Freedom of expression enjoys a particular protection in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. According to the Court, freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Moreover, it is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population, since these are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no 'democratic society'. This high valuing of freedom of expression is particularly striking when it comes to the political speech, the free political debate being a distinctive feature of a democratic society. Nevertheless, the European Court considers that whoever exercises his freedom of expression undertakes 'duties and responsibilities', and that the freedom of political debate is undoubtedly not absolute in nature. More concretely, when the hate speech is at issue the Court underlines that the tolerance and respect of equal dignity of all human beings constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic and pluralist society, and that in a democratic society, in principle, it may be considered necessary to punish and even to prevent all forms of expression which propagate, incite, promote, or justify the hate based on intolerance. Taking into account the notion of prohibition of hate speech in the constitutional system of the Republic of Serbia, and the place of the European Convention on Human Rights in its hierarchy of legal sources, this paper follows the evolution of the European Court's case-law as to the understanding and definition of conditions under which it may be considered necessary in a democratic society to restrict freedom of expression because of hate speech. This legal standard - necessary in a democratic society, is then compared to the clear and present danger test, which has been developed for almost a century in the case-law of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and which application is sometimes recommended in Europe.
The author analyses the relationship among legal nationhood, social nationhood, and democracy in democratic constitutional states. After identifing the definitions of democratic constitutional state, he concludes that it is an efficient structures within which one can mvestigate the relationship among democracy, legal and social nationhood. He suggests that these three principles have their normative roots in human freedom i.e. in the freedom of participating in p0litical negotiation, in the freedom from coercion and unjust rule, in the freedom from exigency, and in the free participation in the "we" of the modern industrial, technological and information society. And finally, the author analyses the tension between the legal and social nationhood which may be fruitful only if democracy contributes to the accomplishment of major social changes that maximise human freedom. (SOI : PM: S. 91)
The value of a social order is worth as much as it is ruled by satisfaction, security and well-being among people. The purpose of civilized and democratic systems is to guarantee and ensure the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, primarily through organized institutions. In an organized state, each of the institutions has a clear specific function that is more or less aimed at making life easier for citizens. One of them, which will be the topic of this paper and which has recently been introduced into our legal system, is the Protector of Citizens or the Ombudsman. The idea for this institution was born in Sweden, and after a number of years, it spread around the world. The ombudsman is an independent state body that takes care of a person, his rights, and above all protects him from irresponsible and illegal behavior of administrative bodies. Its significance today is immeasurable for the individual and society, as well as for the state and its reputation on the international platform. In addition to protection, its function is also control, in terms of constitutionality and legality of acts and actions of administrative bodies.
"Vojničku vladavinu" Monteskje je spominjao u sva tri svoja glavna dela: i u Persijskim pismima, i u Razmatranjima o uzrocima veličine Rimljana i njihove propasti i u spisu O duhu zakona. Međutim, samo je u poslednjem delu ovu proglasio za poseban tip despotije. Taj tip despotije Monteskje je razmotrio na primeru starog Rima i došao do zaključka da se značajno razlikuje od onoga što je obično podrazumevao pod despotijom – onom orijentalnom. Dok je, naime, orijentalna despotija bezvremena, jednostavna i lišena bilo kakve predstave o slobodi, "vojničku vladavinu" kao okcidentalan tip despotije karakterisali bi upravo naglašena kompleksnost i istoričnost u kontekstu pervertiranja slobode: ona bi se mogla razumeti samo kao ishod determinizma koji vodi od urušavanja monarhije preko aristokratske i demokratske republike. ; Montesquieu writes about "military rule" in all of his three main works: in the Persian Letters, in Considerations on the Causes of the Grandeur and Decadence of the Romans, as well as his magnum opus On the Spirit of the Laws. However, only in the last work he defined it as a special type of despotism. Montesquieu analyses this type of despotism by reference to ancient Rome and comes to a conclusion that the Roman example differed significantly from what he usually meant by despotism – that is oriental despotism. He claims, namely, that oriental despotism could be perceived as timeless, simple and devoid of any notion of freedom, while "military rule", as "occidental" type of despotism, would be characterized by its complexity and historicity in the context of perversion of freedom. The "occidental" type of despotism, claims Montesquieu, could be understood only as a stage in a deterministic political development that starts with a collapse of the monarchy that is itself a result of a collapse of the aristocratic and democratic republic.
This article firstly focuses on the initial recognition, in the final period of the second Yugoslavia, of the existence of social inequalities, as the first serious symptoms of abandoning the ideology of social equality and socialism as a whole. Moreover, the nationalist mobilization was used as a lever for restoration of capitalism as a typical class society. After that it briefly outlines two post-war periods of structuring social opportunities in societies in the West, and partly also in the East. The first period is designated primarily by egalitarian tendencies, which is manifest in increased popularity of critical and radical trends in social sciences. The second period, which still lasts, is quite opposite in orientation, and this is, in turn, manifest in ever greater relevance of social Darwinism as a discursive foundation of a series of sciences. The next, and largest, part of the article is dedicated to an attempt at explaining the permanence of social inequalities, and the author stresses the inexhaustible character of Rousseau's question regarding the origin of social inequalities. In the present-day quest for an answer to that question, certain similarities are noticeable between (neo) evolutionism and (neo) Marxism. Although Marx himself stressed the correspondence of his conception of class struggles in history with Darwin's conception of struggles for survival in nature, but also took into account the differences (between natural evolution and human history), the conclusion on the identity of their conceptions imposes itself through observations about the constant defeat of the proletariat in age-long struggles against the oppressors, which continue to this very day in the epoch of neo-liberal global capitalism. Reflecting on possibilities of a generally different outcome in the struggles for a more just society, the author finds that there are two interrelated prerequisites to their existence. The first has to do with connecting the theory and practice of liberalism and socialism with the aim of establishing a balance between the mechanisms of individual freedom and competition on the one hand, and social sensitivity or solidarity on the other. The second prerequisite is the construction of a world democratic state. Its political interest and scope of governing would neutralize the key concept (and self-reproduction mechanism) of social Darwinism -- inclusive fitness. Quite simply, the latter means to favour "one's own" group while humiliating or excluding the other. In a society with a globally ruling government, the division between "one's own" and "somebody else's" parts of the world -- the boundaries of which are nowadays all too often shifted to and fro as a consequence of the erratic character of expansion and contraction of the market and the breaking out of conflagrations of war, producing a permanent Hobbesian "state of nature" -- would make way for wisdom of governing and for work of all for the benefit of all. Adapted from the source document.
More than one decade Serbia has been passing through the process of market reforms. Establishing of market economy institution had to allow the country one stabile economic development in the light of EU accession. That is, by the way, the same strategy of the most countries of Western Balkan. Actual economic crisis showed the other side of the result of previous changes, and of the realized growth and development. That were the consequences on macro economic and financial instability and structure of the economy. Many circumstances showed that in the Serbian real and normative economic system there were numerous controversies stopping or slowing EU accession and basic re forms process. European economic system is based on institutions. In spite of many bureaucratic obstacles of this system institutions are the main guarantee of the system surviving. The institutions in Serbia were not established in desirable way. The government, the parliament and courts are continually in conflicts, based on formalization of institutions. Regulatory bodies are very week and under pressure of parties power control, as well as corruption and institution formalizing. All those facts have negative influence on the process of EU accession and market reforms. Serbia need to accept lawful state and institution strengthening in order to catch a connection for advanced economies in reform. Most important conditions are not only better laws, but better education. .
What are today's mass media like? Are they objective enough or are consumers too fatidious? How topical the issues of the freedom of the media, truth, and objectivity are? The author has tried to provide the answers by looking into the norms and regulations in Croatia and abroad, beginning with the Code of Honour of the Croatian Association of Journalists, the documents of the Council of Europe and the famous First Amendment to the US Constitution. + A probe into the freedoms of American journalism shows that there are no all-inclusive recipes and that these freedoms must be fought for and won. The best way to secure the right to the freedom of speech is to consistently respect the standards of professional journalism. However, our experience and practice show that this aspect is most lacking. Particularly interesting is how these problems were noticed by Croatian journalists Frano Folnegovic and Bogoslav Sulek more than a century ago. Apart from the political restrictions and pressures, Croatian journalists do not pay enough attention to this respect for the standards of professional journalism, which can best be illustrated by the example of the catastrophe of that American plane near Dubrovnik, when some media reported not only that the plane had safely landed but published the late Secretary's statement. Only by strictly respecting professional standards, which may be achieved through constant improvement, study and research, the preconditions for objective and authentic reporting may be realised. (SOI : PM: S. 165) + Civil society has set up many commissions, councils and committees with the aim of controlling mass media so that they would not only be a profit-amassing industry but would also conform to the fundamental demands that are put on journalism
The article presents a critical overview of underlying ideas, social context, and original teachings of two "mediating ideologies" (social democracy and conservatism) and two mass "political phenomena" (nationalism and populism). Each of them constitutes a form of more or less effective political compromise, which ought to neutralize constant tensions and clashes between the leading modern ideologies of freedom and equality, i.e. liberalism and communism. However, the clash of ideologies which were prominent in the 19th and 20th centuries has lost much of its intensity today, although the social causes that gave rise to them have remained unchanged: social inequalities, abuse of freedom, and uneven distribution of social power. At the same time, the main social forces and political organizations that had been the symbols and striking forces of freedom and equality in the preceding decades - the political parties of the "left " and "right", including the never clearly defined "political center" - also lost their identity and power. Th e then political mortal enemies look and behave today almost exactly as they did then: in the ideological sense, "everyone wants everything" (allegedly representing/ defending the interests of "all citizens"); in the organizational sense, there is almost no difference between them; whereas the difference in the manner they behave when in power is almost negligible.
Hegel's teaching on the objective spirit, as a moment of the world spirit is an idea based on objective morality, while modern state is the highest historical manifestation of that morality. The objective spirit understood in this way is juxtaposed by the subjective morality in the form of the contingency of instincts and concepts of individual subjects: these two elements make for the specific constitution of modern state. For a state to exist as the realisation of freedom and to fulfil its world-historical task, i necessary to eliminate and overcome the opposition of these two elements. That is why in Hegel's "ideal" concept of the structure of the state (which for him means communal life in freedom), the state-community is defined as a unity of free individuals-citizens, permeated with the idea of the good. (SOI : PM: S. 223)
Democracy and constitutional state should understandably be reviewed in the context of a society's progression in curbing the state. In any community the central issue is the relationship between the people as individuals and as members of a collective, since it is desirable for a collective to be a synerg sum of individuals. Thus it is prudent to search for a corellation between democracy and constitutional state. Democracy is an emanation of freedom, constitutions always a limitation. A state hems in a civil society; within it there is a network of the processes of structuring government from "above", which is of particular interest in transitional countries that gave up on the ideologised inaugural effect in designing government and adopted "constitutional engineering": power-sharing, popular sovereignty, representative parliamentarism, promotion of freedoms and basic rights of individuals and citizens. In this, it is imperative to make note of the necessity of structuring societies from "below" by means of the principle of local self-rule. (SOI : PM: S. 147)
Predmet ove disertacije je teorijska analiza regulatornog, komunikološkog, tehnološkog i socio-kulturnog okvira u kome nastaje i širi se "govor mržnje", kao i analiza sadržaja i analiza efekata govora mržnje u internet komunikaciji u Srbiji. Cilj disertacije bio je da preciznije definiše sadržaj govora mržnje i kontekst u kome on nastaje, da u odnosu na kulturološke specifičnosti Srbije preciznije utvrdi granicu između mere u kojoj je neophodno omogućiti nesmetanu slobodu izražavanja i ograničiti širenje govora mržnje. Osnovna hipoteza u ovom radu bila je da je koncept govora mržnje višeznačan i da njegovo razumevanje zavisi od geografskog, kulturnog i uopšte socijalnog konteksta u kome se on manifestuje. Govor mržnje na internetu negativno utiče na javnu komunikaciju te samim tim i na proces formiranja javne sfere. Budući da tako ometa kvalitetnu raspravu o problemima od društvenog značaja, govor mržnje otežava donošenje demokratskih odluka i na direktan način urušava demokratske vrednosti u društvu. U istraživanju je sprovedena komparativna analiza evropskih i nacionalnih pravnih akata u oblasti govora mržnje i slobode izražavanja, dat je kritički pregled ključnih međunarodnih naučnih studija i istraživanja govora mržnje na internetu, kao i institucionalna analiza postojećih mehanizama za suzbijanje govora mržnje. Pored toga sprovedena je analiza odabranih aktera i analiza sadržaja internet stranica na kojima je plasiran govor mržnje prema određenim manjinskim grupama u Srbiji. U istraživanju je identifikovan, opisana i problematizovan fenomen govora mržnje na internetu u kontekstu javne komunikacije u Srbiji. U definisanju samog pojma govora mržnje, kroz komparativnu analizu različitih izvora, uočeno je da njegovo identfikovanje zavisi od toga šta se u određenom društvenom, političkom i kulturnom konetkst smatra za osnovni problem koji želi da se reši ovakvim definicijama. Posebno je istaknuta razlika u shvatanju govora mržnje u različitim pravnim tradicijama u svetu. Pored toga, u široj 4 javnosti kao i u različitoj stručnoj literaturi često nije dovoljno dobro definisana jasna granica govora mržnje u odnosu na uvrede, klevete, negaciju nekih istorijskih događaja ili opravdavanje zločina, vređanje simbola, kritiku javnih ličnosti, različitih političkih stavova i religija. Nedovoljno jasna granica između dozvoljenog i potencijalno zabranjenog izražavanja dovodi do nesporazuma i neefikasne borbe protiv govora mržnje koji bi potencijalno mogao da izazove ozbiljne negativne posledice. Oštra kritika nekog pojedinca ili neke grupe veoma lako može biti protumačena kao govor mržnje, a takav pristup zapravo zatvara prostor za diskusiju o nekom problemu i na direktan način sputava slobodu izražavanja, te ugrožava deliberativan proces u demokratskom društvu. ; The topic of this dissertation is the theoretical analysis of the regulatory, communication, technological and socio-cultural framework in which the "hate speech" is being developed, as well as analysis of the content and analysis of the effects of hate speech in online communication in Serbia. The aim of the dissertation was to more precisely define the content of hate speech and the context in which it arises, and in relation to the cultural specifics of Serbia, more precisely determines the boundary between the measure in which it is necessary to provide unhindered freedom of expression and limit the spread of hate speech. The main hypothesis in this work was that the concept of hate speech is multidimensional and that its understanding depends on the geographical, cultural and general social context in which it manifests itself. Hate speech online has a negative impact on public communication and, consequently, on the process of forming a public sphere. Since it hinders the quality debate on the problems of social coercion, hate speech makes it difficult to make democratic decisions and directly undermines the stability of democratic values in society. The study has conducted a comparative and normative analysis of European and national legal acts in the field of hate speech and freedom of expression, as well as other international scientific studies and research in order to better understand the problem of hate speech online, as well as institutional analysis of existing mechanisms for combating hate speech. In addition, an analysis of selected actors of hate speech was conducted through an analysis of the content of the websites where hate speech was addressed to certain minority groups in Serbia. The research described the phenomenon of hate speech online as a complex phenomenon needed to be analysed from several angles to show more clearly all the problems and all the challenges of its precise definition. In defining the notion of hate speech itself, through a 8 comparative analysis of various sources, it is noted that it depends on what is considered to be a basic problem which particular country wants to solve with such definitions. There is a particular difference in understanding of the hate speech in various international legal traditions. In general public, as in various professional literatures, the definition of hate speech is often not clear enough in relation to insults, defamation, denial of some historical events or justification of crimes, insulting symbols, and criticism of public figures, political affiliations and religions. The insufficiently clear boundary between permitted and potentially prohibited expression leads to misunderstandings and ineffective fight against hate speech that could potentially cause serious negative consequences. A sharp critique of an individual or of a group can easily be interpreted as hate speech, and such an approach actually closes the space for discussion and directly suppresses freedom of expression and endangers the deliberative process in a democratic society.
A democratic state's constitution ought to guarantee basic personal, political, economic, social, cultural and ecological rights and freedoms of individuals and citizens and shape an efficient system of legal and juridical protection of all the guaranteed human rights. The Republic of Croatia, since its Constitution of 22 December 1990, has undoubtedly been a democratic constitutional state. The Croatian Constitution is an example of the adoption of the constitutional option in the establishment of the constitutional regime. After seven years of its application, it is clear that there is something controversial in its content regarding the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and citizens as well as in their legal protection at the constitutional/legal level. Also contentious are the constitutional provisions regarding the structure of the government and local self-rule and administration. There have been many misunderstandings and dangerous constitutional/legal and constitutionallpolitical illusions regarding this matter, particularly concerning the Croatian semi-presidential system and parliamentarism. This analysis shows that semipresidential system, as a specific variant of parliamentary government, is extremely adaptable to all possible changes in both the party and the broader political setting. (SOI : PM: S. 120)
Political parties are an indispensable factor in any modern parliamentary democracy. It would be impossible to parliamentary democracy to function properly without them. Political parties are a constitutional category and they have to act in accordance with constitution, but due to their importance it is already observed that sometimes they go beyond constitution. Each country should find its own way in order to face that challenge. Germany is a good example for that, by giving political parties the freedom to act on the basis of the provisions of the Basic Law, but with the care that the entire system does not endanger itself. That could be seen in three examples. First example is the relationship between the parliamentary group as the emanation of political parties in parliament and deputies. Second example is banning of anti-constitutional political parties. Third example is the election process of judges of the Constitutional Court. The paper concludes that it is necessary to find an ideal formula for the freedom of their actions, according to which political parties are allowed to perform any action that is beneficial to the constitutional order, while not all of them are forbidden, but only the actions that have a devastating effect on the system as a whole.
The article deals with Mill's theory of liberal democracy as a synthesis of the elements of two different political traditions and doctrines: liberalism and democracy, integration of liberal concepts of freedom, limitations of power, political representation and elite leadership and democratic ideas of equality, social homogeneity, national sovereignty and citizens" participation. The author concludes that the contradictions found in Mill's theory do not stem from the inconsistency of the logic of his argumentation, but from the contradictory demands he tried to reconcile. (SOI : PM: S. 162)
The current trends in media industry (in the text referred to as concentration trend, diversification, globalization, and deregulation) bring up the question of the scope of classical liberal theory when .faced with the challenges of new communication technologies. The convergence of the market and the capital, the interests from the point of view of ownership and the commercialisation of mass media make up the contextual framework of the debate about certain limitations of the principles of classical liberal theory concerning freedom of the press and media in general. (SOI : PM: S. 176)
