Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/289108 
Year of Publication: 
2020
Citation: 
[Journal:] Public Choice [ISSN:] 1573-7101 [Volume:] 187 [Issue:] 3-4 [Publisher:] Springer US [Place:] New York, NY [Year:] 2020 [Pages:] 321-348
Publisher: 
Springer US, New York, NY
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.
Subjects: 
Press freedom
Media freedom
Terrorism
Freedom of expression
Judicial independence
Constitutional political economy
State of emergency
Emergency provisions
JEL: 
K40
Z13
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by Logo
Document Type: 
Article
Document Version: 
Published Version

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.