Freedom of expression in Egypt: how long hair, pink shirts, novels, amateur videos and facebook threaten public order and morality!

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-241
Author(s):  
Khaled Mansour
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Public Order

scholarly journals Justifying Limitations on the Freedom of Expression

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gehan Gunatilleke
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
National Security ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The State ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
The World ◽  
The Common ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
The Individual

Abstract The freedom of expression is vital to our ability to convey opinions, convictions, and beliefs, and to meaningfully participate in democracy. The state may, however, ‘limit’ the freedom of expression on certain grounds, such as national security, public order, public health, and public morals. Examples from around the world show that the freedom of individuals to express their opinions, convictions, and beliefs is often imperilled when states are not required to meet a substantial justificatory burden when limiting such freedom. This article critiques one of the common justificatory approaches employed in a number of jurisdictions to frame the state’s burden to justify limitations on the freedom of expression—the proportionality test. It presents a case for an alternative approach that builds on the merits and addresses some of the weaknesses of a typical proportionality test. This alternative may be called a ‘duty-based’ justificatory approach because it requires the state to demonstrate—through the presentation of publicly justifiable reasons—that the individual concerned owes others a duty of justice to refrain from the expressive conduct in question. The article explains how this approach is more normatively compelling than a typical proportionality test. It also illustrates how such an approach can better constrain the state’s ability to advance majoritarian interests or offload its positive obligations by limiting the freedom of expression of minorities and dissenting voices.

Freedom of Expression and Advocacy of Group Hatred

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 137-145
Author(s):  
Natan Lerner
Keyword(s):  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Religious Groups

AbstractFreedom of expression is a fundamental right, but not an absolute one, and is subject to limitations determined by law. Article 19 of the ICCPR permits certain restrictions and should be read in conjunction with Article 20, prohibiting advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. There should not be differences in the treatment of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred. Limitations on freedom of expression regarding other liberties permit to draw analogies. Article 4 of the Convention on Racial Discrimination and Article III of the Genocide Convention are relevant, and the discussion on the existence of an international public order has to be considered. The Genocide Convention refers equally to incitement against racial or religious groups. Frequently, ethnicity and religion overlap.

Religious Speech

2021 ◽  
pp. 498-517
Author(s):  
Gautam Bhatia
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Religious Expression ◽  
Moral Beliefs ◽  
Religious Speech ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
The Right ◽  
Role Of Religion ◽  
Normative Value

This chapter examines religious speech, and the tensions between religion and freedom of expression. As a wide-ranging system of moral beliefs and commitments, religion, by its very nature, assigns to the freedom of expression a particular place in its hierarchical order of values. In non-theocratic States, this may clash with the (higher) normative value accorded to the freedom of expression under the secular order. Religious claims themselves will often be made from within the constitutional system: that is, the State’s own constitutional commitment to protect religious freedom will be invoked to argue that, in certain domains, the secular order must defer to religion’s hierarchy of values. This may include the subordination of religious expression to revealed religious truth. Disputes will often also involve contestation over a constellation of other constitutional norms, such as the commitment to maintaining diversity and pluralism, the right to equality and cultural dissent, and not least, the imperatives of public order. Consequently, such disputes raise a host of complex issues. The State’s adjudicatory authorities must decide whether to attempt an accommodation between the conflicting claims of religion and free speech, or privilege one over the other. The chapter then discusses the role of religion in censorship.

Religion, Terrorism and Speech in a ‘Post-Charlie Hebdo’ World

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnes Callamard
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Policy Responses ◽  
Violent Extremism ◽  
Frame Work ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
Charlie Hebdo

This article reviews the policy responses and the freedom of expression case law following the Charlie Hebdo attack. It unpacks the ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ frame-work from a freedom of expression standpoint and analyses court decisions related to glorification of terrorism and incitement to hatred with a particular focus on France and the United States as well as Russia, and Scandinavia. It shows the determination of governments to tackle the non-violent “ideological” bases of “terrorism”, and to treat religion as largely a public order issue. It concludes that in a post-Charlie Hebdo world, courts also have taken short cuts, instrumentalising not only speech to perceived higher needs, but judicial reasoning and practices as well.

TO RANT, VENT AND CONVERSE: PROTECTING LOW LEVEL DIGITAL SPEECH

2012 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Rowbottom
Keyword(s):  
Social Networks ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Digital Communications ◽  
Digital Content ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
To Come ◽  
Legal Controls

AbstractSeveral recent cases have highlighted the range of legal controls that can be applied to expression on social networks and other amateur digital content. This article identifies three trends in the regulation of digital communications. First, such communications are subject to a wide range of laws, including those primarily regulating the mass media, public order and targeted communications. Second, the persistence and searchability of digital messages make such communications more likely to come to the attention of litigators and prosecutors. Thirdly, that the established approach to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR tends to protect speech that is deemed to be of “high value”, and therefore does little to protect much internet content. This article calls for some greater protection to be afforded to communications that are casual and amateur. The freedom to converse outlined in this article does not call for absolute protection, but seeks to ensure that any controls on expression are proportionate. In particular, alternatives to the criminal law are considered.

scholarly journals El tipo penal de desórdenes públicos en Chile frente al derecho de reunión y a la libertad de expresión en el marco del derecho de manifestación

KPGT_dlutz_1 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 603
Author(s):  
Alberto F. Cuéllar C.
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Great Majority ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Strict Sense ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
Public Disorder ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Instruments ◽  
Derecho Penal ◽  
Right Of Assembly

El tipo penal de desórdenes públicos en Chile frente al derecho de reunión y a la libertad de expresión en el marco del derecho de manifestación Resumen: En Chile, la gran mayoría de las detenciones por el delito de Desórdenes Públicos se producen en el contexto de marchas o manifestaciones públicas, específicamente en aquellos casos, en que, a raíz de dichas expresiones colectivas, se ve vulnerado el orden público, produciéndose una afectación a los bienes jurídicos correspondientes a terceros ajenos a dicha manifestación. En este orden de ideas, se ha sostenido muchas veces que existe un antagonismo entre el derecho a manifestación – el cual es reconocido como un derecho humano o fundamental, tanto a nivel internacional como nacional – y el orden público, entendido este último como un estado de situación que permite un normal desenvolvimiento de la sociedad y las instituciones en general. Considerando este contexto, el presente trabajo tiene el objetivo de analizar el tipo penal de desórdenes públicos en chile frente al derecho de reunión y a la libertad de expresión en el marco del derecho de manifestación. Primero se analiza el derecho de manifestación, atentando al derecho de reunión y a la libertad de expresión. En la secuencia, se examina el derecho de reunión y libertad de expresión con relación al orden público. Al final, se estudia los elementos de tipo del delito de desórdenes públicos, con especial atención al bien jurídico protegido. Se concluye que efectivamente se pueden producir antagonismos, entre el derecho a manifestación (libertad de reunión y de opinión) y el orden público. Además, si bien se reconoce la importancia del orden público, también se ha establecido que este no puede ser invocado por si sólo como una limitación al ejercicio de los señalados derechos. Asimismo, las limitaciones deben ser establecidas mediante una ley, en sentido estricto, según lo disponen los instrumentos internacionales y el principio de reserva legal consagrado en la Constitución Chilena. Palabras-clave: Derechos humanos. Derecho de manifestación. Derecho penal chileno. Derecho de reunión. Desórdenes públicos. Libertad de expresión. The criminal type of public disorders in Chile in front of the right of assembly and to freedom of expression within the framework of the right of manifestation Abstract: In Chile, the great majority of arrests for the crime of Public Disorders occur in the context of marches or public manifestations, specifically in those cases in which, as a result of said collective expressions, public order is violated, resulting in an affectation to the legal assets corresponding to third parties outside said manifestation. In this order of ideas, it has been argued many times that there is an antagonism between the right to manifestation - which is recognized as a human or fundamental right, both at the international and national levels - and public order, understood as a state of situation that allows a normal development of society and institutions in general. Considering this context, the present work has the objective of analyzing the criminal type of public disorder in Chile against the right of assembly and freedom of expression within the framework of the right to manifestation. First, the right to manifestation is analyzed, based in the right of assembly and freedom of expression. In the sequence, the right of assembly and freedom of expression in relation to public order is examined. In the end, the type elements of the offense of public disorder are studied, with special attention to the protected legal right. It is concluded that there are antagonisms between the right to manifestation (freedom of assembly and opinion) and public order. Although the importance of public order is recognized, it has also been established that this can not be invoked by itself as a limitation to the exercise of these rights. Likewise, the limitations must be established by means of a law, in the strict sense, as provided in international instruments and the principle of legal reserve enshrined in the Chilean Constitution. Keywords: Chilean criminal law. Freedom of expression. Human rights. Right of assembly. Right of manifestation. Public disorders.

scholarly journals Study of the Concepts Related to the Boundaries of Freedom Expression

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Ahmad Bazyar ◽  
Alireza Nasseri ◽  
Mohammad Taher Babari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Rights ◽  
The Right

The right of freedom of expression can be named as one of the most important rights and freedoms that have been emphasized on by all the international documents of human rights. Despite the fact that the aforementioned right is a universal right, most of the experts believe that it cannot be absolute and in order to be able to support the public and private rights, it must be restricted to some extent. Now the question is that the restrictions on the freedom of expression are needed to be implemented in what frameworks and based on what principles? In reply to that question we can say that ethics, national security, public order and preservation the rights and reputations of others are the key principles of restrictions on freedom of expression.

Sedition and the Judicial Discourse in Postcolonial India

2018 ◽  
pp. 176-224
Author(s):  
Anushka Singh
Keyword(s):  
Speech Act ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Political History ◽  
The State ◽  
The Political ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Constituent Assembly ◽  
Judicial Discourse ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law

It traces the discourse on freedom of expression in postcolonial idea, the security imperatives of the state, the political history of the law of sedition post-Independence and its journey within the courts. Through this, an attempt at conceptualizing public order, security of state and other grounds along which the act of sedition is penalized, is made. This chapter begins with debates on sedition within the Constituent Assembly and systematically takes these debates to the higher courts in India employing legal hermeneutics to read into the judgements and deduce a theory of sedition coming from the judiciary. The chapter treats the judicial pronouncements as contributing to the study of sedition as a speech act to identify what emerges as the crime of sedition within the legal-juridical regime in India.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document