The Urgency of Protecting Netizen in Freedom of Speech on Social Media

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Grandis Ayuning Priyanto ◽  
Martinus Sardi
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Speak Up

Freedom of speech is a part of fundamental rights to every people. Nowadays, freedom of speech could not felt widely to all people. Freedom of speech developed until Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights assure and restrict freedom of speech. In Indonesia, since the rise of The Law of Information and Electronic Transaction, the restriction of freedom of speech become biased, many words in social media are presumably attack others. Netizen feels security to speak up is limited, such Ruslan Buton who critics and record about President Jokowi deemed as a hoax and hate speech. Even though some articles in 1945 Constitution have already protect and guarantee all people to bear the right to speak. The limitations of Freedom of speech in The Law of Information and Electronic Transaction emerge multi interpretation which the right to speak have not been correspond with the values in 1945 Constitution. To harmonize freedom of speech in Indonesia, it needs cooperation among government and people to eradicate ambiguity and fear in which already happen.By using juridical-normative method, the research aims to understand the condition of freedom of speech in Indonesia, and to understand the protection of netizen in using social media

Freedom of Speech in International Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 192-212
Author(s):  
Michael Hamilton
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter traces the broad contours of the right to freedom of speech as it has evolved in international law, principally under Article 19(2) of the 1996 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR or ‘the Covenant’). Any speech protective principles deriving from the international jurisprudence are qualified by the following factors: the contextual contingency of the value of speech, the inherently limited reach of international scrutiny, the changing nature of the marketplace, and emerging forms of censorship. The chapter then outlines the key human rights treaty protections for freedom of speech, before further exploring the scope of the right. It examines the permissible grounds for speech restriction, highlighting two contested categories of speech—namely, incitement to hatred and glorification of terrorism—where international law not only concedes the low value of such speech, but specifically mandates its prohibition in domestic law. States that introduce broadly framed speech restrictions may claim to be acting in satisfaction of this prohibitory requirement. In consequence, the intensity of any ensuing international scrutiny will inevitably be substantially reduced.

scholarly journals Citizenship Deprivation under the European Convention-System: A Case Study of Belgium

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-282
Author(s):  
Louise Reyntjens
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
System A ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Foreign Fighters

In response to Islamic-inspired terrorism and the growing trend of foreign fighters, European governments are increasingly relying on citizenship deprivation as a security tool. This paper will focus on the question of how the fundamental rights of individuals deprived of their citizenship are affected and which protection is offered for them by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’). In many countries, these new and broader deprivation powers were left unaccompanied by stronger (procedural) safeguards that protect the human rights they might affect. Unlike the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ECHR does not provide for an explicit right to citizenship. The question therefore rises what protection, if any, is offered by the ECHRsystem against citizenship deprivation and for the right to citizenship. Through a case study of the Belgian measure of citizenship deprivation, the (implicit) protection provided by the Convention-system is demonstrated.

scholarly journals Más que palabras: libertad de expresión y discurso de odio en el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos = More than words: freedom of speech and hate speech in the Inter-American Human Rights system

2020 ◽  
pp. 148
Author(s):  
Ana Ximena Jacoby
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
The Right

Resumen: El derecho a la libre expresión tiene un alcance sumamente amplio. Incluye, entre otras, la manifestación de ideas y opiniones que otros pueden considerar profundamente ofensivas y perturbadoras. Por su naturaleza radical, este derecho suele entrar en colisión con otros derechos fundamentales, como el derecho a la honra, a la privacidad, al olvido, a la libertad religiosa o con las normas que resguardan la seguridad nacional o la circulación del “discurso de odio”. Estas tensiones, que atraviesan al derecho a la libre expresión, quedan frecuentemente manifiestas en fallos y posicionamientos de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. El presente trabajo se propone analizar las distintas perspectivas teóricas que subyacen a los posicionamientos de esta Corte en relación al “discurso del odio”. Como veremos, en los pronunciamientos de la Corte y los demás órganos que conforman el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos conviven, dentro de un marco liberal, distintas concepciones que van desde los principios liberales clásicos hasta posturas más cercanas al liberalismo igualitario. Palabras clave: Discurso de odio, libertad de expresión, Sistema Interamericano de Derechos HumanosAbstract: The freedom of speech has an extremely wide scope. It namely preserves the free expression of ideas and opinions that others might find profoundly offensive and disturbing. Due to its radical nature, this freedom can either collide with other fundamental rights, such as the right to honor, to privacy, to oblivion or to religious freedom, or with certain rules that preserve the national security or the circulation of “hate speech”. These tensions crossing the freedom of speech are frequently expressed in judgments and declarations of the Interamerican Court of Human Rights. This work seeks to account for the different theoretical perspectives undermining the arguments presented by this Court regarding “hate speech”. As to be seen, different conceptions within a liberal framework coexist in the declarations issued by the Court and rest of bodies that comprise the Interamerican System of Human Rights, ranging from those that follow classic liberal principles to more egalitarian liberalism-oriented positions. Keywords: Hate speech, freedom of speech, Inter-American Human Rights System.     

The Economic and Political Determinants of Human (Including Health) Rights

1978 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicente Navarro
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Power Relations ◽  
Political Power ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Individual Property ◽  
Socioeconomic Rights ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
Fair Wages ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

This paper presents an analysis and critique of the U.S. government's current emphasis on human rights; and (a) its limited focus on only some civil and political components of the original U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, and (b) its disregard for economic and social rights such as the rights to work, fair wages, health, education, and social security. The paper discusses the reasons for that limited focus and argues that, contrary to what is widely presented in the media and academe: (1) civil and political rights are highly restricted in the U.S.; (2) those rights are further restricted in the U.S. when analyzed in their social and economic dimensions; (3) civil and political rights are not independent of but rather intrinsically related to and dependent on the existence of socioeconomic rights; (4) the definition of the nature and extension of human rights in their civil, political, social, and economic dimensions is not universal, but rather depends on the pattern of economic and political power relations particular to each society; and (5) the pattern of power relations in the U.S. society and the western system of power, based on the right to individual property and its concomitant class structure and relations, is incompatible with the full realization of human rights in their economic, social, political, and civil dimensions. This paper further indicates that U.S. financial and corporate capital, through its overwhelming influence over the organs of political power in the U.S. and over international bodies and agencies, is primarily responsible for the denial of the human rights of the U.S. population and many populations throughout the world as well.

The Right to Enter One’s Own Country: The Conflict between the Jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee and the Travaux Préparatoires of Article 12(4) of the iccpr

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-123
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right

Abstract Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (iccpr) provides that ‘[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.’ The jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee shows that Committee members have often disagreed on the question of whether the right under Article 12(4) is reserved for citizens only or it can be claimed by non-citizens who consider the countries in which they were born or they have lived for longer periods as their own. In its earlier case law, the Committee held that Article 12(4) is applicable to nationals only. Since 1999, when General Comment No.27 was adopted, the Committee has moved towards extending the right under Article 12(4) to non-nationals. Its latest case law appears to have supported the Committee’s position that Article 12(4) is applicable to non-nationals. Central to both majority and minority decisions in which the Committee has dealt with Article 12(4), is whether the travaux préparatoires of Article 12(4) support either view. This article relies on the travaux préparatoires of Article 12(4) to argue that it does not support the view that Article 12(4) is applicable to non-nationals.

On the question about opposition to the information component aggression of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
pp. 59-63
Author(s):  
O. Vasylchenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
State Committee ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

Ukrainian law guarantees freedom of speech and expression. This is in line with international and regional instruments (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Declaration of Human Rights) to which Ukraine is a party. Unfortunately, Ukraine is no exception, due to the conflict with the Russian Federation. The Revolution of Dignity of 2014 and the subsequent illegal activities of the neighbouring state (annexation of Crimea, occupation of the territories in the South-East of Ukraine) affected the legislative and regulatory framework of Ukraine regarding freedom of speech and freedom of expression. In order to counter aggression, the state has adopted a number of laws aimed at counteracting foreign interference in broadcasting and ensuring Ukraine’s information sovereignty. The implementation of these laws has been criticized for being seen by NGOs as imposing restrictions on freedom of expression and expression. However, censorship and selfcensorship create another serious restriction on freedom of speech and the press. The Law on Transparency of Mass Media Ownership, adopted in 2015, provides for the disclosure of information on the owners of final beneficiaries (controllers), and in their absence – on all owners and members of a broadcasting organization or service provider. In 2019, Ukraine adopted a law on strengthening the role of the Ukrainian language as the state language, which provides for language quotas for the media. According to the Law on Language, only 10% of total film adaptations can be in a language other than Ukrainian. Ukraine has adopted several laws in the field of information management to counter foreign influence and propaganda. According to the report of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, for the period from January 1, 2017 to February 14, 2018, the State Committee banned 30 books published in the Russian Federation. Thus, for the first time faced with the need to wage an “invisible” war on the information front, Ukraine was forced to take seriously the regulation of the media and the market. By imposing a number of restrictions on a product that can shake sovereignty and increase the authority of the aggressor in the eyes of citizens, the legislator, guided by the needs of society, also contributes to the promotion of Ukrainian (for example, by introducing quotas).

How to Think about Advocacy

2020 ◽  
pp. 34-56
Author(s):  
Michelle Jurkovich
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Right To Food ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right ◽  
Spiral Model

This chapter focuses on contemporary international anti-hunger advocacy, which describes the nature of contemporary campaigns across top international anti-hunger organizations. It introduces dominant human rights models, namely Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink's “boomerang model” and Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink's “spiral model.” It also provides an alternative model of advocacy, the “buckshot model,” which describes and explains advocacy around hunger and the right to food. The chapter identifies the hidden assumptions behind dominant human rights models and explores their limitations by using the hunger case to set up a contrast with more-often-studied civil and political rights campaigns. It reviews interviews with international anti-hunger activists that were completed by 2015, which reflected contemporary campaigns and efforts until 2014.

Socio-Economic Rights and Their Implementation: The Impact of Domestic and International Instruments

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerhard Erasmus
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
Basic Quality ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Instruments ◽  
The Impact

Socio-economic rights are those human rights that aim to secure for all members of a particular society a basic quality of life in terms of food, water, shelter, education, health care and housing. They differ from traditional civil and political rights such as the right to equality, personal liberty, property, free speech and association. These “traditional human rights” are now found in most democratic constitutions and are, as a rule, enshrined in a Bill of Rights; which is that part of the Constitution that is normally enforced through mechanisms such as judicial review. The victims of the violation of such rights have a legal remedy. Individual freedom is a primary value underpinning civil and political rights.

scholarly journals Non-universal Human Rights? How Article 6 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Undermines Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-117
Author(s):  
Billy Holmes
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Universal Human Rights ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights facilitates inequality regarding the imposition of the death penalty and thus, it cannot ensure universality for the protection of the right to life. Paragraph two of this article states: ‘sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.’ This article argues that the vagueness of the phrase ‘the most serious crimes’ allows states to undermine human rights principles and human dignity by affording states significant discretion regarding the human rights principles of equality and anti-discrimination. The article posits that this discretion allows states to undermine human dignity and the concept of universal human rights by challenging their universality; by facilitating legal inequality between men and women. Accordingly, it asserts that the implications of not expounding this vague phrase may be far-reaching, particularly in the long-term. The final section of this article offers a potential solution to this problem.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document