Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The presentation investigates the evolution of discourses, claims and actor positions during the German and French examination of legislation aimed at introducing state-mandated website blocking measures of sexual child images (often referred to as “child pornography”). The focus lies on the opportunities and difficulties for opponents of internet blocking measures to form discourse coalitions that challenge the frames articulated and nor- malised by power elites. While critics of mandatory internet blocking have been ignored at the outset of the debate, their frames have even- tually been adopted and debated by proponents of internet blocking in Germany. Activists successfully criticised the effectiveness of introducing internet blocking measures, which lead to the final abandonment of the legislation. In France, the debate remained confined to the online media where critics voiced their opposition but did not succeed in influencing the broader policy agenda that was primarily concerned with security issues. Both cases are then contrasted with similar debates at the EU level. All three cases offer important insights for the study of internet filtering and blocking from a comparative perspective.
Citation preview
Discourse Networks on State-mandated accessblocking in France and Germany
Yana Breindl
Göttingen Centre for Digital HumanitiesGeorg-August Universität Göttingen, Germany
5 November 2012
Outline.
Internet blocking
Political discourse networks
Methods
Findings
Conclusions
Internet blocking in liberal democracies
I A global norm, not an exception.I Three trends (McIntyre, 2012):
IFinding technological solutions for policy problems (Lessig‘s
“code as law”)
IIndirect enforcement through intermediaries
IPreference for self-regulation
I Raises legal, political and technical questions in terms ofdemocratic principles and practical implementation.
Internet Blocking in Western Europe
I UK: Self-regulatory mechanisms imposed under threat ofregulation.
I EU: CIRCAMP project producing CSAADF filter on UKmodel. Attempt to introduce blocking through directive in2011.
I Germany: Initial self-regulatory agreement led to calls for aspecific blocking law.
I France: LOPPSI 2 broad security bill, including censorship of‘obvious’ child pornography without a court order.
Political discourse networks
I Discourse constrains political action (Schmidt, 2008; Schmidtand Radaelli, 2004)
I Importance of frames for movement mobilisation (Snow andBenford, 1992)
I Discourse coalitions around shared storylines (Hajer, 1993) ornarratives
Successful discourse coalitions
I Large constituencyI Dominate core frames of a conflictI Internal, strong ideational congruenceI Consistent storylineI Broad but not too diverse frame bundleI Stable over time
(Leifeld and Haunss, 2012, 385)
Methods: Discourse network analysis
I Combines social network analysis with computer-assisted,qualitative content analysis (Leifeld, 2009; Leifeld and Haunss,2010, 2012)
I Congruence networks
Methods: Discourse network analysis
I Combines social network analysis with computer-assisted,qualitative content analysis (Leifeld, 2009; Leifeld and Haunss,2010, 2012)
I Congruence networks
Methods: Discourse network analysis
I GermanyI
266 articles
ITageszeitung, Frankfurter Rundschau, Süddeutsche Zeitung,
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Welt
I1 867 coded statements
I17 frames
I176 persons belonging to 109 organisations
I FranceI
76 articles
ILe Monde, Libération, Le Figaro (including online versions)
I265 coded statements
I13 frames
I63 persons, 48 organisations
Findings
Internet blocking became a political and media issue in Germany,not in France. Differences in:
I Scope of billsI Federal v. centralised stateI German electionsI Constitutional court in FranceI Structure of discourse networks
GermanyAccess Impediment Act (ZugErschwG)
GermanyOpponents v. proponents network
GermanyCore frames
GermanyFrame alignment
GermanyCongruence over time
I Number of actors: more opponents than proponentsI Opponents more densely connectedI Opponents’ clustering strongly increases in phase three
FranceLoi d’orientation et de programmation pour la performance de la sécurité intérieure(LOPPSI 2)
FranceOpponents v. proponents networks
FranceCore frames
FranceFrame alignment
FranceCongruence over time
I More opponents than proponentsI Proponents decrease in phase two in terms of density and
clusteringI Proponents more densely connected towards beginning and
end of debate
Conclusions
Germany France
Opponents more numerous Opponents more numerous
Broad opposition across allactors, politicians divided
Broad opposition, Telcos infavour
Core frames dominated byopponents, proposedalternative
Proponents dominatedprincipled, avoided practicaldebate
Broad bundling by opponents Opponents main frame notwell bundled with others
Opponents more cohesive overtime
Proponents highly connectedat beginning and end of debate
ConclusionsCurrent research
I Comparative public policy analysis of ca. 20 liberaldemocracies
I What type of content regulations (self-, co-, legislative) are inplace? What type of blocking mechanisms are used?
I How open, focused, transparent and accountable are contentrestrictions?
I Influence of discursive and institutional variables on contentregulation
![NADI Continuing Professional Development Series Final Announcement.pdfSymposium 1B Main Symposium 1C Main Symposium 2A Main Symposium 2B [Booked by sanofi] Main Symposium 2C [Booked](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/60bea191cb003d7a8a194085/nadi-continuing-professional-development-series-final-symposium-1b-main-symposium.jpg)
