Restricting the exercise of freedom of expression in a democratic society - communication or coercion?
Restricting the exercise of freedom of expression in a democratic society - communication or coercion?

Summary/Abstract: In a democratic society, freedom is not subject to power. Power is only a means by which freedom is protected. This limit is exceeded when freedom is attacked in two directions: either power becomes an end in itself, when the attack on freedom is open, or power attacks the content of freedom, claiming to fight attacks on it, in fact, doing nothing but legitimizing his own attack on freedom. "Freedom is just as endangered if it is attacked in the name of anti-fascism or overt fascism.” (Fromm, 1998: 12). In order to highlight the two possible attacks on freedom and to be able to compare them in order to demonstrate that both pose an equally serious threat to freedom, we will compare the attacked freedom in the name of open fascism - taking as a benchmark freedom of expression and the attacks to it from the communist period, but also the freedom attacked in the name of anti-fascism - censorship of freedom of expression in a democratic society, under the pretext of protecting the individual's freedom to be informed correctly, thus intervening to regulate the content of freedom. The ultimate goal is to demonstrate that regardless of the society in which we place freedom - democratic or totalitarian, it is essential that the environment in which the power-freedom relationship takes place be one of communication, not coercion, otherwise freedom will be subject to the same abuses by state power.

• Details
• Contents