The purpose of this piece is to distil the core arguments of DaOrtiz’s work, situate them within broader scholarly debates, and highlight practical implications for policymakers, media creators, and everyday citizens. 2.1. The “Medium‑Specific” Turn DaOrtiz argues that traditional free‑speech doctrines—rooted in the “public square” metaphor—are insufficient for the digital era. He proposes a medium‑specific framework:
| Medium | Key Characteristics | Freedom‑Expression Implications | |--------|---------------------|---------------------------------| | Print (books, newspapers) | Tangible, localized distribution | Clear jurisdiction, limited amplification | | Broadcast (TV, radio) | Spectrum‑regulated, mass reach | Stronger state oversight, higher public‑interest duties | | Digital platforms (social media, podcasts) | Algorithmic curation, borderless reach | Fragmented liability, platform‑governed moderation | freedom of expression dani daortiz pdf
Prepared as a concise, stand‑alone essay that can be copied into any word‑processor and exported as a PDF. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic societies, enshrined in international treaties (e.g., Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and national constitutions. It enables individuals to voice ideas, criticize power, share art, and participate fully in public discourse. Yet the right is never absolute; it is constantly negotiated against competing values such as privacy, dignity, public order, and national security. The purpose of this piece is to distil