open access publication

Article, 2021

Is constitutionalized media freedom only window dressing? Evidence from terrorist attacks

Public Choice, ISSN 0048-5829, Volume 187, 3-4, Pages 321-348, 10.1007/s11127-020-00783-9

Contributors

Bjornskov C. 0000-0002-9765-913X [1] [2] Voigt S. 0000-0001-5564-3669 (Corresponding author) [3] [4]

Affiliations

  1. [1] Aarhus University
  2. [NORA names: AU Aarhus University; University; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  3. [2] Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN)
  4. [NORA names: Sweden; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  5. [3] CESifo
  6. [NORA names: Germany; Europe, EU; OECD];
  7. [4] Universität Hamburg
  8. [NORA names: Germany; Europe, EU; OECD]

Abstract

Media freedom is often curtailed in the wake of terrorist attacks. In this contribution, we ask whether constitutional provisions that are intended—directly or indirectly—to protect media freedom affect the degree to which press freedom is curtailed after terrorist incidents. We find that neither provisions explicitly protecting media freedom nor provisions that might protect media freedom indirectly (such as those guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary) mitigate the post-terror curtailment of press freedom.

Keywords

Constitutional political economy, Emergency provisions, Freedom of expression, Judicial independence, Media freedom, Press freedom, State of emergency, Terrorism

Funders

  • Jan Wallanders och Tom Hedelius Stiftelse samt Tore Browaldhs Stiftelse

Data Provider: Elsevier