Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies, where it is understood to outlaw censorship. Free speech is nowadays also protected by international human rights law, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries.

Free speech internationally

In democratic countries, freedom of speech is taken for granted, though the exact degree of freedom varies between countries and jurisdictions. This freedom generally includes:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• the right to criticize the political system and political leaders, including those in power;
• the right to criticize public and corporate policies;
• the right to criticize religious and political ideas.

Still, in no country is freedom of speech absolute. Limits include, for instance, the prohibition of libel and slander (or defamation) – that is, publishing or saying things that are detrimental to one person in an "unfair" way, though, again, the exact limits of what is prosecutable vary. Some democratic countries banish so-called "hate speech" – speech that is intended to stir up aggression against certain groups for religious, racial, etc. reasons.

Related Topics:
Libel - Slander - Defamation - Hate speech

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Australia

Unlike most other nations that legally protect freedom of speech, Australia does not have a bill or declaration of rights. However, in 1992 the High Court of Australia judged in the case of Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth that the Australian Constitution, by providing for a system of representative and responsible government, implied the protection of political communication as an essential element of that system. This freedom of political communication is not a broad freedom of speech as in other countries, but merely a freedom which protects political free speech. It is also a 'shield', rather than a 'sword' - as it does not establish a cause of action by itself.

Related Topics:
Australia - 1992 - High Court of Australia - Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth - Australian Constitution

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Africa

The majority of African constitutions provide legal protection for freedom of speech. However, these rights are exercised inconsistently in practice. The replacement of authoritarian regimes in Kenya and Ghana has substantially improved the situation in those countries. On the other hand, Eritrea allows no independent media and uses draft evasion as a pretext to crack down on any dissent, spoken or otherwise. One of the poorest and smallest nations in Afica, Eritrea is now the largest prison for jounalists; since 2001, fourteen journalistes have been emprisoned in unknown places without a trial.Sudan, Libya, and Equatorial Guinea also have repressive laws and practices. In addition, many state radio stations (which are the primary source of news for illiterate people) are under tight control and programs, especially talk shows providing a forum to complain about the government, are often censored.

Related Topics:
Kenya - Ghana - Eritrea - Sudan - Libya - Equatorial Guinea

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Freedom of speech is increasing in oil-producing countries (such as Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Cameroon, and Gabon), because it gives the oil companies a good impression.

Related Topics:
Chad - Cameroon - Gabon

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Asia

Several Asia countries guarantee freedoms of speech to their citizens. They are not however implemented in practice at most places. Countries like Vietnam, Myanmar, North Korea and Central Asian Republics like Turkmenistan brutally repress freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is also severely suppressed in China, though with the economic progress, those barriers have been reducing.

Related Topics:
Asia - Vietnam - Myanmar - North Korea - Turkmenistan - China

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

India

The Indian constitution guarantees freedom of speech to every citizen and there have been landmark cases in the Indian Supreme Court that have affirmed the nation's policy of allowing free press and freedom of expression to every citizen. In India, citizens are free to criticize politics, politicians, bureaucracy and policies. The freedoms are comparable to those in the United States and Western European democracies.

Related Topics:
Indian constitution - Indian Supreme Court

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Article 19 of the Indian constitution states

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

All citizens shall have the right

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(c) to form associations or unions;

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

European Union

The European Convention on Human Rights, when signed on 4 November 1950, proclaimed a broad range of human rights already in existence in the signatories countries (the members of the Council of Europe). These rights include Article 10, which entitles all citizens to free expression.

Related Topics:
European Convention on Human Rights - 4 November - 1950 - Council of Europe

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

: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 broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It also included some other restrictions:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, 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 the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Each country then had to alter their laws to confirm with this, where necessary. In 1998, the United Kingdom implemented the Human Rights Act which granted the judiciary power to apply these rights to cases, and a requirement for Parliament to check compatibility of new laws with the Convention rights. If a judge finds a law to be 'incompatible' with the given Convention rights, then the law must be amended to incorporate these protections.

Related Topics:
1998 - United Kingdom - Human Rights Act

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

European-wide cases have been heard in the European Court of Justice as well as the European Court of Human Rights to guarantee these privileges - and cases have tested the need for professional integrity (as a journalist or lawyer) and the compatibility of one with the Human Rights law.

Related Topics:
European Court of Justice - European Court of Human Rights

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A major issue regarding freedom of speech is the application of defamation (libel) laws. Some countries have been criticized for putting too much burden on the defendant; a recent example is the so-called "McLibel case", against the United Kingdom. http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&key=42244&portal=hbkm&source=external&table=285953B33D3AF94893DC49EF6600CEBD49

Related Topics:
Defamation - United Kingdom

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

France

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, states, in its article 11:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, save to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In addition, France adheres to the European Convention on Human Rights and accepts the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The right to criticize politicians and the government is cherished and taken for granted by the French population. France has a tradition of political lampooning and satirical writing. Examples of this tendency include the frequent depiction in a popular television program of president Jacques Chirac as a beer-guzzling incompetent, thief and liar.

Related Topics:
Popular television program - President - Jacques Chirac

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

French law prohibits public speech or writings that incite to racial or religious hatred, as well as those that deny the Jewish Holocaust. Proponents and supporters of these measures allege that they fight against the spread of neo-nazi ideas and a climate of racism; opponents contend that these laws stifle the freedom of speech in France, and make it difficult to engage in the criticism of the practices of some religions, or in the discussion of immigration. The only major party opposed to those laws are the National Front whose leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, has been a target of them.

Related Topics:
Holocaust - Neo-nazi - Racism - National Front - Jean-Marie Le Pen

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In December 2004, a controversial addition was made to the law, criminalizing the prohibition to hatred or violence against people because of their sexual orientation.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

France does not implement any preliminary government censorship for written publications; plaintiffs have to demonstrate the violation of law in court. However, press publications must have an identifiable director of publishing, and publications directed towards the youth have supplemental obligations. Also, the government has a commission recommending movie classifications, the decisions of which can be appealed before the courts. Finally, the government restricts the right of broadcasting to authorized radio and television channels; the authorizations are granted by an independent administrative authority; this authority has recently removed the broadcasting authorizations of some foreign channels because of their antisemitic content.

Related Topics:
Movie classification - Radio - Television

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The 1994 Toubon Law restricts the use of foreign language words in government official publications and commercial speech; it has often been incorrectly described in the English-speaking press as prohibiting English words from all publications and web pages in France.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

External links

• Law of July 29, 1881, on the Freedom of the Press (up-to-date amended version)

Germany

Reporters without borders world-wide press freedom index 2002 ranked Germany 7th out of 139 countries (in a three way tie). Freedom of speech is guaranteed by article 5 of the German Grundgesetz ("basic Law"). There are, however, some restrictions, for example personal insults or hate speech (Volksverhetzung). The latter includes the propagation of neo-Nazi ideas and the use of Nazi symbols like the swastika, except for purposes of art, research or education. These restrictions are justified as being necessary to protect the democratic constitution of Germany. In fact the German Grundgesetz does not protect Freedom of speech per see but the Freedom of expression of opinion which results in subtle differences concerning speech which is not meant to express an opinion.

Related Topics:
Reporters without borders - Grundgesetz - Neo-Nazi - Nazi symbols - Swastika

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Poland

"Statutes of Wiślica" introduced in 1347 by Casimir_III_of_Poland

Related Topics:
1347 - Casimir_III_of_Poland

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

codified freedom of speech in medieval Poland e.g. book publishers were not to be

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

persecuted.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As of 2005, people are sometimes convicted and/or detained for about one day for insults to religious feeling (of the Catholic Church) or to heads of state who are not yet, but soon will be, on Polish territory.

Related Topics:
As of 2005 - Catholic Church - Heads of state

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On July 18 2003, Dorota Nieznalska was sentenced to six months of community service for having published an art work showing a penis on a cross, which was considered to be an insult to religious feeling.

Related Topics:
July 18 - 2003 - Dorota Nieznalska

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On January 5 2005, Jerzy Urban was sentenced to a fine of 20,000 złoty (about 5000 euros) for having insulted Pope John Paul II as a visiting head of state.

Related Topics:
January 5 - 2005 - Jerzy Urban - Euro - Pope John Paul II

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

During January 26-January 27 2005, about 30 human rights activists were temporarily detained by the police, allegedly for insulting Vladimir Putin as a visiting head of state. The activists were released after about 30 hours and only one was actually charged with insulting a foreign head of state. http://www.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/112837.shtml

Related Topics:
January 26 - January 27 - 2005 - Human right - Vladimir Putin

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Republic of Ireland

Freedom of speech is protected by Article 40.6.1 of the Irish constitution. However the article qualifies this right, providing that it may not be used to undermine "public order or morality or the authority of the State". Furthermore, the constitution explicitly requires that the publication of "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" be a criminal offence. Under the European Convention On Human Rights Act, 2003, all of the rights afforded by the European Convention form an integral part of the Republic of Ireland's laws. The act is, however, subordinate to the constitution.

Related Topics:
Irish constitution - European Convention On Human Rights Act, 2003 - Republic of Ireland

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

North America

Canada

The constitutional provision that guarantees Freedom of expression in Canada is section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Related Topics:
Freedom of expression - Canada - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The section 1 of the Charter states:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This section is double edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The former case has been used to uphold limits on legislation which are used to prevent hate speech and obscenity.

Related Topics:
Hate speech - Obscenity

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In April 29, 2004, Bill C-250 was passed which includes as hate speech propaganda against people based on their sexual orientation. It is now illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation. However, under section 319 on hate speech, a person cannot be convicted of hate speech "if the person can establish that the statements made are true."

Related Topics:
Bill C-250 - Propaganda - Sexual orientation

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

An example of the limiting of obscenity is that case Forget v. Quebec (Attorney General) 1988, (2 S.C.R. 90) decision in which the Supreme Court invalidated the Charter of the French Language also known as Bill 101. One of the reasons it gave for invalidating it was that it was not a reasonable limitation under sec. 9 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms and under art. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This decision was one of the first cases after the Oakes test was established. Bill 101 was subsequently put into effect though by invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Charter.

Related Topics:
Forget v. Quebec (Attorney General) - 1988 - Charter of the French Language - Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Oakes test - Notwithstanding clause

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

United States

Main article: Freedom of speech in the United States

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are many exceptions to this general rule, including copyright protection, the Miller test for obscenity and greater regulation of so-called commercial speech, such as advertising. The Miller test in particular rarely comes into effect.

Related Topics:
United States - First Amendment - United States Constitution - Copyright - Miller test - Obscenity - Advertising

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The principle of freedom of speech promotes dialogues on public issues, but it is most relevant to speech which is unpopular at the time it is made. As a Pennsylvania state legislator, Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, once argued in a legislative debate, "Freedom of speech which is limited to freedom to say whatever a majority of the Pennsylvania legislature agrees with is not real freedom of speech".

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Generally, the U.S. has a liberal policy on freedom of expression, with no formal government censorship of the news media (with the exception of decency standards for radio and television) or creative arts. When expressive content is held to lie beyond the protection of the First Amendment, the finding is usually made by a court during a prosecution after the content is published or publicly exhibited; courts view "prior restraint" of expression with great suspicion (see below). It might nonetheless be argued that the threat of post-facto punishment is sufficient to prevent certain types of speech from being uttered (or specifically, broadcast) in the first place.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Many Americans deeply cherish their right of free speech and take it for granted.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

However, this attitude is not universal. A 2004 survey conducted by the University of Connecticut questioned 112,003 U.S. high school students and found the following:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• 36% believe newspapers should be required to seek government approval of each story before publishing it;
• 32% believe the press has "too much freedom"
• 74% believe it should be illegal to burn or deface the U.S flag.

Some Americans grossly overestimate the degree of censorship which occurs in other First World countries, and believe that completely free speech exists – and only exists – in the USA. This is not the case. The U.S. Government directly controls speech in a number of areas, most notably in the case of the Federal Communications Commission regulating broadcast radio and television. Much content which would be considered unexceptional in most other First World countries is directly censored by the FCC, since it falls foul of the "community standards" definition of obscenity or indecency. An increasing amount of video content is now sent over cable and satellite systems (thus escaping FCC review), and there has been some debate over whether the FCC should have jurisdiction over such communications systems.

Related Topics:
First World - Federal Communications Commission - Obscenity

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Similar censorship applies to items sent via the United States Postal Service. Certain state and local governments (it depends on the region) regularly exercise censorship power in their licensing of theatrical performances, movies and other entertainment or artistic works. (See Roth v. United States and Miller v. California for more on the "community standards" test.)

Related Topics:
United States Postal Service - Roth v. United States - Miller v. California

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

However it is true that in terms of purely political or religious speech, and freedom of the (printed) press, the U.S. experiences significantly less censorship than most other countries. For instance, a U.S. newspaper may freely express opinions which in other places might be criminalized as "hate speech," and organizations dedicated to such speech may freely march and speak in public (after having complied with all relevant content-neutral regulations). For these reasons, the Web services of most neo-nazis organizations, and most Holocaust deniers, etc. are hosted in the United States. This is a point of contention with some other countries and some groups, which point out that these organizations advocate policies that historically resulted in the deprivation of free speech and democratic rights, as well as the mass extermination of millions.

Related Topics:
Web - Neo-nazi - Holocaust denier

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the federal and state governments cannot normally tell newspapers (or others) to not publish something, just because of the potential for damaging national security (as in the Pentagon Papers case) or harming private citizens (such as the accuser of Kobe Bryant). However, the Court has said that in exceptional cases such prior restraint might be permissible. As long as the newspapers are acquiring information in good faith, the government and private citizens bear the burden of keeping information secret if they do not want such information to be published.

Related Topics:
Pentagon Papers - Kobe Bryant - Prior restraint

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

An area of growing concern is the use of copyright laws to restrict free speech, more particularly with the enactment of the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). For instance, the Church of Scientology has waged successful legal battles to restrict the diffusion of some documents, which it considers its intellectual property. Critics contend that this is merely a way to prevent criticism — critics which do not quote authoritative Scientology documents are deemed to be discussing things they do not know about, and those who show authoritative documents are prosecuted for copyright infringement. Scientology has used the DMCA to force notable Web sites (including the Google search engine) to remove all references to the Operation Clambake site, which published such documents.

Related Topics:
Copyright - Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Church of Scientology - Intellectual property - Google - Operation Clambake

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Neither the federal nor state governments engage in preliminary censorship of movies. However, the Motion Picture Association of America has a rating system, and movies not rated by the MPAA cannot expect anything but a very limited release in theatres, making the system almost compulsory. Since the organization is private, no recourse to the courts is available. The rules implemented by the MPAA are more restrictive than the ones implemented by most First World countries. However, unlike comparable public or private institutions in other countries, the MPAA does not have the power to limit the retail sale of movies in tape or disc form based on their content. Since 2000, it has become quite common for movie studios to release "unrated" DVD versions of films with MPAA-censored content put back in.

Related Topics:
Motion Picture Association of America - Rating system - 2000

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Like all other constitutional freedoms, freedom of speech is more a contested terrain than an absolute principle. The repeal of the fairness doctrine limited the right to reply to television opinions, but the proliferation of new media outlets has expanded media access. The ever increasing cost of purchasing a newspaper, television station, or radio station has limited free speech, but the Internet and new forms of low power radio stations have increased it. What steps the courts of the United States will take to enforce freedom of speech depends somewhat on the identity of the judges appointed and the advocates for clients who appear before them.

Related Topics:
Judge - Advocate

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Within the U.S., the freedom of speech also varies widely from one state to the next. Of all states, the state of California permits its citizens the broadest possible range of free speech under the state constitution (whose declaration of rights includes a strong affirmative right to free speech in addition to a negative right paralleling the federal prohibition on laws that abridge the freedom of speech). Thanks to the Pruneyard case, California residents are even allowed to engage in free speech on other persons' private property.

Related Topics:
California - Pruneyard

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In contrast, other states, like Indiana and Tennessee, are renowned for their rather narrow interpretation of the right of free speech. For example, Indiana lawyers have risked disbarment for foolish insinuations which would be ignored (or at worse, would earn a mild reprimand) in a California court.

Related Topics:
Indiana - Tennessee

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~