نبذة مختصرة : PROTECTED, TOLERATED OR SANCTIONED FREEDOM OF SPEECH? A legal-historical study on the impact of the social and cultural shift of the 1960 s and 1970 s on the limits of the freedom of speech in mass communication in Finland. This legal historical study looked into the impact of the social and cultural shift in the 1960 s and 1970 s on the limits of the freedom of speech in the Finnish mass media as it was exercised by the press, radio and television. The limits of the freedom of speech were considered in the broad sense of the term, with focus not only on legal regulation and self-regulation but also on the actual limits in exercising the freedom of speech. Mass communication during the shift was represented by strongly opposing ideologies, and it was utilised both in supporting the prevailing hegemony and in toppling it. Mass communication took to supervising the powers of other forces, becoming a social influence a fourth estate even, in some people s view. After the war years, the Finnish society had been rebuilt in a joint effort, improving the situation of its citizens by means of social, health and educational policies and by specifying the practices of the labour market. However, the actual social and cultural shift did not take place until the 1960 s and 1970 s and had to do with the changes in the economic and demographic structures and the emergence of the baby-boom generation as active citizens. Aside from material good, a wider population could now benefit from higher education, which enabled them to climb the social ladder and thus provide them with more influence. The welfare state developed hand in hand with the democratic opportunities of the citizens. A citizen had become interesting both as a voter and a consumer. The volume and technology of communication developed significantly, bringing about a new climate of opinion, which changed people s ideas about the appropriate limits of the freedom of speech. To analyse the judicial shift under study, a contextual legal historical approach was employed. Owing to the nature of the research at hand, connections to the different fields of law and the fields of science are manifold. The study, which falls into the field of law, has points in common mostly with the perspectives of the studies of social sciences, cultural history and social history and history of ideologies. The data gathered from the subject of study have been analysed by linking together previous findings in rarely seen ways. The analysis focused primarily on the national level. The domestic phenomena were closely linked with the equivalent developments of other Western countries the Nordic countries in particular. Moreover, comparisons were made with the developments in the United States, as they influenced the Finnish society as well cf. the peace movement, the women s movement, racial issues, the increasing activism among youth, and the commercial use of the freedom of speech. On the other hand, the international situation of the cold war era, the political pressure coming from the Soviet Union, and the phenomenon of finlandisation, had an impact on the speech and mass communication in Finland. The changes in the Finnish mass communication environment during the shift involved the structures, operating conditions and media contents alike. The transformed attitudes were manifested both in the discussed topics and the manner in which they were discussed. There was an increase in the diversity of opinion, the differences of opinion came to a head, and the media were subjected to both internal and external pressure. Mass communication was actively involved in the social development. Tabloids brought their own flavour to the opposing interests in mass communication, managing successfully to turn the voyeuristic and sensation-seeking behaviour of people into profitable business. As the research progressed, it became evident that if it was still possible to discern some sort of collective idea of the freedom of speech with the advent of the 1960 s, this became increasingly difficult once the shift got properly underway. The old boundaries were pushed both in the political mass communication and politically-oriented entertainment. On the European scale, the Finnish television system was from the very beginning a unique and curious combination of both ideological and commercial elements and players. The coupling of the commercial media with the parliamentary-controlled Finnish Broadcasting Company (Yleisradio) was a difficult political issue right from the early days of Finnish television. In the era of Reporadio, (a pejorative nickname referring to the President of the company at the time) television, the newcomer in the electronic media, brought forth leftist mass communication and entertainment. This was offset by the American-oriented worldview of commercials, series and films. The operating environments for exercising the political freedom of speech and the commercial communications saw a rapid transformation. Finland s location at the interface between the East and the West was also manifested in how two opposing ideologies collided in the Finnish mass media. At the core of the freedom of speech in mass communication in the social and political sphere of mass communication there was a tough ideological battle going on, with the leftist orientation and the even wider bowing to the East not uncommon during the era of finlandisation strongly represented. Besides the leftist party papers and various ideological papers, the leftist tendencies in the press were also represented by a group of radical reporters within the mainstream press. The new practices of mass communication, and breaking the old boundaries in the spirit of a cultural shift, sometimes caused disapproval and backlashes in all areas of communications. Offences against religious and moral beliefs and patriotic feelings became the topic of hot debates and were discussed by the various bodies controlling the use of words by mass media even in the courts of law. The transformed society was coloured by an array of opinions, and the interpretations as to the limits of the freedom of speech varied greatly. New demarcations and supportive regulation thereof were called for. The legal regulation as to how the mass media exercised the freedom of speech did not essentially change during the period under study, leaving the effects of the changes on the everyday life of mass communications rather insignificant as a whole. As for self-regulation, the mass media and advertising aimed proactively and voluntarily to act appropriately in the media. Despite long preparations, numerous law initiatives fizzled out or were only implemented in the decades to come. However, the effort put in the preparation made a difference in the political life and public debate of the era. Advertising was subject to harsh criticism particularly from the left wing and the consumer movement, forcing the legislature and the self-regulatory norms to tighten up, particularly in alcohol and tobacco advertising. Legislative means were also employed for better protection of privacy threatened by the tabloids. The factors most affecting the boundaries of the freedom of speech were seldom discernible in regulatory actions. The actual freedom of speech exercised in mass communication was in some cases wider than the formal regulation, which trailed behind, while in some cases narrower, due to practical operational preconditions or external pressure, for instance. In comparison with the past, freedom of speech as a whole flourished relatively freely, despite the fact that the regulations were not loosened or modernised. It was more about a greater flexibility and tolerance of control and decision-making which aimed to facilitate the releasing of shift era pressures. On the other hand, the political restrictions and self-censorship due to the pressure built up during the period of finlandisation clearly limited the freedom of speech in mass communication. Tässä oikeushistoriallisessa tutkimuksessa käsitellään 1960- ja 1970-lukujen yhteiskunnallisen ja kulttuurisen murroksen vaikutuksia suomalaisen sananvapauden rajoihin joukkoviestinnässä. Tarkastelu kohdistuu oikeudellisen sääntelyn ja itsesääntelyn lisäksi myös sananvapauden käytön tosiasiallisiin rajoihin. Sodanjälkeinen jälleenrakentaminen loi pohjaa suurten ikäluokkien esiinmarssille. Hyvinvointivaltio ja kansalaisten demokraattiset mahdollisuudet kehittyivät rinnakkain. Kansalaisesta tuli entistä kiinnostavampi sekä äänestäjänä että kuluttajana, samoin joukkoviestinnän kohteena ja käyttäjänä. Murroksen ajan joukkoviestintä aktivoitui vallankäytön valvojana ja yhteiskunnallisena vaikuttajana. Valtapeliin osallistuivat lehdistö ja radio sekä uusi tulokas televisio. Joukkoviestintävälineiden kautta tuettiin niin vallitsevaa hegemoniaa kuin sen kaatamista. Joukkoviestinnän tarjonta laajeni, kansainvälistyi ja ajantasaistui uuden teknologian ansiosta. Hyvinvointivaltiokehitys vahvisti myös kaupallista viestintää. Muuttuneessa yhteiskunnassa vallitsi laajentunut mielipiteiden kirjo. Tulkinnat sananvapauden rajoista vaihtelivat suuresti ja joutuivat koetukselle joukkoviestinnän kaikilla osa-alueilla. Uskonnon, moraalikäsitysten ja isänmaallisten tuntojen loukkaukset nousivat kiivaan keskustelun aiheiksi, ja niitä käsiteltiin joukkoviestintää valvovien elinten toimesta aina tuomioistuimia myöten. Poliittisen sanankäytön rajat olivat väljät lukuun ottamatta ulkopoliittisia kysymyksiä, joiden osalta paine virallisen ulkopolitiikan tukemiseen oli suuri. Joukkoviestinnän sananvapauden oikeudellinen sääntely ei muuttunut tutkittavana ajanjaksona merkittävästi, ja muutosten vaikutukset joukkoviestinnän arkeen jäivät kokonaisuudessaan vähäisiksi. Merkittävimmät sananvapauden rajoihin vaikuttavat tekijät eivät aina näkyneet varsinaisen sääntelyn tasolla. Joukkoviestinnän todellinen vapaus saattoi joissakin tilanteissa olla ajastaan jäljessä olevan sääntelyn kirjainta laajempaa ja toisissa tapauksissa ahtaampaa. Viestinnän ja mainonnan itsesääntelyn puolella pyrittiin ennakoivasti ja omaehtoisesti huolehtimaan asiallisesta esiintymisestä joukkoviestinnässä. Monet pitkään valmistellut lakihankkeet kuivuivat kokoon, tai ne realisoituivat vasta seuraavilla vuosikymmenillä. Valmistelutyöllä oli kuitenkin merkitystä aikansa poliittisessa elämässä ja julkisessa keskustelussa. Mainontaan kohdistui voimasta kritiikkiä erityisesti vasemmiston ja kuluttajaliikkeen suunnasta, ja sekä lainsäädäntö että itsesääntelynormit tiukentuivat. Myös sensaatiolehdistön aiheuttamia paineita yksityisyyden suojalle purettiin lainsäädännön keinoin. Joukkoviestinnän sananvapaus kukoisti aiempaan verrattuna kokonaisuudessaan varsin vapaana, vaikka sen rajojen sääntelyä ei muutettu väljempään suuntaan. Kysymys oli pikemminkin kontrollin ja ratkaisutoiminnan suuremmasta joustosta ja sietokyvystä, jolla autettiin yhteiskunnan paineiden purkautumista. Murroksen ajan muuttunutta asenneilmastoa heijastavat ilmiöt, kuten Reporadio, sensaatiolehdistön nousu ja yleisen kaupallistumisen mukanaan tuomat rohkeammat otteet, sekä ulkopoliittisen varovaisuuden leimaama suomettuminen jättivät jälkensä joukkoviestinnän jatkokehitykseen.
Processing Request
No Comments.