Freedom of Speech

Lois mémorielles et liberté d’expression : De la controverse à l’ambiguïté

by Laurent Pech

Note sous la décision du Conseil constitutionnel n° 2012-647 DC du 28 février 2012 (à paraître dans la RFDC)

Cette note examine la décision du Conseil Constitutionnel français du 28 février 2012 dans laquelle le Conseil juge... more Cette note examine la décision du Conseil Constitutionnel français du 28 février 2012 dans laquelle le Conseil juge contraire à la liberté d’expression la loi visant à réprimer la contestation de l’existence de génocides reconnus par la loi au motif que le Parlement ne saurait punir la « contestation de l’existence et de la qualification juridique de crimes qu’il aurait lui-même reconnus et qualifiés comme tels ». Une fois l’objet et le contenu de loi déférée clarifiés, la teneur de la décision du Conseil constitutionnel et son impact potentiel sont examinés. De manière générale, cette note défend le point de vue que la décision du Conseil offre un chef d’œuvre de raisonnement aussi succinct qu’ambiguë et qui ne paraît guère à la hauteur des enjeux soulevés par cette affaire.

Freedom of expression, hate speech, and models of personhood in Hungarian political discourse

by David Boromisza-Habashi

Boromisza-Habashi, D. (2007). Freedom of expression, hate speech, and models of personhood in Hungarian political discourse. Communication Law Review, 7, 54-74.

In this ethnography of communication study I will explore how the cultural concepts “freedom of expression/opinion”... more In this ethnography of communication study I will explore how the cultural concepts “freedom of expression/opinion” (véleménynyilvánítás szabadsága) and “hate speech” (gyűlöletbeszéd) function in a specific cultural discursive system, Hungarian political discourse. I will accomplish this goal through the analysis of situated interaction at a series of parliamentary committee meetings. The ethnographic data under consideration consists of instances in which members of the Hungarian Parliament discussed the implications of a bill proposing changes to the criminal code regarding hate speech. I will show that the freedom of expression as a cultural concept is inextricably linked with the concept of “the violation of human dignity” in situated political discourse. This linkage, however, becomes the site of conflict as it is interpreted in competing ways by those who see human dignity as the possession of persons-as-individuals and those who assign it to persons-as-members-of-communities. These models of personhood give rise to conflicting communal norms, and the norms animate conflicting proposals for sanctioning hate speech. My analysis joins a small but increasing body of field-level studies of the freedom of expression that approach the concept of free expression as a cultural construct.

The Rainbow Warrior bombers, media and the judiciary

by David Robie

Robie, D. (2008). The Rainbow Warrior bombers, media and the judiciary Australian Journalism Review 29(2):49-62. ISSN 0810 2686

In July 1985, the Greenpeace environmental flagship Rainbow Warrior was moored in Auckland’s Waitemata Harbour, about... more In July 1985, the Greenpeace environmental flagship Rainbow Warrior was moored in Auckland’s Waitemata Harbour, about to embark on a protest campaign voyage against French nuclear testing at Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia. Secret agents of the French external intelligence service DGSE planted two limpet mines on the ship’s hull on the night of July 10, sinking it and killing Portuguese-born photojournalist Fernando Pereira. Two of the secret agents were arrested on July 12 during an exhaustive police investigation. The Rainbow Warrior affair, involving state terrorism by a friendly nation, became iconic in New Zealand history because it highlighted NZ opposition to nuclear testing in the Pacific. New Zealand High Court closed circuit television (CCTV) footage of the criminal proceedings showed the two French agents – Major Alain Mafart and Captain Dominique Prieur – pleading guilty to manslaughter after being charged with murder. During the next two decades, five separate attempts were made to gain legal access to the videotape for news and current affairs programs. For the first four attempts, lawyers acting for Mafart and Prieur succeeded in blocking public release of the footage on privacy and administration of justice grounds. However, the fifth attempt, by state-owned public broadcaster Television New Zealand, was finally successful in the Court of Appeal and the footage was broadcast on August 7, 2006. A further appeal to the Supreme Court by the agents was dismissed. This article analyses a case study of the 20-year struggle to broadcast this historic footage and how a remarkable triumph in the public right to know was achieved and balanced against privacy values.

La libertà di espressione negli Stati Uniti d'America

by Riccardo de Caria

in Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Pubblico, 2010, f. 2, 607-612 (Giuffrè, Milano)

L’articolo costituisce un resoconto della John E. Sullivan Lecture 2009, tenuta dall’illustre costituzionalista... more L’articolo costituisce un resoconto della John E. Sullivan Lecture 2009, tenuta dall’illustre costituzionalista americano Akhil Reed Amar. In questa lezione, il Professor Amar ha presentato un nuovo possibile argomento a sostegno della libertà di parola nell’ordinamento americano, libertà che com’è noto ha un ruolo assolutamente centrale nella costruzione di quel sistema giuridico. Amar ha definito questo argomento “the argument from enactment”, cioè derivato dal processo di approvazione stesso della Costituzione americana.
L’articolo ripercorre fedelmente il testo della lezione, con l’aggiunta di alcuni commenti e riflessioni ritenute utili per il lettore italiano. Dopo l’introduzione (1.), vengono esaminati gli argomenti tradizionali elaborati dalla dottrina costituzionale americana a fondamento della libertà di espressione, ovvero: a) l’analisi della giurisprudenza; b) la struttura del testo costituzionale; c) la sua storia; d) il dato testuale (2.).
Successivamente, viene presentata e argomentata la tesi sostenuta dal Professor Amar, ovvero che è necessario, come suggeriva lo stesso Madison, guardare al processo di approvazione della Costituzione americana: durante questo processo, che condusse infine alla protezione della libertà di parola nel Primo Emendamento, fu già esercitata una amplissima e quasi illimitata libertà di parola (3.), al punto che si può concludere che la pratica della libertà di espressione sia stata precedente al suo riconoscimento espresso nel testo costituzionale (4.).

Neutralité du net, filtrage et régulation du réseau: libertés américaines, liberté française

by Samuel Goëta

John Stuart Mill, yttrandefrihet och internet [John Stuart Mill, freedom of speech and the internet]

by William Bülow

Forthcoming in Tidskrift för Politisk Filosofi [Journal for Political Philosophy]

John Stuart Mill has more than anyone famously argued in defense for the freedom of speech. This paper address the... more John Stuart Mill has more than anyone famously argued in defense for the freedom of speech. This paper address the question how Mill would have conceived the social impacts of the internet and for the freedom of speech. It is pointed out that Mills arguments for the freedom of speech presupposes a shared public sphere in which opinions are addressed and critically examined. Put together with a view elaborated by Cass R. Sunstein and others, according to which internet might threaten to diminish the public sphere, it is argued that Mill might have conceived risks with an extended reliance on the internet as a main tool for democracy and freedom of speech.

fighting nazi and anti-semitic material on the internet: the yahoo! case and its global implications

by Benoit Frydman

with Isabelle Rorive, published on the website of the Programme in Comparative Media Law & Policy (PCMLP) at Oxford University.

The paper provides an analysis of the French Yahoo! case, a landmark case in global internet law, which led to the... more The paper provides an analysis of the French Yahoo! case, a landmark case in global internet law, which led to the removal of Nazi paraphernalia from Yahoo! auction website and was the starting point of a fierce and spectacular transatlantic judicial battle about freedom of speech and content monitoring on the Internet.

2009 Chapter in Beignier et al Droit de la presse et medias

by Laurent Pech

L’importance de la liberté d’expression, en tant que garantie de la démocratie, a naturellement conduit à la... more L’importance de la liberté d’expression, en tant que garantie de la démocratie, a naturellement conduit à la consécration solennelle de ce droit dans les textes constitutionnels ou internationaux. Cette consécration peut toutefois revêtir des formes distinctes. En Europe, les textes constitutionnels ou encore celui de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme traduisent une approche qui peut être qualifiée de « positive » : la consécration du droit à la liberté d’expression est immédiatement suivie par l’admission expresse que son exercice concret peut être soumis à des réserves ou limitations . Pour ne citer qu’un exemple éminent, l’article 11 de la Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen du 26 août 1789 énonce ainsi que « La libre communication des pensées et des opinions est un des droits les plus précieux de l’Homme : tout citoyen peut donc parler, écrire, imprimer librement sauf à répondre de l’abus de cette liberté dans les cas déterminés par la loi ». La Constitution américaine semble refléter au contraire une approche qui peut être qualifiée de « négative » dans la mesure où le Premier amendement interdit toute intervention législative : « Le Congrès ne pourra faire aucune loi [shall make no law] concernant l’établissement d’une religion ou interdisant son libre exercice, restreignant la liberté de parole ou de la presse, ou touchant au droit des citoyens de s’assembler paisiblement et d’adresser des pétitions au Gouvernement pour le redressement de leurs griefs ». Même s’il convient de nuancer fortement la portée, en pratique, de cette interdiction de poser des limites législatives à l’exercice du droit à la liberté d’expression, l’originalité de l’expérience américaine oblige à relever en priorité, et dans un premier temps, les éléments essentiels du droit fondamental à la liberté d’expression dans le cadre européen et notamment français avant de s’attacher, dans un deuxième temps, à démontrer que cette liberté n’a jamais été consacrée comme une liberté juridiquement supérieure ou absolue.

Obraz wolności słowa i prasy w Turcji na podstawie regularnych raportów Komisji Europejskiej [The image of freedom of speech and the press in Turkey on the basis of EU Reports]

by Lukasz Szulc

2008 Zeszyty prasoznawcze [Media journal] - ISSN 0555-0025 - 3-4(195-196), p. 91-115.

PLAINTIFF'S COUNTER RESPONSE TO THE PITTSBURGH BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND/OR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

by Jacquelyn N'Jai

The Board filed vexatious and malicious injunction to deprive plaintiff of all her civil and constitutional rights despite whether the claims were prima facie or not and despite whether she had good faith legal reason to do so, and from 11/2010-5/25/2011 is still pending.  The Board also filed a Motion to Dismiss and never once applied any of the legal standards that should liberally construe plaintiff’s complaint, which require seeing it in light most favorable to Plaintiff, and which require to take her claims as true.  Although, the first Motion to Dismiss was denied though without prejudice, instead the Board keeps coming up with the identical false accusations that no matter what claims have held relief that was granted, in other cases, precedent or not, it seeks a motion to dismiss with prejudice and that seeks an injunctive relief (sanctions) that the court bar Plaintiff from ever filing a claim in court against it whether prima facie or not in the future. 

"A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate,... more "A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition."From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Deployment of "Anti-Semitism,"" Controversy," and "Neutrality" in Ginsberg v. NCSU

by Terri Ginsberg

Arab Studies Quarterly 33.3-4 (Summer/Fall 2011): 228-243

Freedom of speech in the Pacific: Don't shoot the messenger

by David Robie

Robie, D. (2002). Freedom of speech in the Pacific: Don't shoot the messenger Australian Journalism Review 24 (1) July 2002 pp 147-153.

Customary obligations and pressures are frequently a burden on journalists in the South Pacific. Such obstacles create... more Customary obligations and pressures are frequently a burden on journalists in the South Pacific. Such obstacles create difficulties for many journalists. The early stages of the reporting of George Speight’s attempted coup in Fiji during May 2000 posed ethical and cultural issues about independence and impartiality. Such issues and reporting conflict pose dilemmas for journalism education and training in the region. Often it takes raw courage to be a neophyte journalist in the Pacific. This article argues that a more pressing problem than government pressures in the Pacific is often self-censorship and manipulation of the media by a small clique.

Harm Principle, Offence Principle, and Hate Speech

by Raphael Cohen-almagor

One of my best articles, highlighting the Offense Principle as a possible, important ground for restricting free expression, originally published in Political Studies, Vol. XLI, No. 3 (1993), pp. 453-470. Reprinted in: Steven J. Heyman (ed.), Controversies in Constitutional Law: Hate Speech and the Constitution (New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc., 1996, Vol. II), pp. 277-294. This is an updated version for my Speech, Media and Ethics book (2005).

The primary aims are to formulate principles conducive to safeguarding fundamental civil rights and to employ the... more The primary aims are to formulate principles conducive to safeguarding fundamental civil rights and to employ the theory to analyse the Skokie affair. The focus is on the ethical question of the constraints on speech. I advance two arguments relating to the 'Harm Principle' and the 'Offence Principle'. Under the 'Harm Principle', restrictions on liberty may be prescribed when there are sheer threats of immediate violence against some individuals or groups. Under the 'Offence Principle', expressions which intend to inflict psychological offence are morally on a par with physical harm and thus there are grounds for abridging them. Moving from theory to practice, in the light of the formulated principles, the ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court which permitted the Nazis to hold a demonstration in Skokie is argued to be flawed.

Outrage au drapeau français, Flag Desecration américaine et liberté d’expression

by Philippe Mouron

Revue de la recherche juridique – Droit prospectif, 2011/2, à paraître

Commentaire du décret du 21 juillet 2010 relatif à l'incrimination de l'outrage au drapeau tricolore - Comparaison... more Commentaire du décret du 21 juillet 2010 relatif à l'incrimination de l'outrage au drapeau tricolore - Comparaison avec la conception américaine et la conception européenne - jurisprudence de la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis - Convention européenne des droits de l'Homme

Determining the Legal Limits Of the" Right to Beg": A Spatial Communication Argument

by Greg Lisby

Co-authored with Ginger Carter, published in Journal of Communication Inquiry (1995)

Anger and Courage: ‘Wilders’ and the politics of exclusion

by Bald de Vries

Commentary on the acquittal of Geert Wilders, written for the Guardian's Comment is free web environment.

The Constitutional Right to Express Hatred: A Comparative Analysis

by Hin-Yan Liu

King's Student Law Review (2009) Vol 1, 5-21.

The freedom of expression, often considered as a paragon of civil liberties, occupies a central position in numerous... more The freedom of expression, often considered as a paragon of civil liberties, occupies a central position in numerous domestic constitutional and international human rights treaty documents. An often neglected dimension of the freedom of speech is that it is not an unqualified right; the level of protection accorded depends both upon the nature of the speech as well as its potential impact. There is a perceptible, but ill-defined, boundary beyond which restrictions to purported speech will either not be considered as speech, or if it is, will be justifiably limited. While other forms of expression at the frontiers of free speech include pornography, in contradistinction to obscenity, and blasphemy, this article focuses exclusively on the margin associated with hate speech. In order to refine the appropriate balance between the freedom of expression and hate speech, this Article will employ a comparative analysis of the constitutional protection accorded by the United States, Canada and Germany. The high level of free speech guarantees in the United States will be shown to differ from the greater willingness to balance competing rights in other liberal democracies that recognise the potential for unfettered speech to curtail the dignity and equality of others.

Pornography as Protected Speech? The Margins of Constitutional Protection

by Hin-Yan Liu

UCL Human Rights Review, (2009) Volume 2, 223-239

The regulation of pornography is a particularly problematic area of freedom of speech law and its complexities are... more The regulation of pornography is a particularly problematic area of freedom of speech law and its complexities are highlighted by the widely varying approaches adopted in different jurisdictions. The initial question of whether sexually explicit material can be considered as speech will be addressed in a theoretical context. Then, the focus will move to the theoretically justifiable boundaries of the protection within the spectrum of sexually explicit material, with emphasis upon the distinction between pornography and obscenity. Finally, assuming that such material is protected by constitutional speech clauses, justifications for limited protection will be explored with reference to specific and potential harms. These theoretical intricacies will be analysed through the jurisprudence from the United States, Canada, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which represent the application of different theoretical positions. The relative strengths and weaknesses of these positions will then be considered with a view to forming a more coherent policy for the regulation of sexually explicit material.

Quelle liberté pour la presse postcommuniste?

by Omar V. Rosas

A paper in French on the Hungarian law on the media and freedom of speech.

West Virginia State Board of Education V. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

by Perry Dane

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, David Spinoza Tanenhaus, ed., Gale, 2008

This entry in the Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States (David S. Tanenbaus, Editor-in-Chief)... more This entry in the Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States (David S. Tanenbaus, Editor-in-Chief) discusses the landmark decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

Barnette held that students have a constitutional right to refuse to salute the flag or recite the pledge of allegiance. The case marks an important moment in free speech jurisprudence and in the Supreme Court's treatment of the relationship between individual conscience and the state. It is particularly famous for its rhetorical flourishes, both in Justice Jackson's majority opinion and in Justice Frankfurter's vehement and unusually autobiographical dissent. It also figures importantly in the history of American minority religions and in the continuing struggle to define the fundamental kernel of American identity.

My short essay discusses, among other things, Barnette's relationship to Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940), which it overruled; the decision's major doctrinal import for establishing that the guarantee of free speech embraces, not just the right to speak, but the right to refrain from enforced speech; its much lesser significance to the law of free exercise of religion; the role the case played in the jurisprudential and often personal tension on the Court over questions of judicial restraint and constitutional method; and the different views represented in the majority and dissenting opinions, and very much alive in a continuing American debate, over the nature and central themes of American patriotism and the ability of the American community to move beyond a purely "proceduralist" conception of itself and its deepest values.

Keywords: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, first amendment, free speech, freedom of religion, right not to speak, flag salute, pledge of allegiance, patriotism, Justice Felix Frankfurter, American values, Jehovah's Witnesses, World War II