the discourse on human rights and communication is being elaborated, and we build on a shared constructivist approach to assess if we are in fact witnessing the emergence of communication rightsrelated norms in the transnational context.

This document is the first formal deliverable from JRA4: Regulation, Governance and Standards. It was written by social scientists: an interdisciplinary legal scholar (Marsden), a political scientist (Marzouki), and two communications scholars with broad socio-political expertise (Powell and Pavan). Background material was provided by economists (Cave), computer scientists (Conti and Passarella , Salamatian), lawyers (Bygrave) and communications experts (Brown: Stockholm) . It is a contingent dynamic draft document, expressing an evolving interdisciplinary understanding between the research team members, and growing interaction with the wider regulatory and governance communities. It will evolve and deepen as the JRA progresses. The document has five parts, focussing on an overview of regulatory and governance methodologies drawn from several disciplines and multidisciplinary approaches. Following a short Introduction, the first part is a summary of regulatory literature, including co-regulation, explaining the dynamic nuanced multi - faceted approach , which is becoming more common than a static regulated/self - regulated dichotomy. It also briefly describes the nascent Internet Science contribution to wider regulatory studies, which we may expect to increase as the subject matures. Part 2 then examines Internet governance (IG), with focus on the growing role of multistakeholder processes. There is extended discussion of critical social scientific methodologies in Part 3 : focussing on examining norms, networks, code and regulation, and governance institutions. Critically, it also analyses the normative value of communication and IG, which extends critical examination far beyond the limits of graph theory. Key Frames assessed are: networks as analytic tools for the study o f communication and IG dynamics, critiques of networked governance arrangements and of Internet effects. There is then brief examination in Part 4 of governance institutions and mechanisms, which will lead into the later tasks of drawing ...

This document is the first formal deliverable from JRA4: Regulation, Governance and Standards. It was written by social scientists: an interdisciplinary legal scholar (Marsden), a political scientist (Marzouki), and two communications scholars with broad socio-political expertise (Powell and Pavan). Background material was provided by economists (Cave), computer scientists (Conti and Passarella , Salamatian), lawyers (Bygrave) and communications experts (Brown: Stockholm) . It is a contingent dynamic draft document, expressing an evolving interdisciplinary understanding between the research team members, and growing interaction with the wider regulatory and governance communities. It will evolve and deepen as the JRA progresses. The document has five parts, focussing on an overview of regulatory and governance methodologies drawn from several disciplines and multidisciplinary approaches. Following a short Introduction, the first part is a summary of regulatory literature, including co-regulation, explaining the dynamic nuanced multi - faceted approach , which is becoming more common than a static regulated/self - regulated dichotomy. It also briefly describes the nascent Internet Science contribution to wider regulatory studies, which we may expect to increase as the subject matures. Part 2 then examines Internet governance (IG), with focus on the growing role of multistakeholder processes. There is extended discussion of critical social scientific methodologies in Part 3 : focussing on examining norms, networks, code and regulation, and governance institutions. Critically, it also analyses the normative value of communication and IG, which extends critical examination far beyond the limits of graph theory. Key Frames assessed are: networks as analytic tools for the study o f communication and IG dynamics, critiques of networked governance arrangements and of Internet effects. There is then brief examination in Part 4 of governance institutions and mechanisms, which will lead into the later tasks of drawing ...

In this article, we extend our understanding of fringe politics to include relational and thematic elements, namely, the relationship of far-right collective actors with their broader network and the claims made within it. Locating our analysis at the intersection of protest event and social network analysis, we focus on the far-right Movement for a Better Hungary (Jobbik) which, since late 2013, has committed to moderation. Analysing the protest events in which Jobbik took part and the types of claims upon which it mobilized between 2009 and 2017, we examine whether there has been a corresponding distancing from extremist groups and radical claims – a finding that would indeed validate the substantive transformation of Jobbik. By focusing on often neglected relational and thematic aspects, the study provides new ways to analyse fringe collective actors, the relationship with their environment and the evolution of such a relationship over time.