Memory and Tradition as Limits to the Freedom of Expression about History
Uloženo v:
| Název: | Memory and Tradition as Limits to the Freedom of Expression about History |
|---|---|
| Autoři: | de Baets, Antoon |
| Zdroj: | Storia della Storiografia - History of Historiography. 79(1):19-42 |
| Informace o vydavateli: | Fabrizio Serra editore, 2021. |
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Témata: | International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Tradition of the ancestors, Rights or reputations of others, Passage of time, Free expression about history, Memory of the dead, Reframing, Public morals, Victims of atrocity crimes, Political leaders |
| Popis: | Society has a robust interest in a free exchange about history. This interest even increases with the passage of time or when past public figures or victims of atrocity crimes are involved. According to international human rights law, such an interest can be restricted only under carefully determined circumstances and narrowly formulated conditions in the service of a few permissible interests. Memory and tradition are not among these interests. However, both concepts can be rephrased in such terms with relative ease : ‘Respect for the memory of the dead’ can be rephrased as an application of the permissible interest ‘respect of the rights or reputations of others’, and ‘protection of the tradition of the ancestors’ as an application of the permissible interest ‘public morals’. With these reframing options in mind, this paper balances the interests of history, memory, and tradition against each other. Within strict limits, ‘memory’ can be seen as a guarantee for reputation and privacy, and ‘tradition’ as a guarantee for morals. If that is the case, memory and tradition act as acceptable checks on how a society deals with its past. Memory and tradition then trump history. In all other cases – the large majority – they are problematic limits : in overprotecting them, memory and tradition distort and censor debates about history. Memory and tradition then trample history. |
| Druh dokumentu: | Article |
| Jazyk: | English |
| ISSN: | 2281-1141 0392-8926 |
| Přístupová URL adresa: | https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/1d10c13f-2d9e-41d2-89b5-33aaf283effa https://hdl.handle.net/11370/1d10c13f-2d9e-41d2-89b5-33aaf283effa |
| Přístupové číslo: | edsair.dris...01423..99df06fa969400a3f401d4feb34b7170 |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science | Abstrakt: | Society has a robust interest in a free exchange about history. This interest even increases with the passage of time or when past public figures or victims of atrocity crimes are involved. According to international human rights law, such an interest can be restricted only under carefully determined circumstances and narrowly formulated conditions in the service of a few permissible interests. Memory and tradition are not among these interests. However, both concepts can be rephrased in such terms with relative ease : ‘Respect for the memory of the dead’ can be rephrased as an application of the permissible interest ‘respect of the rights or reputations of others’, and ‘protection of the tradition of the ancestors’ as an application of the permissible interest ‘public morals’. With these reframing options in mind, this paper balances the interests of history, memory, and tradition against each other. Within strict limits, ‘memory’ can be seen as a guarantee for reputation and privacy, and ‘tradition’ as a guarantee for morals. If that is the case, memory and tradition act as acceptable checks on how a society deals with its past. Memory and tradition then trump history. In all other cases – the large majority – they are problematic limits : in overprotecting them, memory and tradition distort and censor debates about history. Memory and tradition then trample history. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 22811141 03928926 |