The Value Of The Freedom Of Expression
The freedom of expression broadly involves the communication of ideas, opinions, convictions, beliefs, and information. International legal instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognise the freedom of expression as a right that can be exercised either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of choice .
The reason we recognise certain claimable rights is often linked to the underlying interests these rights set out to protect. Joseph Raz observes a person has a right when his interests are sufficient reason for holding others to be under a duty . The importance of the interests that underlie the freedom of expression point to why we ought to, and indeed do, recognise it as a claimable right. Recalling such value is important, as the process through which we justify limitations on the freedom of expression is contingent on the value we attach to it.
As Regulator Of Immigration
The government may not criminally punish immigrants based on speech that would be protected if said by a citizen. On entry across borders, the government may bar non-citizens from the United States based on their speech, even if that speech would have been protected if said by a citizen. Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare.
Fighting Words Threats And Inciting Violence Will Not Be Protected
The fighting words doctrine was first described in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,315 U.S. 568 where the Supreme Court upheld a state law prohibiting one person from insulting or defaming another on a public street. The statutory prohibition at issue applied only if the derisive language was designed to incite or promote violence. The purpose behind the statute was to preserve the public peace by preventing street brawls. The Supreme Court upheld the law because it was so narrow in scope. Ordinary insults were not prohibited.
In Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 the Court further clarified its position on threatening or violent speech. The Cohen Court held that a t-shirt containing an expletive was protected by the First Amendment because it was not directed at any one person and could not reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace.
It is this same doctrine that prohibits overt threats of bodily harm, swatting, or yelling fire in a crowded theater. Falsely yelling fire in a crowded building and swatting are pranks that can lead to people being injured or killed. Just last week, there was a news story about a young mans swatting prank leading to an innocent persons death. The young man called 911 and falsely reported a hostage situation. A SWAT team was dispatched and killed an innocent man who had no idea what was going on.
Don’t Miss: Easiest Way To Learn Sign Language
Are There Limits On Free Speech
There are limits to freedom of speech, and those limits boil down to public safety and honesty. The classic example of unprotected speech is screaming fire in a crowded room when there is no fire, as the welfare of the citizenry becomes paramount. Another example: protests require permits to ensure proper safety requirements are met.
Case Study: Poland And The Right To Protest
Amnesty International has documented how people in Poland have taken to the streets to express their opinions despite restrictive legislation combined with heavy-handed policing, surveillance, harassment and prosecution which threaten to strangle the right to peaceful protest.
Since 2016, tens of thousands of people have protested against repressive legislation aimed at curbing womens rights and undermining the independence of the judiciary. Protesters have routinely been met with a show of force and restrictive measures that infringe their right to be seen and heard. Hundreds have found themselves in police custody and facing lengthy court proceedings.
In parallel with tightening the laws affecting the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, the government has vastly expanded the surveillance powers of law enforcement agencies with evidence that these expanded powers have been used against people engaged in organizing and participating in peaceful protests.
Don’t Miss: How To Learn Turkish Language
Does Censorship Violate Freedom Of Speech
Censorship is often talked about in relation to free speech because people feel that they are being unfairly censored online in violation of their rights. Censorship can be defined as the suppression of information, though it often relates to things like images, books, television, and other media.
It can be argued that some forms of censorship are necessary for example, websites that children regularly access might censor inappropriate images. However, the rules around censorship can be very hazy online, and censorship can even become oppressive in many circumstances. We go into more detail below.
Time And Place Restrictions On Free Speech
The Constitution allows regulation of free speech when the imposed restrictions are content neutral, serve a significant government interest, and there are plenty of alternative methods for communicating the restricted views. Time and place restrictions have been used to ban picketing in front of abortion clinics, to ban nude dance clubs and adult book stores in school zones, and other similar restrictions. Protesters have been a fixture at political gatherings since political parties were invented. The government is permitted to confine protesters to so called free speech zones to protect both attendees and protesters from a violent confrontation.
Prior restraint is another type of time and place restriction on free speech. While the courts are very reluctant to allow prior restraint restrictions, there are a few exceptions. For example: the government can prohibit a newspaper from publishing the expected departure date and location of troop ships enroute to a battle zone.
Also Check: Passion Of The Christ Language
Permissible Limitations Of The Iccpr Right To Freedom Of Expression
As noted above, article 19 of the ICCPR permits limitations on the rights recognised in article 19, but those limitations must be:
provided by law and
necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, for the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.
The HRC in its General Comment 34 has emphasised that:
when a State party imposes restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression, these may not put in jeopardy the right itself…the relation between right and restriction and between norm and exception must not be reversed.
Australias Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights has similarly made the point that:
Given the fundamental nature of this right, international human rights bodies have scrutinised with great care any limitations on freedom of expression, including the introduction of regulatory schemes for media. They have insisted that States demonstrate convincingly the need for measures which prevent or restrict the operation of a free and independent media, and have been especially concerned about content-based restrictions and restrictions which might inhibit the expression of views that contribute to public and political debate.
The HRC further stated that:
False Statements Of Fact
In the defamation case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. , the Supreme Court said that there is “no constitutional value in false statements of fact”. However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the “speech that matters” can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.
The Supreme Court has established a complex framework for determining which types of false statements are unprotected. There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a “sufficiently culpable mental state” can be subject to civil or criminal liability. Second, knowingly making a false statement of fact can sometimes be punished. Libel and slander laws fall under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances. Lastly, some implicit statements of factthose that have a “false factual connotation”can also fall under this exception.
There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan that lies about the government may be protected completely. However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.
Read Also: Free Speech Social Media App
Hate Speech Versus Freedom Of Speech
The need to preserve freedom of expression from censorship by States or private corporations is often invoked to counter efforts to regulate hateful expression, in particular online.
Freedom of opinion and expression are, indeed, cornerstones of human rights and pillars of free and democratic societies. These freedoms support other fundamental rights, such as to peaceful assembly, to participate in public affairs, and to freedom of religion. It is undeniable that digital media, including social media, have bolstered the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. Therefore, legislative efforts to regulate free expression unsurprisingly raise concerns that attempts to curb hate speech may silence dissent and opposition.
Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, May 2019
Are There Limits To Freedom Of Speech
Yesterday was Europe Day, marking the 1950 speech by French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman that launched the process of European integration. Symbolically, Europe Day also happens to fall just after the anniversary of the end of the Second World War. Festivities have been somewhat muted, however, against a backdrop of rising unemployment, painful spending cuts, double-dip recession and growing political uncertainty in the wake of last weeks Greek elections. The inability of what have traditionally been the two largest parties to secure a parliamentary majority now leaves open the possibility of a messy Greek default.
Just as worrying for many is the rise of extremist political parties. Earlier this week, Franck left a comment about the entry of the far-right Golden Dawn party into the Greek Parliament with almost 7% of the vote, saying: neo-nazis have just entered the Greek parliament For me, this is not trivial and could happen anywhere do not pay attention to the pain of the people.
The Golden Dawns leader, Nikolaos Michaloliakos , rejects the label neo-nazi, despite the Golden Dawns use of suspiciously Hitler-esque Roman salutes and a party flag that very closely resembles the Nazi swastika.
Earlier this year, we had a comment sent in by Sam on the controversy surrounding the Hungarian constitutional changes. He supported the liberal ALDE group in the European Parliament because:
On the other hand, Nikolai recently left a comment arguing that:
Don’t Miss: Sign Language Phrases For Beginners
What Is The Definition Of Free Speech
There are a number of varying definitions of free speech, but at its core, its about the legal right to express or seek out ideas and opinions freely without fear of censorship or legal action. Freedom of speech is a part of freedom of expression, which means that individuals have the right to express themselves in whatever way they wish.
Sovereignty And Integrity Of India
India gained its sovereignty after 200 years of colonial rule and established itself as an independent state wholly responsible for its internal affairs. Hence, citizens have been restricted to make statements that can harm this hard-earned sovereignty and hurt the integrity of the nation. This ground was added in 1963 through the Constitution Act to impose restrictions on individuals or groups that were instigating secessionist movements in the country.
Also Check: Does Speech Delay Mean Autism
Limits Of Free Speech
Certain freedoms of expression and assembly are guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States and the state of Utah.
However, not all types of speech are protected. Free expression laws and legal concepts are extremely complex, and a complete summary is impossible to provide. In general, speech may not be protected when it:
- Significantly disrupts the operation of university programs or activities, including teaching, learning, and other operations. To that end, USU may regulate the time, place, and manner of free expression activities, as well as employee speech, as constitutionally appropriate.
- Infringes on the speech of another, for example, by creating noise to drown out a speaker, sometimes called the hecklers veto.
- Is considered non-protected, such as defamatory speech, speech that constitutes incitement of violence, and speech that constitutes legal obscenity. Other forms of expression may also be regulated, such as expression that constitutes discrimination under law or USU policy. Note, this is not a complete list of speech that may be regulated, and each of these terms above has a specific legal meaning.
- Conveys intellectual property or trade secrets of the university or others.
- Is the universitys own speech. Governmental entities, including USU, maintain the ability to determine their own speech and regulate individuals speaking on behalf of the university.
Freedom Of Speech Vs Hate Speech
One of the most widely discussed critiques of unlimited free speech is that it can condone and amplify hate speech. Hate speech can be defined as speech that is abusive and threatening towards a certain group of people, generally based on prejudices related to race, gender, sexuality, religion, or disability.
Some might ask, since people should be allowed to speak their minds and voice all opinions, why cant they simply express their dislike for certain things? This is an argument often uttered by those in favour of complete freedom of speech, including hate speech. However, people may disagree with this, arguing that a clearer line should be drawn between stating dislike and inciting violence. If nothing is off-limits, where does it end?
Recommended Reading: Language Development Activities For 3 5 Year Olds
Freedom Of Speech Includes The Right:
- Not to speak .West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 .
- Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war .Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 .
- To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 .
- To contribute money to political campaigns.Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 .
- To advertise commercial products and professional services .Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 .
- To engage in symbolic speech, .Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 .
Books Chapters And Articles
-
Arai-Takahashi Y The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR. Intersentia, Cambridge
-
Gaus GF Liberalism, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
-
George RP Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Recommended Reading: 5 Love Languages In Spanish
What Is Government Censorship
Government censorship is common in many other nations in the world. In these countries, the government controls what media outlets can communicate to the nationâs citizens. Journalists who publish information the government wants to keep secret can pay with their lives for publishing information against the wishes of their government.
This cannot happen in the U.S. Limitations on the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are minimal compared to the control that some foreign governments exert over media outlets in their nations.
The Founding Fathers in the U.S. included the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution because they believed that freedom of speech and the press is the foundation of the government âof, by and for the peopleâ that they sought to establish.
Speech Owned By Others
Another class of permissible restrictions on speech is based on intellectual property rights. Both copyrights and trade secrets fall under this exception. The Supreme Court first upheld this in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises , where copyright law was defended against a First Amendment free speech challenge. Also, broadcasting rights to air television and radio shows are not an infringement of free speech rights. The Court has upheld such restrictions as an incentive for artists in the “speech marketplace”.
You May Like: French Language Schools In France For International Students
Freedom Of Speech: What Does It Mean And Why Is It Important
In this article, we discuss what freedom of speech really means, why it matters and how it relates to censorship and cancel culture.
It is pretty widely accepted that free speech is an essential part of a democratic society, and should be upheld to some degree. But the real question lies in how far we take it. While some people believe that freedom of speech should be upheld at all costs, others believe that it can be an excuse for saying harmful things without reprimand.
In order to clarify the arguments surrounding free speech, weve written this article about where it originates from, how it differs around the world, how it benefits society, and what some of its limitations are. This is by no means a formal guide to the laws surrounding free speech, but rather an exploration of different perspectives around free speech.
As Subsidizer Or Speaker
The most complex special capacity of the government is when it functions, in one way or another, as the subsidizer of the speech in question. As a general rule, the government can itself say whatever it wants to, even if this “favors one viewpoint over another”. If the government is using the speakers to express its own message, it is constitutional. This analysis can change if the government is trying to encourage a “diversity of private views indiscriminately“. If it is indiscriminate, then under Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez , the government must be acting in a viewpoint-neutral way. However, if the government is basing some judgment of “quality” on the views, then only “invidious viewpoint discrimination” is barred.
The government may not impose conditions on how subsidy recipients spend money they get from other sources.
Don’t Miss: Best Flashcards For Speech Delay