scholarly journals Article 13: The Right to Freedom of Expression

2022 ◽  
pp. 65-73
Author(s):  
Gerison Lansdown ◽  
Ziba Vaghri
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
The Right

AbstractGovernment should create guidelines in schools to teach the students about the boundaries of their freedom of speech to prevent racist/sexist/harmful comments. (Asia-Pacific)

9. Freedom of Expression

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Clements
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Obscenity Law ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right

The Q&A series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each chapter includes typical questions; diagram problem and essay answer plans, suggested answers, notes of caution, tips on obtaining extra marks, the key debates on each topic and suggestions on further reading. This chapter moves on from the previous one to examine the freedom of expression. Under common law, freedom of speech is guaranteed unless the speaker breaks the law, but this is now reinforced by the right of free expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. The questions here deal with issues such as obscenity law and contempt of court; the Official Secrets Act; freedom of information; breach of confidence and whether there is a right of privacy in English law.

scholarly journals Menyoal Kebebasan Beragama dan Penodaan Agama Di Indonesia

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-212
Author(s):  
Yayan Sopyan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Reform Era ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

Abstract: Questioning the Religious Freedom and blasphemy in Indonesia. The presence of the Constitutional Court in the reform era is the strengthening of the foundations of constitutionalism in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945. The Court in this case a role to enforce and the protector of the citizen's constitutional rights and the protector of the human rights. Including in this case, the right to religion and religious practices and teachings of their respective religions, in accordance with the constitutional mandate. However, on the other hand there is the discourse of freedom of expression and freedom of speech includes freedom to broadcast religious beliefs and understanding of the "deviant" and against the "mainstream" religious beliefs and understanding in general, as in the case of Ahmadiyah. The Court in this case is required to provide the best attitude when faced judicial review in this case still required in addition to guarding the constitution in order to run properly.   Abstrak: Menyoal Kebebasan Beragama dan Penodaan Agama di Indonesia. Kehadiran lembaga Mahkamah Konstitusi di era reformasi merupakan upaya penguatan terhadap dasar-dasar konstitusionalisme pada Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. MK dalam hal ini berperan menegakkan dan melindungi hak-hak konstitusional warga negara (the protector of the citizen’s constitutional rights) dan pelindung HAM (the protector of the human rights). Termasuk dalam hal ini, hak untuk memeluk agama dan menjalankan ibadah serta ajaran agamanya masing-masing, sesuai dengan amanat konstitusi. Namun, disisi lain ada wacana kebebasan berekspresi dan kebebasan berpendapat termasuk didalamnya kebebasan untuk menyiarkan keyakinan dan pemahaman keagamaan yang “menyimpang” dan bertentangan dengan “mainstream” keyakinan dan pemahaman keagamaan pada umumnya, seperti dalam kasus Ahmadiyah. MK dalam hal ini dituntut untuk mampu memberikan sikap terbaik saat dihadapkan judicial review dalam kasus ini selain tetap dituntut untuk mengawal konstitusi agar dapat berjalan sebagaimana mestinya. DOI: 10.15408/jch.v2i2.2314

Freedom of Speech in Early Stuart England

2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 213-214
Author(s):  
Ed King
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
The Reformation ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Face ◽  
Central Argument ◽  
Stuart England ◽  
The Right

Freedom of Speech in Early Stuart England, David Colclough, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 314.The rhetorical lynchpin of this fascinating book's central argument is the concept of parrhesia, which is a Greek term that began life as a catch-all expression for the quality of speech belonging to citizens of the polis (6). Colclough implies that the tradition of parrhesia took a circular route via the freedom of expression inherent in the group rights of Greek citizens to the need for frank expression of unpleasant truths by courtiers to their rulers. This transition required that “frankness” be elevated to the status of a virtue once it became apparent that rulers did not always make decisions in the best interest of the state. After the Reformation in northern Europe this virtue evolved into a religious imperative in the face of sectarian persecution and in England, especially, this imperative naturally extended itself to the admonition of monarchs who encroached on their citizens' religious freedoms. Religious conflict led to war, war required economic investment and soon the religious imperative to oppose the wrong-headed heretic blended with a protestant parliament's right to admonish the monarch on purely secular matters. Thus, under the Stuarts, parrhesia eventually came to resume its original sense as the right and duty of a free subject to speak out in public without fear that his desire to preserve the common good would be prosecuted under laws aimed at the seditious and libelous. It is but a rising sense of the secular that enables us to recognize the change in values that led an onerous religious duty to become the unimpeachable liberal right we so casually assert today.

Remarks by Alejandra Gonza

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 263-265
Author(s):  
Alejandra Gonza
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
State Power ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Primary Means ◽  
American Case ◽  
The Right ◽  
Control State

Article 13 of the American Convention was designed to provide robust guarantees for the freedom of thought and expression. Early Inter-American case law conceived freedom of speech as a primary means to control state power and provided strong protection to varied expression. This included ideas and information considered “offensive, shocking, unsettling or disturbing for the state or to any sector of the population.” In fact, the Court was the first international tribunal to recognize the right to access to state-held information as part of the protection of freedom of expression.

scholarly journals Exposing and exposing censorship: Backfire dynamics in freedom-of-speech struggle

2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sue Curry Jansen ◽  
Brian Martin
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Right ◽  
Backfire Effect

Censorship can backfire because it is usually viewed as a violation of the right to free expression, which is widely valued as an ideal; under the Charter of the United Nations, freedom of expression is a universal human right. Backfire occurs, for example, when censorious attacks on a film or book cultivate increased demand for the forbidden work rather than restrict access to it. Censors can inhibit this backfire effect in various ways, including covering up the censorship, devaluing the target, reinterpreting the action, using official channels, and using intimidation and bribery. These five methods to inhibit backfire from attacks on free speech are illustrated by a variety of cases, including attacks that backfired and ones that did not. This analysis provides guidance for effectively opposing attacks on free expression.

scholarly journals Towards a Legal Framework That Protects Freedom of Expression in Electoral Processes

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 43-62
Author(s):  
Bohdan Mokhonchuk ◽  
Pavlo Romaniuk
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Electoral Process ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Election Process ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right ◽  
Democratic Elections

AbstractIn democratic countries, attention is devoted to the issue of freedom of speech and freedom of expression and the role of public authorities during elections. Today, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are guaranteed at both the international and national levels. The international community has created a significant number of international agreements and acts of “soft law” on standards of freedom of expression. In particular, the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters establishes as the first general condition for democratic elections the respect for fundamental human rights, and particularly freedom of expression, assembly and association, without which there can be no true democracy. On the one hand, the problem of ensuring freedom of expression during elections is caused by the wider limits of permissible criticism of candidates and the importance of coverage of the election process. On the other hand, it is caused by restrictions on the conduct of election campaigning and the necessity to provide equal access to the media for the subjects of the electoral process. In this context, it is important to find a balance between the right to free elections, freedom of speech and other rights, freedoms and interests of the subjects of the electoral process. This article researches the modern problems of national legal guarantee of the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression and international electoral standards on the protection of freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the electoral process.

Privacy and Speech

2021 ◽  
pp. 291-311
Author(s):  
Ioanna Tourkochoriti
Keyword(s):  
Human Dignity ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Right ◽  
Extended Interpretation

This chapter discusses the concept of privacy and case law which shows the different approaches between Europe and the US concerning the balancing of freedom of speech when it conflicts with other rights. Judges and scholars also refer to the concept of human dignity in this area. The concept of dignity can serve in the US in order to limit freedom of expression, whereas it serves in Europe as a foundation of the need to limit freedom of expression. The requirement for government transparency creates a presumption in favour of protecting expression. The extended interpretation of ‘privacy’ in the law of many European states means depriving the public debate from information that would be crucial to a well-informed electorate. The chapter then looks at the intermediate concepts that judges have come up with in order to balance the exercise of rights in conflict. Those criteria concern the periphery of the activities that are to be protected by the right to privacy. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the right to be forgotten.

Sex, Speech, and Autonomy

2018 ◽  
pp. 11-50
Author(s):  
Andrew Altman
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Arousal ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Sexual Autonomy ◽  
The Right

Disagreements about pornography have revolved around questions of freedom of speech and expression. This chapter proposes to rethink those disagreements so that the right of sexual autonomy becomes a decisive consideration. The re-thinking is motivated by two ideas. First, much of the pornography that circulates in today’s society, especially on the Internet, is not plausibly regarded as protected by freedom of expression. Second, that very same pornography is used entirely for purposes of sexual arousal and release and so directly involves an individual’s authority to control his own sex life. Setting the stage for the subsequent argument that a right to pornography should be understood as an element of the right of sexual autonomy, this chapter examines the nature of rights and the reasons why the right to control one’s sex life is especially weighty.

POLITICAL PLURALISM: NOTION, CONCEPTUAL AND INTERPRETATIVE FORESHORTENING

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 32-37
Author(s):  
VALERIA GELUNENKO ◽  
◽  
SERGEY ANDREEV
Keyword(s):  
Direct Democracy ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Political Pluralism ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Political Interests ◽  
Political Freedoms ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
The Right

In order to reveal the content of political pluralism, the article considers conceptual, conceptual and interpretative approaches to its definition in the context of constitutional relations with the foundations of the constitutional system, constitutional values, freedom of speech and expression. It is revealed that the absence of the term “political pluralism” in the constitutional text of Russia is made up for by its disclosure through the interpretation of the related principles of “ideological diversity”, “political diversity” and “multiparty”. It is this perspective of the study of political pluralism that helps to justify it as the basis of the constitutional system of Russia. It is noted that since freedom of speech and expression are associated primarily with political freedoms, they are most logically associated with political pluralism. It is proved that the latter implies the presence of citizens in society who have their own interests, adhere to different views on the development of the state and society and unite on this basis in groups, as well as finding a compromise between them based on common ideals and values when solving issues of national importance. The analysis of the motivational part of the decisions of the constitutional Court of the Russian Federation served to reveal the content of political pluralism. The authors concluded that the structure of political pluralism consists of political diversity, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and political compromise. As a generalization, the authors noted that the principle of political pluralism is revealed by this body through guarantees of political diversity and the possibility of finding a compromise of political interests at the level of the Parliament. In addition, it was stressed that the principle of political diversity in a democratic state is ensured through the functioning of such institutions of direct democracy as freedom of speech, free elections, freedom of peaceful public events, the right to Association and freedom of their activities, including political parties. It is concluded that the coordination of political interests should be provided by parliaments of various levels.

Freedom of Speech

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Riley
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Type A ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Type B ◽  
Public Expression ◽  
Laissez Faire ◽  
The Right

John Stuart Mill is a liberal icon, widely praised in particular for his stirring defense of freedom of speech. A neo-Millian theory of free speech is outlined and contrasted in important respects with what Frederick Schauer calls “the free speech ideology” that surrounds the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and with Schauer’s own “pre-legal” theory of free speech. Mill cannot reasonably be interpreted to defend free speech absolutism if speech is understood broadly to include all expressive conduct. Rather, he is best interpreted as defending an expedient policy of laissez-faire with exceptions, where four types of expression are distinguished, three of which (labeled Types B, C, and D) are public or other-regarding, whereas the fourth (labeled Type A) is private or self-regarding. Types C and D expression are unjust and ought to be suppressed by law and public stigma. They deserve no protection from coercive interference: they are justified exceptions to the policy of letting speakers alone. Consistently with this, a moral right to freedom of speech gives absolute protection to Type B public expression, which is “almost” self-regarding. Type A private expression also receives absolute protection, but it is truly self-regarding conduct and therefore covered by the moral right of absolute self-regarding liberty identified by Mill in On Liberty. There is no need for a distinct right of freedom of expression with respect to self-regarding speech. Strictly speaking, then, an expedient laissez-faire policy for public expression leaves the full protection of freedom of private expression to the right of self-regarding liberty.An important application of the neo-Millian theory relates to an unjust form of hate speech that may be described as group libel. By creating, or threatening to create, a social atmosphere in which a targeted group is forced to live with a maliciously false public identity of criminality or subhumanity, such a group libel creates, or significantly risks creating, social conditions in which all individuals associated with the group must give up their liberties of self-regarding conduct and of Type B expression to avoid conflict with prejudiced and belligerent members of society, even though the libel itself does not directly threaten any assignable individual with harm or accuse him or her of any wrongdoing of his or her own. This Millian perspective bolsters arguments such as those offered by Jeremy Waldron for suppressing group libels. America is an outlier among advanced civil societies with respect to the regulation of such unjust hate speech, and its “free speech ideology” ought to be suitably reformed so that group libels are prevented or punished as immoral and unconstitutional.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document