Law
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of expression refers to the right to freely express opinions and ideas without censorship or restraint. It encompasses freedom of speech, press, and artistic expression. This fundamental right is often protected by laws and constitutions to ensure individuals can openly communicate and exchange ideas without fear of persecution or suppression.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
10 Key excerpts on "Freedom of Expression"
eBook - PDFHuman Rights in Northern Ireland
The Committee on the Administration of Justice Handbook
- Brice Dickson, Brian Gormally, Brice Dickson, Brian Gormally(Authors)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- Hart Publishing(Publisher)
9 Freedom of Expression RORY O’CONNELL AND PAUL MAGEEAN * The right to freedom of opinion and expression is one of the cornerstones of a properly functioning democratic society, as well as being essential to personal autonomy. Freedom of Expression is frequently in the news in Northern Ireland, whether it be disputes about the display of flags, the Attorney General seeking to use the offence of ‘scandalising the court’ against a former Secretary of State, or a local councillor being charged in relation to an offensive tweet under the Communications Act 2003. Freedom of Expression has featured in all of the key international and regional human rights instruments. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948, for example, states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Of course, the UDHR is not binding in UK domestic law. The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966 is also not binding in domestic law, although it does bind the UK as a matter of international law. Article 19 of the ICCPR enshrines Freedom of Expression and the ICCPR’s Human Rights Committee has provided an extensive interpretation of this in its General Comment 34 issued in 2011. The most relevant international instrument, however, is the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 10 of which states that: (1) Everyone has the right to Freedom of Expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interfer-ence by public authorities and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television and radio.
eBook - PDFA Commentary on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The UN Human Rights Committee's Monitoring of ICCPR Rights
- Paul M. Taylor(Author)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
The freedoms of opinion and expression facilitate enquiry and the dissemination of information of every kind, through all conceivable media, as well as the propaga- tion of political and other perspectives, and scrutiny and accountability of State 538 institutions. They depend on conditions which support a multiplicity of influences on opinion, especially through mass media channels. They are personal freedoms, but are also cardinal to the proper functioning of democracy, free participation in public affairs and accountability of those wielding power. They are the rationale for most forms of association and assembly. 1 As the Committee put it: Freedom of opinion and Freedom of Expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person. They are essential for any society. They constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society. The two freedoms are closely related, with Freedom of Expression providing the vehicle for the exchange and development of opinions. 2 The freedoms of opinion and expression are particularly closely related to the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It is difficult to divorce development of belief (protected in Article 18) from iterative engagement with the neighbour- ing freedoms of opinion and expression. The freedom of opinion is inviolable, like the ‘inner ’ protection of Article 18(1)). However, the terms of limitation of Article 19(3) differ in important particulars from those of its counterparts. Freedom of Expression may be restricted according to Article 19(3) on the basis of ‘respect of the rights or reputations of others’ (rather than ‘the rights and freedoms of others’ provided for in Articles 12(4), 21 and 22(2), or the ‘fundamental rights and freedoms of others’ in the case of Article 18(3)).
eBook - PDFYour Rights
The Liberty Guide to Human Rights
- Megan Addis, Penelope Morrow(Authors)
- 2005(Publication Date)
- Pluto Press(Publisher)
Anthony Hudson 9 The Right of Free Expression This chapter deals with: • The European Convention on Human Rights • Defamation • Copyright and allied property rights • Criminal law restrictions on Freedom of Expression • Contempt of court • Controls on broadcasting, films, videos and cable • Further information Freedom of Expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. It is applicable not only to information or ideas that are favourable, received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Freedom of Expression is of particular importance as far as the press is concerned because it is incumbent on the press to impart information and ideas on political issues and other areas of public interest. 9.1 THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) protects the right to Freedom of Expression. Prior to the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), the right to Freedom of Expression was a negative one: you were free to express yourself, unless the law otherwise prevented you from doing so. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found English and Welsh domestic law wanting on numerous occasions. With the incorporation of the Convention into English and Welsh domestic law, the right to Freedom of Expression is now expressly guaranteed. However, the right to Freedom of Expression in Article 10 is not absolute. Interferences with the right to Freedom of Expression may be permitted if they are prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and are necessary in a democratic society, that is, satisfy a pressing social need. The legitimate purposes for which Freedom of Expression can be limited are: • National security, territorial integrity or public safety.
eBook - PDF- Jan Oster(Author)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
21 See, e.g., the First Amendment to the US Constitution (‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble’), Articles 4, 8 and 9 German Basic Law, Articles 17 to 19 Italian Constitution, Articles 9 and 11 ECHR, or Articles 10 and 12 EUChFR. Theory of media freedom 27 far they have been fairly successful in doing so. 22 Against this back- ground, there is no compelling reason to refrain from conceptualising media freedom as a fundamental right. And the starting point for this analysis is Freedom of Expression theory and doctrine. It has been shown in the previous sections that neither Freedom of Expression theory, nor doctrine, may claim absolute prevalence regarding the protection of speech in general. Some theories focus on the role of the speaker; others on the effect of the speech on society in general. International adjudicators apply a more consequentialist and objectivist approach to Freedom of Expression, while the US Supreme Court’s jurisprudence reveals an individualist and sceptical stance. However, it is argued here that a Media Freedom Principle should be conceptualised across these antithetical positions based on a discourse theory of media freedom. Such a discourse theory includes normative connotations of media freedom stronger than those of the liberal model, but weaker than those found in the civic republican model. It recognises the importance of the media for society as a whole, but does not neglect media freedom as an individual liberty. Whereas a purely liberal view of Freedom of Expression would ignore the importance of the media for the public good, an objectivist expression of the civic republican view tends towards paternalism by prescribing what to publish – and even worse, what not to publish. Paternalism, as Kant argued, ‘would be the greatest conceivable Despotism’ (emphasis original).
eBook - ePubFree Speech and Censorship
Examining the Facts
- H. L. Pohlman(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- ABC-CLIO(Publisher)
Whitney v. California , 274 U.S. 357, 375 (1927)). Free speech is the means by which individuals can reach their full potential by making decisions that develop their faculties and shape their personalities, an experience that is not just a means to an end, but an end in itself. This justification for freedom of speech delivers the broadest protection for speech. Limits on speech are generally suspect since no one knows beforehand what speech is vital to individual growth and development. This end, however, does not necessarily mean that freedom of speech has no limits. Even if freedom of speech is partly justified as a prerequisite for individual growth and development, the government’s interest in placing restraints on certain speech activities can, of course, outweigh the intellectual force of this justification, just as it can, in various contexts, outweigh the force of the arguments that free speech is necessary for representative democracy, the preservation of our liberties, or the discovery of truth.Further Reading
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1978.Post, Robert C. Democracy, Expertise, Academic Freedom: A First Amendment Jurisprudence for the Modern State . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012.Schauer, Frederick. “Free Speech, the Search for Truth, and the Problem of Collective Knowledge.” SMU Law Review 70 (2017): 231–251.Sunstein, Cass. Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech . New York: Free Press, 1995.“Symposium: Individual Autonomy and Free Speech.” Constitutional Commentary 27 (2011): 249–416.Volokh, Eugene. “In Defense of the Marketplace of Ideas/Search for Truth as a Theory of Free Speech Protection.” Virginia Law Review 97 (2011): 595–601.Q2. Does the Constitutional Right of free Speech Only Include the Right to Speak and Publish?
Answer : No. The scope of today’s constitutional right of free speech extends well beyond the spoken and written word, to include a wide array of expressive forms of conduct and a number of subsidiary rights logically linked to freedom of speech.The Facts : The Supreme Court has expanded the scope of freedom of speech beyond speech and the written word throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. It is, however, not always clear which of the four major justifications discussed in Q1 sustains the expansion in specific cases. It is, therefore, a useful exercise to consider whether the extensions can be vindicated in terms of one or more of the four major justifications of freedom of speech. One of the Court’s first expansions of free speech occurred in Stromberg v. California
eBook - PDF- Steven J. Heyman(Author)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- Yale University Press(Publisher)
47 4 Free Speech in a Framework of Rights In the previous chapter, I outlined some of the main ideas of a rights-based or liberal humanist approach to the First Amendment. My goal in the next two chapters is to develop those ideas into a general theory of the founda-tions and limits of Freedom of Expression. On this view, rights reflect what it means for human beings to be free in different areas of life, including (1) the external world; (2) the internal domain of thought and feeling; (3) the politi-cal, social, and cultural life of the community; and (4) the intellectual and spiritual realm. These four elements correspond to the major justifications that have been advanced for freedom of speech and thought: that they are instances of external freedom in general; that they are essential for individual self-realization; that they are central to democratic self-government; and that they are necessary for the pursuit of truth. At the same time, these four ele-ments give rise to other individual and collective rights that are also entitled to protection under the law. In this way, we can view freedom of speech and thought as existing within a broader framework of rights based on respect for human dignity and autonomy—a framework that not only justifies the liber-ties protected by the First Amendment, but also enables us to identify their limits. ∞ 48 Rights-Based Theory of the First Amendment Free Speech and External Rights Our ideas of freedom and dignity begin with what it means to be a free person in the external world. This leads to the first category of fundamental rights. Individuals have a right to life and, more broadly, to personal security, or the right to control one’s own mind and body, free from violence or inter-ference by others. This power over oneself includes the freedom to direct one’s outward actions and movements without constraint. Finally, to live and act in the world, individuals must have some control over external things.
eBook - PDFEuropean Convention on Human Rights
Commentary
- Christoph Grabenwarter(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Beck/Hart(Publisher)
Article 10 – Freedom of Expression 1. Everyone has the right to Freedom of Expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broad-casting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and respon-sibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Article 10 – Liberte´ d ’ expression 1. Toute personne a droit a ` la liberte´ d ’ expression. Ce droit comprend la liberte´ d ’ opinion et la liberte´ de recevoir ou de communiquer des informations ou des ide ´es sans qu ’ il puisse y avoir inge´rence d ’ autorite ´s publiques et sans conside´ration de frontie`re. Le pre ´sent article n ’ empeˆche pas les Etats de soumettre les entreprises de radiodiffusion, de cine ´ma ou de te ´le´vision a ` un re ´gime d ’ autorisations.
eBook - PDFThe Supreme Court and American Democracy
Case Studies on Judicial Review and Public Policy
- Earl Pollock(Author)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- Greenwood(Publisher)
10 Freedom of Speech The Primacy of Freedom of Speech The next four chapters deal with key aspects of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This chapter focuses on freedom of speech; Chapter 11 on freedom of the press; Chapter 12 on the Establishment Clause; and Chapter 13 on the Free Exercise Clause. Each of the liberties protected by the First Amendment is an essential element of a democratic society. But freedom of speech occupies a unique status because it is the necessary foundation for each of the others (and, indeed, for most other rights pro- tected by the Constitution). As Justice Benjamin Cardozo pointed out: “Freedom of Expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 327 (1937). For example, without free- dom of speech, how could there be freedom of religion? Likewise, without freedom of speech, how could there be a meaningful right to assemble or to petition the government to redress grievances? Historians sharply differ on what the framers of the Bill of Rights viewed as the scope of freedom of speech. Thus, although the question is much disputed, some his- torians contend that as originally understood the First Amendment only prohibited “prior restraints” on speech and did not bar prosecutions for sedition or libel against the government.
eBook - PDFFreedom of Speech
Rights and Liberties under the Law
- Ken I. Kersch(Author)
- 2003(Publication Date)
- ABC-CLIO(Publisher)
1990. The First Amendment, Democracy, and Romance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Smolla, Rodney. 1992. Free Speech in an Open Society. New York: Knopf. Sullivan, Kathleen M., and Gerald Gunther. 1999. First Amendment Law. New York: Foundation Press. Sunstein, Cass. 1993. Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York: Free Press. Tocqueville, Alexis de. [1833] 1969. Democracy in America. Ed. J. P. Mayer. Trans. George Lawrence. New York: Perennial Library. Trollope, Frances. [1832] 1960. Domestic Manners of the Americans. New York: Vintage Books. Page 39 Volokh, Eugene. 1995. “How Harassment Law Restricts Free Speech.” Rutgers Law Review 47: 561–578. White, G. Edward. 1996. “The First Amendment Comes of Age.” Michigan Law Review 95: 299–392. Page 40 This page intentionally left blank Page 41 2 Origins and Early Development FOR AMERICANS TODAY, freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected personal liberty, a fundamental and selfevident right of each of us. But the idea of a right to “freedom of speech” did not originally entail a personal right available equally to everyone. How, after all, could society function and sustain itself in a chaotic freefor all in which authority figures could be criticized and mocked and in which animosities between individuals and factions could be stirred and inflamed? The idea that ordinary individuals had a right to free speech, though perhaps not beyond imagining, was a marginal idea for much of the AngloAmerican legal tradition. Does this mean that in earlier periods of AngloAmerican legal history, ordinary people believed they had no general immunity from prosecution for what they said? Not completely. For centuries, people had demanded a right to speak freely, chiefly to pray and to praise God as they saw fit. Other than that, though, they kept a careful lid on their public utterances. Failure to do so, they knew, could lead them into serious trouble.
eBook - PDF- Wayne A. Meeks(Author)
- 1992(Publication Date)
- Yale University Press(Publisher)
However, in regard to press criticism of public authorities (“public officials,” public figures’), certain emotional reactions of the victim were gradually disregarded in favor of uninhibited speech. 82 In these contexts the position of the law quite often is that the emotional reaction of the victim can be disregarded or discounted as she deliberately submitted herself to public scrutiny, and further in this context negative emotions are “normal” in the sense of not being trou-bling: the political discourse is full of demeaning attacks and counterattacks anyway; 83 the discourse among politicians is emotionally driven and dirty and therefore without triggering the need for censorial intervention. Anger answering anger and insults answering insults are normal: there is no reason to intervene in the debate, and free speech emerges nearly unscratched. 237 FREEDOM TO EXPRESS WHAT? Freedom of Expression has a point and function in a political community operating according to the principles of modernity, where people dare to know only if the right to speak includes the right to offend and be mistaken. The European Court of Human Rights, which both reflects this prevailing European understanding of human rights and helps to form it, recognized this concept when it expanded freedom of speech to include protection of offensive and insulting expressions. 84 In fact, speech is meaningful only if it can offend; only then can it be effective for change. Otherwise, it remains of no account. The language of love and esteem builds community, estab-lishes bonds, and reinforces the self, and it is wonderful, but it is of limited relevance in the search for truth. Speech has its full effect upon others, including the addressee, when it stirs visceral outrage; it is effective if the addressee or the audience wants to make the speaker disappear, because she says what we would rather not hear, because we are exposed .
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
