Ytringsfrihet_Hovedrapport_DIG

Summary
5
been positive for the freedom of speech and the plurality of voices in the public.
Editors have become more dependent on being attentive to the public and to use
them as gatewatchers and distributers of content. At the same time the influx
of new of voices and the nature of online debate put more pressure on debate
editors in terms of taking difficult decisions quickly regarding the limits of free
speech and how offensive utterances should be handled. The chapter concludes
by pointing out that the editorial adminstration of the public debate will always,
by necessity, be a complicated matter, not the least the task of drawing the line
between acceptable and non-acceptable opinions. One way forward is to keep
discussing the limits of free speech and the normative ideals for public debate
with the public, in order to raise public awareness about these topics.
In Chapter 8 Bernard Enjolras and Kari Steen-Johnsen analyze social media
as particular arenas for public debate. They ask what characterizes such arenas,
structurally and culturally, and which social mechanisms may impede on free
expression by citizens in the digital public sphere. Based on the population
survey and on the survey of the minority population they examine two such
mechanisms: i) the occurrence of harassment and threats, and ii) self-limitation
caused by the fear to offend others or to harm one’s own reputation. The results
in the chapter show that both these mechanisms have some relevance in the
Norwegian context. Even though the occurrence of harassment (ubehagelige
kommentarer) does not seem exceedingly high when compared to studies from
other countries, harassment strikes unevenly and may cause particular groups
to withdraw from public debate. When considering whether to utter an opinion
in social media, the risk of offending others, of being ridiculed or to see one’s
own reputation harmed plays a potential role for many of the respondents.
Women and people that lean towards the right side of the political spectrum
are particularly prone to limit the expression of their own opinion based on such
concerns.
Chapters 9 and 10 examine the conditions for the freedom of speech within
Norwegian working life. In Chapter 9 Sissel C. Trygstad discusses the general
conditions for the freedom of speech in working life, based on the population
survey and on a reading of decisions made by the Ombudsman. She asks which
formal and informal limitations may be identified on the freedom of speech of
employees, and also analyzes how the right to expression and loyalty towards
the employer are balanced. Trygstad shows that there exists a set of formal and
informal limitations to the right to expression, and that these are particularly
expressed in the public sector. She also finds that many accept the right of an
employer to limit expression of employees if this may harm the reputation of
the organization. In sum, there may seem to be a movement towards forms
of leadership, in particular in the public sector, which reduce the freedom of
expression in Norwegian working life.
Status for ytringsfriheten i Norge – Fritt Ords monitorprosjekt