- User contributions [en]

Privacy Rights/Contributions

2024-08-09T00:58:13Z

Asylvester: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Privacy Rights |section=History |question=Contributions |questionHeading=What specific events or ideas contributed to its identification as a fundamental right? |pageLevel=Question |contents=Privacy, conceptualized as a named legal right, has been fairly new. As stated by Negley, “Few philosophers would argue that privacy is a "natural" right or that the intrinsic nature of privacy establishes it as a legal right” (319). Rather, identification..."

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=History
|question=Contributions
|questionHeading=What specific events or ideas contributed to its identification as a fundamental right?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=Privacy, conceptualized as a named legal right, has been fairly new. As stated by Negley, “Few philosophers would argue that privacy is a "natural" right or that the intrinsic nature of privacy establishes it as a legal right” (319). Rather, identification of privacy as a right and not just a value has resulted from various violations of the right throughout modern history. In a United States context, the right to privacy is often associated with the Supreme Court case, Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, in which the Court overruled a Connecticut law banning contraceptives for married couples by using “the personal protections expressly stated in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to find that there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution” (“Privacy”). Griswold expanded and highlighted legal and political discourse around privacy as a specific right protected by the US Constitution. The Third and Fourth Amendments, which deal with quartering soldiers in citizens’ houses and unlawful searches and seizures of citizen property, came about because colonists felt violated by the British government’s actions to maintain control of the colonies in the years leading up to the Revolutionary War: “The 1774 [Quartering] Act expanded British officers’ ability to refuse unsuitable housing and seize ‘uninhabited houses, out-houses, barns, or other buildings’ for purposes of quartering soldiers,” (“Historical Background”). Additionally, “the colonists, still under the thumb of the British king, were subject to arbitrary and invasive searches under the “Writs of Assistance,” which allowed British troops and government officials to search homes and private property looking for goods that were imported illegally or on which a tax had not been paid,” (Burling, 2021). This context contributed to early codification of rights related to privacy in the United States.

In 1890, Boston lawyers Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis wrote an article for the Harvard Law Review entitled, “The Right to Privacy.” The article is often cited by scholars as the invention of the concept of the “right to privacy” in American law (Glancy, 1979). Glancy places the article within the context of “the post-Civil War decades [that] had brought to Boston and the rest of the United States ‘countless, little-noticed revolutions’ in the form of a variety of inventions which made the personal lives and personalities of individuals increasingly accessible to large numbers” (Glancy, 1979, 7). Technological advancement correlating with an increase in discourse about the right to privacy in this era can be mirrored with modern concerns over privacy and technology.

Concerns over government surveillance efforts in the late 20th and early 21st centuries further brought the right to privacy into the spotlight of American politics:

“During the Cold War, the federal government was involved in various programs that spied on the American public’s telephone calls, radio signals, and mail. In programs such as the FBI’s COINTELPRO and the CIA’s Operation CHAOS, not only were individuals considered to be ‘threats to national security’ targeted, but also unrelated citizens who got caught up in the searches. The 9/11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent War on Terror led to another wave of mass surveillance, extending to citizens and their luggage on airplanes, automated drones, and the burgeoning field of global Internet communications” (“Constitutional Amendments”).

These efforts resulted in much discourse about the right to privacy, with supporters claiming that the surveillance was justified under the protection of national security, and opponents arguing that the widespread and invasive nature of the programs was not necessary and therefore a major violation of the right to privacy (“Constitutional Amendments”).

Additional events that contributed to privacy being considered as a fundamental right were the Snowden and Cambridge Analytica scandals, which also brought the right to privacy to light in an international context. Though the right to privacy is enshrined in Article 12 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to Humble “the right to privacy has historically not been at the forefront of discussions within the international community and the United Nations. This position changed after the Edward Snowden and Cambridge Analytica revelations.” In 2013, Edward Snowden leaked information on the National Security Agency’s information-gathering programs, revealing “how vulnerable our everyday digital communications are to government surveillance, and how much governments want to collect our information, no matter how trivial or unrelated it may be to any tangible national security threat” (PoKemper, 2014). Additionally, the Snowden scandal changed “the vocabulary through which [the right to privacy] was articulated. At the UN, states are supposed to employ a universal vocabulary, enabling therefore claims for the recognition of privacy as a human right. The enactment of a universal vocabulary destabilizes the core of mass surveillance practices,” (Bauman et al., 2014, 128-129). The Cambridge Analytica scandal, which revealed how users’ personal data on the Facebook social media platform was being collected and used, similarly shed light on issues relating to data privacy rights around the world. The scandal also highlighted users’ opinions about their right to privacy. In a study of young adults in Israel who chose to continue their use of Facebook after the scandal, “in-depth interviews suggest that users perceive privacy not as an integral component of one’s civil rights but as a negotiable commodity traded according to societal norms,” and that “it is the users’ responsibility to manage their privacy, as it is Facebook and other social media companies’ right to profit from activities on their platforms” (Afriat et al., 2021, 116). These individuals viewed privacy not as a fundamental right but rather as a commodity. As technology around the world advances, discourse about the right to privacy as a fundamental right will likely become more present.

References:

Afriat, Hagar, Shira Dvir-Gvirsman, Keren Tsuriel, Lidor Ivan. 2021. “‘This is capitalism. It is not illegal’: Users’ attitudes toward institutional privacy following the Cambridge Analytica scandal.” The Information Society, 37 no. 2 115-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2020.1870596

Bauman, Zygmunt, Didier Bigo, Paulo Esteves, Elspeth Guild, Vivienne Jabri, David Lyon, RBJ Walker. 2014. “After Snowden: Rethinking the Impact of Surveillance.” International Political Sociology, 8 no. 2 121-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12048

Burling, James. 2021. “The 4th Amendment to the Constitution: A Primer.” Pacific Legal Foundation. https://pacificlegal.org/fourth-amendment-primer/?psafe_param=1&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw5Ky1BhAgEiwA5jGujndXaC_UxPEgAFNOTC857KpBtWo4qgdidNIMhpLa7QjXW-hiOzn5xhoCvT0QAvD_BwE

“Constitutional Amendments - Amendment 4 - ‘The Right to Privacy.’” Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum. The National Archives. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/constitutional-amendments-amendment-4-right-privacy

Glancy, Dorothy. 1979. “The Invention of the Right to Privacy.” Arizona Law Review, 21 no. 1. https://law.scu.edu/wp-content/uploads/Privacy.pdf

“Historical Background of the Third Amendment.” Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-3/historical-background-of-the-third-amendment

Humble, Kristian. 2021. “International Law, Surveillance, and the Right to Privacy.” The Right to Privacy Revisited. Routledge Imprint. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003252191-2/international-law-surveillance-protection-privacy-kristian-humble

Negley, Glenn. “Philosophical Views on the Value of Privacy.” Duke Law. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3111&context=lcp

PoKemper, Dinah. 2014. “Dispatches: How Snowden Changed the World.” Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/05/dispatches-how-snowden-changed-world?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw5Ky1BhAgEiwA5jGujvY_OUa9teDuEfKpXAEkeAFI7h7HVZPk-sobJksUty5h4NiQVLrOXxoCA1sQAvD_BwE

“Privacy.” Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy

United Nations General Assembly. 1948. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Accessed August 2, 2024. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
}}

Freedom of the Press/Derogations

2024-07-31T15:38:56Z

Asylvester: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of the Press |section=Limitations - Restrictions |question=Derogations |questionHeading=Under international human rights laws, what permissible exceptions (often called derogations) exist? |pageLevel=Question |contents=In international human rights law, freedom of the press is outlined in the International Bill of Human Rights, which encompasses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant for Civil and Polit..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of the Press
|section=Limitations - Restrictions
|question=Derogations
|questionHeading=Under international human rights laws, what permissible exceptions (often called derogations) exist?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=In international human rights law, freedom of the press is outlined in the International Bill of Human Rights, which encompasses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). These documents include the rights protected as well as exceptions, or derogations, if they are applicable. The UDHR is not a treaty, so states are not legally bound to it (Australian Human Rights Commission). Still, the document serves as a foundation for international human rights legislation. Article 19 of the UDHR protects the right to “receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Article 29(2) briefly states general derogations for the rights laid out in other articles:

“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society” (United Nations General Assembly, 1948).

Unlike the UDHR, the ICCPR is legally binding to the states that ratify it. The ICCPR contains similar language in paragraph 2 of Article 19 relating to freedom of the press, but goes farther in the following paragraphs to mention restrictions. These acceptable restrictions “shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: For respect of the rights or reputations of others; For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals” (United Nations General Assembly, 1966). Additionally, Article 20(1) prohibits war propaganda, which is often distributed by means of government and independent news media and involves the strategically crafted systems of gathering and distributing information as to incite war support (Miller, 2004, 8). Freedom of the press includes the media’s right to freely publish information, but also includes the people’s right to receive accurate information, especially during times of political tension, such as war or elections when this right may be jeopardized. The 2009 Joint Declaration of the United Nations, Organization of American States, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and African Commission on Human and People’s Rights emphasized the importance of people’s access to accurate, impartial information (UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression et al., 2009). Because freedom of the press includes the ability to both receive and impart information, prohibiting war propaganda can be seen both as the protection of people’s right to receive impartial news and the limitation of the press from spreading inaccurate or violence-inciting media. Miller argues that war propaganda includes not only outward attempts to garner war support through the media, but also subtle manipulation of the media by the state to prevent effective dissent, resulting in “information dominance” by the state so they may further their military agendas (Miller, 2004, 14). Article 20(2) of the ICCPR prohibits advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that incites discrimination or violence, which applies but is not limited to freedom of the press.

The Article 4 of the ICCPR also includes measures for states of emergency and highlights the rights and articles from which states cannot derogate, including the right to life (Article 6), protection against torture (Article 7), protection against slavery (Article 8), protection against debt imprisonment (Article 11), protection against punishment for a crime that was not illegal at the time it was committed (Article 15), the right to recognition before the law (Article 16), and the right to religion and freedom of conscience (Article 18). The specified list of rights to be protected during emergencies does not include freedom of the press, meaning states are permitted to restrict the press under the conditions “that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion, or social origin” and that states inform the United Nations of the right from which they derogated, the reasons they derogated, and the date on which the derogation will end (United Nations General Assembly, 1966, Article 4(1), Article 4(3)). Hafner-Burton, Helfer, and Fariss argue that the processes outlined in derogation clauses of human rights law allow derogators to take the necessary actions during an emergency situation and signal to the international community that those actions will be temporary and carried out in a lawful manner (2011, 673-674). The United Nations includes the descriptive conditions and processes by which states can derogate from rights such as freedom of the press because otherwise states may be hesitant to ratify human rights treaties in the first place, and therefore not protect those rights at all. According to Siehr, “The common task of emergency clauses in human rights instruments is to cope with the challenge of finding a middle course between the recognition of the legitimate right of sovereign States to defend their constitutional, democratic order and the prevention of misuse of the tool of emergency rights” (Siehr, 2004, 546). This can prove to be difficult, as the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the primary body for monitoring freedom of the press and information, reported “that perpetrators of internet shutdowns often try to justify them as a ‘precautionary measure’ or as a matter related to ‘national security,’ ‘public safety,’ or ‘hate speech,’ when the underlying motivations appear strongly correlated with moments of political instability, protests, communal violence, or elections” (UNESCO, 2022, 51).

To ensure that derogations from freedom of the press, specifically those in the name of disinformation campaigns, are necessary, lawful, and transparent, UNESCO has recommended: that state restrictions freedom of the press include input from a variety of independent groups, civil society organizations, and research specialists (UNESCO, 2020, 14); that UNESCO partner with other United Nations bodies to guarantee that derogations from freedom of the press are ethical and do not violate the right more than necessary (12); that relevant media actors increase the capacity of independent press councils in their monitoring efforts (217).

References:

Australian Human Rights Commission. 2007. “What is the Universal Declaration on Human Rights?” Accessed July 5, 2024. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/commission-general/projects/what-universal-declaration-human-rights

Hafner-Burton, Emilie, Laurence Helfer, Christopher Fariss. 2011. “Emergency and Escape: Explaining Derogations from Human Rights Treaties.” Cambridge University Press 65, no.4. 673-707. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081831100021X

Miller, David. 2004. “Information Dominance: The Philosophy of Total Propaganda Control?” in War, Media, and Propaganda: A Global Perspective, edited by Yahya Kamalipour and Nancy Snow. 7-16. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IyQeVFowLnwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=war+propaganda+mediums&ots=ld3JH7kqKU&sig=HmizgQAGnNbDQew_MLGqn3h9_QU#v=onepage&q&f=false

Siehr, Angelika. 2004. “Derogation Measures under Article ICCPR, with Special Consideration of the War against International Terrorism.” German Yearbook of International Law, 47. 545-593. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/gyil47&id=1&collection=journals&index=

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, International Telecommunication Union, Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development. 2020. “Balancing act: countering digital disinformation while respecting freedom of expression: Broadband Commission research report on ‘Freedom of Expression and Addressing Disinformation on the Internet'” https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379015.locale=en

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. 2022. “Press Freedom in Times of Crisis and Transformation.” UNESCO Global Report 2021/2022: Journalism is a Public Good. 44-81. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210015424c006

United Nations General Assembly. 1948. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Accessed July 5, 2024. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

United Nations General Assembly. 1966. “International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights.” Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. Accessed July 5, 2024. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the ACHPR Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information. 2009. “Joint Statement on the Media and Elections.” Joint Declarations of the representatives of intergovernmental bodies to protect free media and expression, 2013. 53-56. https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/5/99558.pdf
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Social Darwinism

2024-07-31T15:37:11Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Tradition contributions
|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
|breakout=Social Darwinism
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Social Darwinists generally did not advocate for or against freedom of expression. Rather, they spoke to the justified consequences of certain types of expression under the notion that individuals and groups were free to express themselves how they so choose. According to Richard Hofstadter, “the most popular catchwords of Darwinism, ‘struggle for existence’ and ‘survival of the fittest,’ when applied to the life of man in society, suggested that nature would provide that the best competitors in a competitive situation would win, and that this process would lead to continuing improvement” (Hofstadter, 1944, 6). It was often used to justify imperialism, racism, eugenics, and poverty as well as argue for a laissez-faire economic model (History, 2018). Freedom of expression, though not at the forefront of Social Darwinism, was relevant to Social Darwinist thought as certain forms of expression were seen as evidence of a group’s superiority or inferiority.

William Graham Sumner, a prominent Social Darwinist thinker of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, wrote about the societal implications of social customs in his book, Folkways in 1907. While he did not explicitly write about freedom of expression, he detailed the effects of different types of social expression. In Chapter V, Societal Selection, he stated, “[w]e are familiar with the fact that when a fashion has been introduced and has become common our eye is formed to it, and no one looks "right" or stylish who does not conform to it,” (Sumner, 1907,186). With fashion, people are free to dress however they like, but those who do not dress as the norm (unable to properly adapt to the environment) will face societal consequences. In order to have good standing in society, one must tailor their expression to what society deems appropriate, reiterating a social “survival of the fittest” environment. Those deemed unfit are considered social outcasts, which could lead to a variety of possible consequences. While individuals have freedom of expression legally, the social norms and expectations of society govern people’s expression; adapt to the norm, or face the consequences. Sumner further wrote in relation to fashion that “[h]e who dissents is thought rustic and boorish. He is more or less severely boycotted, which means not only that he is made to suffer, but that he loses important advantages and hurts his interests” (Sumner, 1907, 192). The societal consequences of expressing oneself differently than the norm might coerce individuals to adapt and comply with the popular fashion.

In addition to expression through one’s appearance, Sumner discussed oral expression, specifically when using slang and expletives: “There is a need for expression which will win attention and impress the memory. A strong expletive shocks an opponent, or it is an instinctive reaction on a situation which threatens the well-being of the speaker” (Sumner, 1907, 197). People had the ability to express themselves how they wished, so to Sumner, the consequences of their choices were justified; appropriate expression resulted in social success, and unfit expression resulted in social failure.

In Folkways, Sumner briefly spoke about political expression in the form of symbolism:

“The middle [class] is greatly affected by symbolism. ‘The flag’ can be developed into a fetich. A cult can be nourished around it. Group vanity is very strong in it. Patriotic emotions and faiths are its favorite psychological exercises, if the conjuncture is favorable and the material well-being is high. When the middle [class] is stirred by any spontaneous and consentaneous impulses which arise from its nature and ways, it may produce incredible results with only a minimum of organization” (Sumner, 1907, 58).

Sumner argued that symbolic expression is powerful in uniting a group of people, especially around topics of class and national identity. However, he did not imply whether Social Darwinists such as himself find this to be positive or negative, just that groups can take great advantage of free political expression. In Social and natural Darwinism, organizations play a pivotal role. They serve as interactors, defined by Hodgson and Knudsen as “a relatively cohesive entity that… interacts with its environment in such a way as to lead to changes in the population of interactors and their replicators. Social organizations are obvious candidate interactors” that contribute to the survival and evolution of a population by creating routines, habits, and environments where individuals can communicate and teach one another (Hodgson, 2013). When applied to a sociopolitical context and freedom of expression, social organizations can utilize freedom of expression to serve similar purposes, spreading ideas, establishing social norms, and creating a shared identity as seen in Sumner’s statement on political symbolism.

Herbert Spencer, another prominent Social Darwinist from the 19th century, spoke briefly but more specifically on his opinion of freedom in a famous quote regarding his “formula for justice” in The Principles of Ethics: “Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man" (Spencer, 1887). Spencer’s view on freedom of expression is more clear-cut than Sumner, providing that people should be able to express themselves freely, even though he did not name the right directly. In his article on Spencer’s moral philosophy, Weinstein detailed how “[e]qual freedom was the centrepiece of Spencer’s political philosophy. Moral rights lent this centrepiece substance and integrity” (Weinstein, 1990, 127). Additionally, Spencer “[h]aving argued that freedom of action is instrumentally indispensable to the pursuit of desires and happiness, Spencer then asserts that all individuals ought to have freedom of action. Since all are endowed with faculties, and are thus bound by God’s will to exercise them, all must have freedom to act” (Weinstein, 1990, 121). Freedom is essential to the pursuit of happiness in Spencer’s view, and though he cited freedom of action, that action may include expression so long as it does not infringe upon the freedom of others.

References:

History. 2018. “Social Darwinism.” History.com. https://www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/social-darwinism

Hodgson, Geoffrey. 2013. “Understanding Organizational Evolution: Toward a Research Agenda using Generalized Darwinism.” Organizational Studies, 34 no. 7, 973-992. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613485855

Hofstadter, Richard. 1944. Social Darwinism in American Thought. Beacon Press. http://groupelavigne.free.fr/hofstadter1955.pdf

Spencer, Herbert. 1887. The Principles of Ethics in “Herbert Spencer, Principles of Ethics (1887).” Online Library of Liberty, Liberty Fund, 1978. https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/herbert-spencer-principles-of-ethics-1887

Sumner, William Graham. 1907. Folkways on “The Project Gutenberg eBook of Folkways,” Project Gutenberg, 2008. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/24253/pg24253-images.html

Weinstein, D. 1990. “Equal Freedom, Rights and Utility in Spencer’s Moral Philosophy.” History of Political Thought, 11 no. 1. 119-142. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26213841

“William Graham Sumner.” n.d. Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed June 27, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Graham-Sumner
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Palau

2024-07-31T15:32:29Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Palau
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Palau’s 1981 Constitution was enacted prior to its termination as part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands administered by the United States. In Article 4 Section 2 of the Constitution, freedom of expression and press are protected. The Article goes on to specify that “No bona fide reporter may be required by the government to divulge or be jailed for refusal to divulge information obtained in the course of a professional investigation.” The 1981 Constitution and its rights provisions were maintained when Palau became independent and known as the Republic of Palau.

References:

Republic of Palau. U.S. Department of the Interior, Accessed 7 June 2024: https://www.doi.gov/oia/islands/palau

Constitution of the Republic of Palau, 1981. Senate, World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzpu0001&i=1
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Oman

2024-07-31T15:31:24Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Oman
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1996 Basic Statute of the State of Oman guarantees the freedom of expression and opinion through a variety of methods including oral and written within the limits of the law. The state of emergency provisions of the Statute does not mention any limitations of freedom of expression.

References:

Basic Statute of the State of Oman, 1996. Government of Oman, World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzom0002&i=1
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Norway

2024-07-31T15:30:01Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Norway
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Article 100 of Norway’s 1814 Constitution states, “It is allowed everybody freely to deliver his opinions of government or any other subject.” Nearly 200 years later in 2004, Article 100 was amended and lengthened providing an elaborate definition of freedom of expression:

“There shall be freedom of expression. No one may be held liable in law for having imparted or received information, ideas or messages unless this can be justified in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression, which are the seeking of truth, the promotion of democracy and the individual's freedom to form opinions. Such legal liability shall be prescribed by law. Everyone shall be free to speak their mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever. Clearly defined limitations to this right may only be imposed when particularly weighty considerations so justify in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression.”

According to the Norwegian Commission for Freedom of Expression Report, the new Article 100 was “built on the legal developments associated with Article 10 of the European Human Rights Convention (ECHR).”

References:

Rieber-Mohn, Thomas. “Proposed Amendments to Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution (Freedom of Expression)” IRIS Merlin (2004): https://merlin.obs.coe.int/article/3198

Norwegian Commission for Freedom of Expression Report, 2022. Norwegian Ministry of Culture and Equality: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/753af2a75c21435795cd21bc86faeb2d/en-gb/pdfs/nou202220220009000engpdfs.pdf

Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway, 1814. Norwegian Government (1814), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/COWShow?collection=cow&cow_id=312
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/North Macedonia

2024-07-31T15:29:09Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=North Macedonia
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1991 Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, enacted after the breakup of Yugoslavia, protects the “free expression of national identity” in Article 8 and free thought and public expression in Article 16.

References:

Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, 1991. Government of North Macedonia (1991), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmk0010&i=1
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/North Korea

2024-07-31T15:28:22Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=North Korea
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Article 13 of North Korea’s 1948 Constitution grants citizens “freedom of opinion, publication, assembly, and freedom to form associations, or participate in public demonstrations” and the freedom to join a variety of social, political, and economic organizations.

References:

Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 1948. Central Intelligence Agency (1951), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/COWShow?collection=cow&cow_id=310
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Nigeria

2024-07-31T15:27:07Z

Asylvester:

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Niger

2024-07-31T15:26:03Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Niger
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Niger’s 1959 Constitution following its independence from France does not have a section for rights, but states in the Preamble: “The People of Niger solemnly reaffirm their attachment to the principles of democracy and to the rights and liberties of man, specified in the Historical Declaration of 1789 and guaranteed by the Constitution of the Community.” This refers to the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which proclaims the freedom of opinion in Articles 10 and 11 of Lafayette’s original draft (American Battlefield Trust). The Declaration was later revised and completed most prominently by Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyes, but its emphasis on freedom of expression was maintained (Mark, 2022). The 1960 Constitution of Niger similarly states that the rights professed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen are protected in its Constitution. The 1989 Constitution, however, does gain a section for rights and protects opinion, thought, and expression “exercised within respect for the laws and regulations in force” in Article 13. The 1992 Constitution changes this part slightly and protects expression “exercised within respect for the public order, for social peace, and for national unity” in Article 24.

References:

Constitution of Niger, 1959. World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzne0010&i=1

Constitution of Niger, 1989. World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzne0013&i=1

Constitution of Niger, 1992. World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzne0014&i=1

Lafayette's Draft of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. American Battlefield Trust, Accessed 7 June 2024:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/lafayettes-draft-declaration-rights-man-and-citizen

Mark, Harrison. “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” World History Encyclopedia, 8 June, 2022: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2012/declaration-of-the-rights-of-man-and-of-the-citize/

“The text of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, written in 1789, translated into English.” Digital Public Library of America, Accessed 7 June, 2024: https://dp.la/primary-source-sets/declaration-of-the-rights-of-man-and-of-the-citizen/sources/889
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Nicaragua

2024-07-31T15:25:14Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Nicaragua
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1826 Constitution of Nicaragua expresses in Article 29 that “freedom of speech, of writing and of the press, is one of the first and most sacred rights of Nicaraguans. The Law may not prohibit it, or subject it to prior censorship, for any cause or pretext.” The 1838 Constitution, enacted after Nicaragua became an independent republic, details freedom of expression in Article 29 with specific mention of citizens “being responsible before the law for abusing this liberty.” Article 21 of the 1974 Constitution, enacted after the Nicaraguan Revolution additionally grants freedom of expression, but with multiple limitations by law if necessary for national security, order, public health, and dignity, or for the national economy. The 1987 Constitution, which is Nicaragua’s most recent Constitution, protects freedom of expression in Article 30, and specifically indigenous cultural expression in Article 90. Article 186 states the freedoms which the government can suspend in a state of emergency; Article 90 can not be suspended but Article 30 is not mentioned.

References:

Constitution of the State of Nicaragua, 1826. World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzni0038&i=1

Political Constitution of the Free State of Nicaragua, 1838. World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzni0040&i=1

Constitution of the Republic of Nicaragua, 1972. PAU/OAS, World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzni0032&i=1

Political Constitution of the Republic of Nicaragua, 1987. National Assembly (1989), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzni0022&i=1
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/New Zealand

2024-07-31T15:24:31Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=New Zealand
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=New Zealand does not have a written constitution, as stated by the Governor-General of New Zealand: “New Zealand's constitution is not found in one document. Instead, it has a number of sources, including crucial pieces of legislation, several legal documents, common law derived from court decisions as well as established constitutional practices known as conventions.” The Imperial Laws Application Act of 1988 incorporated British constitutional legislation created prior to colonization of New Zealand into New Zealand law. As such, the oldest mention of freedom of expression with this application appears in the British 1688 Bill of Rights referring to freedom of speech (Office of the Governor-General of New Zealand). It specifically stated as freedom of expression in Article 14 of New Zealand’s 1990 Bill of Rights, a distinguished and elevated constitutional document in the country (New Zealand Parliament, 30 June 2017). The 1987 Maori Language Act additionally details freedom of expression specifically in terms of Maori national identity and language.

References:

Maori Language Act, 1987, Parliamentary Council Office (consulted 2016), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zznz0168&i=1

New Zealand Bill of Rights, 1688. Parliamentary Council Office (consulted 2013), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zznz0255&i=1

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, 1990. Parliamentary Council Office (consulted 2016), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zznz0133&i=1

New Zealand Parliament. “New Zealand’s First Constitution Act Passed 165 Years Ago,” 30 June 2017: https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/features/new-zealand-s-first-constitution-act-passed-165-years-ago/

Office of the Governor-General of New Zealand. “New Zealand’s Constitution,” Accessed 7 June 2024: https://gg.govt.nz/office-governor-general/roles-and-functions-governor-general/constitutional-role/constitution/constitution
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Nepal

2024-07-31T15:23:29Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Nepal
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1948 Constitution of Nepal grants citizens the right to freedom of speech in Article 4. This was amended in the 1959 Constitution in Article 7a to freedom of speech and expression, and then amended again in the 2007 Interim Constitution of Nepal in Article 13 Section 3a to freedom of opinion and expression. The 2015 Constitution is consistent with the wording in 2007.

References:

Constitution of Nepal, 1948. British and Foreign State Papers (1956), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zznp0020&i=1

Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1959. Government, ConstitutionNet (consulted 2018), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zznp0017&i=1

Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007. Supreme Court, World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zznp0001&i=1

Constitution of Nepal, 2015. Embassy of Nepal to Germany (consulted 2016), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zznp0004&i=1
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Nauru

2024-07-31T15:22:35Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Nauru
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The Constitution of Nauru, enacted in 1968 promises in Article 12 the freedom of expression and in Article 12 Section 3a only limits the right if it is “reasonably required” in the interests of public defense, safety, security, health, and morality.

References:

Constitution of Nauru, 1968. Government of Nauru (consulted 2009), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zznr0001&i=1
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Namibia

2024-07-31T15:21:54Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Namibia
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Article 21 of the 1990 Constitution of the Republic of Namibia guarantees in Article 21 freedom of expression, speech, and media. The right can be limited however, without discrimination, in the interests of security, public order, morality, decency of Namibia.

References:

Constitution of the Republic of Namibia, 1990. Government of Namibia (consulted 2009), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/COWShow?collection=cow&cow_id=286
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Myanmar

2024-07-31T15:20:36Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Myanmar
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1935 Government of Burma Act mentions the right to freedom of speech in the Legislature in Article 27. The 1947 Constitution details freedom of expression in Article 17(i), though Article 28 states “The Parliament may by law determine to what extent any of the rights guaranteed by this Chapter shall be restricted or abrogated for the members of the Defence Forces or of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order so as to ensure fulfillment of their duties and the maintenance of discipline.” Similar sentiment is echoed in the 2008 Constitution, giving citizens the right to freedom of expression “if not contrary to the laws, enacted for Union security, prevalence of law and order, community peace and tranquility or public order and morality.”

References:

Government of Burma Act, 1935. HMSO (1935). World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmm0015&i=1

Constitution of the Union of Burma, 1947: A.J. Peaslee (1950 and 1956), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmm0014&i=1

Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2008. Ministry of Information (consulted 2009), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmm0002&i=1
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Mozambique

2024-07-31T15:10:12Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Mozambique
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Article 27 of the 1975 Constitution of Mozambique, adopted the year after its independence from Portugal, realizes the right to freedom of opinion, and Article 40 Section H sanctions the suspension of the right if necessary during a state of siege or emergency. The 1990 Constitution specifically mentions freedom of expression in Article 74 and amends the limitation clause to have the right regulated “based on the necessary respect for the Constitution, for the dignity of the human person, and for the mandates of foreign policy and national defense.” The 1990 Constitution keeps the same language of freedom of expression, but Articles 286 and 287 detailing the rights limited during a state of emergency does not mention freedom of expression.

References:

Constitution of the People’s Republic of Mozambique, 1975. World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmz0011&i=1

Constitution of Mozambique, 1990. AIM (1991). World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmz0006&i=1
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Morocco

2024-07-31T15:08:08Z

Asylvester:

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Montenegro

2024-07-31T15:06:45Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Montenegro
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The Principality of Montenegro’s 1905 Constitution states in Article 209 that “every Montenegrin citizen has the right, within the limits of the law, to manifest his ideas by speech, writing, the press, and engraving.” After the breakup of Yugoslavia, the 1992 Constitution of the now Republic of Montenegro in Article 34 specifies freedom of expression in terms of national identity, language, culture, affiliation, and opinion. Articles 67, 68, and 69 guarantee the right to express ethnic identity, language, and symbols. Further, Article 47 of the 2007 Constitution grants the “right to freedom of expression by speech, writing, picture or in some other manner. The right to freedom of expression may be limited only by the right of others to dignity, reputation and honor and if it threatens public morality or the security of Montenegro.”

References:

Constitution of the Principality of Montenegro, 1905. H.F. Wright (1919). World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmb0013&i=1

Constitution of the Republic of Montenegro, 1992. World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline:https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzmb0008&id=11&collection=cow&index=

Constitution of the Republic of Montenegro, 2007. Venice Commission (consulted 2017), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmb0017&i=1
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Mauritius

2024-07-31T15:05:22Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Mauritius
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Section 3(b) of the 1968 Mauritius Independence Act, created at the independence of the state, mentinos freedom of expression along with freedom of conscience, assembly, and association. Section 12 elaborates on freedom of expression, specifying that it refers to the “freedom to hold opinions and impart ideas and information without interference.”

References:

1968 Mauritius Independence Act, 1968. World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmu0005&i=18
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Luxembourg

2024-07-31T15:03:56Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Luxembourg
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Article 25 of the 1848 Constitution of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg grants freedom of expression along with freedom of the press to Luxembourgers “except for the repression of the offenses committed on the occasion of the exercise of these freedoms.” This is continued in Luxembourg’s 1868 Constitution.

References:

Constitution of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, 1848. HeinOnline (2013), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/COWShow?collection=cow&cow_id=244

Constitution of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, 1868. H.F. Wright (2019), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzlu0013&i=1
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Lithuania

2024-07-31T15:02:17Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Lithuania
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of speech is guaranteed to all Lithuanian citizens in Article 16 of the 1928 Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Article 16 continues, limiting this freedom only “when it is essential to protect morality or State order.” Post-independence from the Soviet Union, Lithuania’s 1992 Constitution expands the explanation of freedom of expression in Article 25: Individuals shall have the right to have their own convictions and freely express them. Individuals must not be hindered from seeking, obtaining, or disseminating information or ideas. Freedom to express convictions, as well as to obtain and disseminate information, may not be restricted in any way other than as established by law, when it is necessary for the safeguard of the health, honour and dignity, private life, or morals of a person, or for the protection of constitutional order. Freedom to express convictions or impart information shall be incompatible with criminal actions - the instigation of national, racial, religious, or social hatred, violence, or discrimination, the dissemination of slander, or misinformation.” However, in Article 145 this right is permitted to be temporarily limited during a state of emergency or martial law, as seen enacted in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine.

References:

Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, 1928. British and Foreign State Papers (1932), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzlt0064&i=3

Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, 1992. Parliament (Seimas) (consulted 2011), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzlt0061&i=1

U.S. Department of State. 2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Lithuania. (2022): https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/lithuania
}}

Freedom of Expression/History/Country sources/Liechtenstein

2024-07-31T15:01:05Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Liechtenstein
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of expression in Liechtenstein “ in writing, in print or graphically” was specified in Article 40 of the 1921 Constitution of the Principality of Liechtenstein, granting it “within the limits of the laws and of morality.”

References:

Constitution of the Principality of Liechtenstein, 1921. British and Foreign State Papers (1932), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzli0006&id=5&collection=cow&index=
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Roman Legal and Political Thought

2024-07-31T01:06:23Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Association
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Tradition contributions
|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
|breakout=Roman Legal and Political Thought
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Though the Roman Republic and Roman Empire did not codify into law what modern scholars would call freedom of association, associational life and philosophy concerning association were still present. The Twelve Tables, a foundational document of the Roman Republic ratified by the Centuriate Assembly in 449 B.C.E., mentions association, but sparsely. Table VIII stated that “No person shall hold nocturnal meetings in the city” (qtd. in “The Twelve Tables”). The law did not expand upon the types of meetings prohibited, but it could possibly be referring to the collegia:

“Collegia—numerous private associations with specialized functions, such as craft or trade guilds, burial societies, and societies dedicated to special religious worship—seem to have carried on their affairs and to have held property corporately in republican times. The emperors, viewing the collegia with some suspicion, enacted from the beginning that no collegium could be founded without state authority and that their rights of manumitting slaves and taking legacies be closely regulated” (Millner and Carozza).

Collegia were generally viewed in relation to corporations and social activity, rather than political activity. Nevertheless, Romans were free to engage in these associations taking into consideration one’s social class, occupation, gender, age, family, and the collegium’s distrust from the state. Guilds, collegia that emerged during the late Roman Republic were specific organizations of artisans and merchants, were specifically mentioned in the Twelve Tables in Table VIII as well: “These guild members shall have the power ... to make for themselves any rule that they may wish provided that they impair no part of the public law” (qtd. in “The Twelve Tables”). With restriction, Romans were able to associate publicly in the Republic. Starting from the reign of Emperor Diocletian in the third century, however, the imperial government attempted to restrict membership of the guilds to higher-class, skilled artisans and financially exploit them for imperial gain, significantly weakening the guilds by the fourth century. Collegia in general, however, survived through the Roman and Byzantine Empires (Encyclopedia Britannica).

Association and social life is mentioned a substantial amount, in the work of Cicero, a prominent philosopher of the late Roman Republic. In Book I of Cicero’s De Officiis (“On Moral Duties”), he noted that “Nature too, by virtue of reason, brings man into relations of mutual intercourse and society with his fellow-men; generates in him a special love for his children; prompts him to promote and attend social gatherings and public assemblies;” (Cicero, Book I Section 4). He additionally wrote of the importance of participating in public affairs in his De Republica (“On the Republic”), writing, conversing, and discovering with others. According to Cicero, people associate for the common good and the prosperity of the whole, and that “association of the citizens in a happy and honourable life ; for that is the original purpose of men's coming together, and it should be accomplished for them in their commonwealth partly by established customs and partly by laws.” (Cicero, Book IV Section 3).

Compared to associational life in the Roman Republic, that of the Roman Empire was much more restricted. In his letters to Emperor Trajan, who ruled from 98 C.E. to 117 C.E., Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia (located in present-day Turkiye), spoke in multiple correspondences about association. In letters 10.33 and 10.34, Pliny asked for permission from the Emperor to create a firefighting organization, to which the Emperor responded refused because of Bithynia’s history of groups becoming political, even if they did not start out as such. As the Roman Republic transitioned to the Roman Empire, collegia became more political and more commonly made up of the lower class (Umbrello). Pliny was required to ask the Emperor first before creating the group because of “The lex IuliIa [a] late republican era law which mandated that the formation of any association or club (collegia) must be granted by either the senate or the emperor” which came about because of the elites’ distrust of lower class associations, especially those in the imperial provinces that were more likely to have political instability (Umbrello). Trajan was additionally weary of religious associations, as shown in Pliny’s letter concerning Christians convening to eat together: “Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations” (Pliny, Letter 10.96). This is written in one of the most famous letters between Pliny and Trajan, demonstrating “Roman official aversion to freedom of association” (Liggio, 2013, 57). Emperors would commonly provide provincial governments with mandata, “official set[s] of administrative guidelines,” citing Emperor Trajan’s “suspension of potentially disruptive associations or clubs (hetaeriae, 10.96, the well-known letter concerning Christians),” (Fuhrmann, 2011, 147-148).

Political riots were a somewhat frequent form of public association in the Roman Republic and Empire, and were often provoked by economic concerns, taxation, famine, or political problems and corruption (Aldrete, 2013). Aldrete emphasized the importance of keeping in mind the documentation bias; a higher frequency of riots was present in more well-documented periods, and lower frequency for the opposite. He additionally described the nature of these riots:

“Many outbreaks, including some of the most destructive, were organized, instigated and exploited not by the indigent, but rather by Rome’s political and social elites. Furthermore, acts of violent urban collective behaviour often occurred within the constraints of a tacit but nevertheless well-recognized set of informal societal norms” (Aldrete, 2013, 425).

Politically-motivated association was active and organized, and did not only involve the lower class. In addition to political elite organizing riots, “Rome’s collegia, or professional organizations, also offered fertile ground for organizing riots and recruiting participants, and this potential probably accounts for the authorities’ periodic attempts to ban or restrict these organizations” (Aldrete, 2013, 434). The amount of repression the riots received depended upon a variety of factors, including the location of the riot, level of violence, and attitude of the emperor or governor dealing with it. At circuses and theaters, more extreme behaviors were tolerated than in public squares, for example (Aldrete, 2013, 427). In Roman-occupied cities such as Ephesus (located in present-day Turkiye), “an unlawful assembly the City could be charged with ‘stasis,’ that is, with acting seditiously, creating factions in the Empire, rioting…if questioned, the Ephesians could give no legal justification for this particular meeting, and so [could]… be used as leverage to take away Ephesus’ freedoms” (“Riots and Roman Law”, 2016).

References:

Aldrete, Gregory. 2013. “Riots” in The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rome, ch. 24 425-440. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-ancient-rome/riots/EFF6CDF92E7CABE86B9ADC58BFF642F4

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. “On Moral Duties (De Officiis).” Online Library of Liberty. Translated by Andrew Peabody. Accessed June 21, 2024. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/cicero-on-moral-duties-de-officiis

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. “On the Republic.” Attalus. Translated by C.W. Keys, 1928. Accessed June 21, 2024. https://www.attalus.org/cicero/republic1a.html

Encyclopedia Britannica. n.d. “Guild.” Accessed June 20, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/topic/guild-trade-association#ref261300

Fuhrmann, Christopher. 2011. “‘Let there be no violence contrary to my wish’: Emperors and Provincial Order” in Policing the Roman Empire: Soldiers, Administration, and Public Order, ch. 6 146-169. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199737840.003.0006

Liggio, Leonardo. 2013. “Historical Sketch of Freedom of Association in the West.” Journal of Private Enterprise 28, no. 2. http://journal.apee.org/index.php?title=Spring_13_4

Millner, Alfred, and Paolo Carozza. n.d. "Roman law." Encyclopedia Britannica, Accessed June 20, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-law

Pliny. 111-113 A.D. “Pliny, Letters. 10.96-97” Georgetown University Texts. Accessed June, 2024. https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html

“Riots and Roman Law.” 2016. Underground Network. Medium. https://medium.com/acts-study-guide/riot-in-ephesus-477616626d58

“The Twelve Tables.” 449 B.C.E. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/twelve_tables.asp

Umbrello, Steven. 2015. “Collegia, Stability, and the Vox Populi.” World History Encyclopedia. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/816/collegia-stability-and-the-vox-populi/
}}

Freedom of Association/Threatening to government

2024-07-26T22:44:49Z

Asylvester: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Association |section=Limitations - Restrictions |question=Threatening to government |questionHeading=Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities? |pageLevel=Question |contents=Freedom of association is a valuable right that encompasses the relationships, organizations, and environments in which a public can manifest other freedoms, such as expression, speech, and assembly. As Tom Kahn, a civil rights activist s..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Association
|section=Limitations - Restrictions
|question=Threatening to government
|questionHeading=Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=Freedom of association is a valuable right that encompasses the relationships, organizations, and environments in which a public can manifest other freedoms, such as expression, speech, and assembly. As Tom Kahn, a civil rights activist stated, “Freedom of expression without freedom of association is the right to speak freely in the wilderness” (qtd. in Democracy Web). As such, this freedom grants people power and influence in the government and society around them. In both democratic and authoritarian regimes, government authorities have a variety of reasons why they might restrict freedom of association, including being threatened by the right.

Freedom of association is not solely limited to political associations; it encompasses intimate associations - such as familial, romantic, and other personal relations - as well as collective associations which are any group of people that associate for a common purpose (Brownlee, Kimberly, and Jenkins, 2019). The level that a government is threatened by freedom of association depends on the nature of the government, the purpose and goals of the association, the resources of the association, and other environmental factors. Intimate associations can be regulated for a variety of possible reasons, including social engineering, paternalism, and moralism, though these could be considered more proactive (to promote an agenda) rather than reactive (to a perceived threat) (Alexander, 2008, 16-19). Collective associations, on the other hand, can threaten government authorities especially when the goals or beliefs of the association diverge from those of the ruling elite. Lambda, an LGBTQ+ organization in Mozambique, has been denied official registration with the state on the grounds that such organizations “are contrary to the moral, social, and economic order of the country and offend the rights of others or the public good” (qtd. in Amnesty International, 2024, 8). Even though the Constitutional Council of Mozambique declared this clause - which is found in Mozambique’s Law on Associations - as unconstitutional, Lambda was still denied legal recognition “as of November 2023, even though they fulfilled all substantive and formal requirements outlined in the Law No. 8/91, which governs the right of association” (Amnesty International, 2024, 8).

As Larry Alexander stated in the Cambridge University Press, “One of the most common bases for association and non-association has been that of beliefs. Those who share certain beliefs associate with one another in order to discuss, strengthen, and promote such shared beliefs” (Alexander, 2008, 6). If these beliefs do not align with those of the state, the state may seek to regulate freedom of association so as to not spread the opposing beliefs further. This is especially relevant for authoritarian regimes that are known to repress dissenting ideologies. The 2023 individual country scores of the Freedom of Association Index (FAI) correlate with those of the Democracy Index (DI), with countries that scored high on the DI also scored high on the FAI, and those that scored lower on the DIx scored lower on the FAI. China, one of the lowest-scoring states for example, scored a 2.1 (on a scale of 0-10 with 10 the most democratic) on the DI and a .04 (on a scale of 0-1 with 1 the most free) on the FAI. Conversely, Denmark, a more democratic country (with a DI score of 9.3) scored a .93 on the FAI (Our World in Data). It is reasonable to conclude that authoritarian regimes consider the right to associate as threatening to their control over the state and the public.

The presence of a public sphere, “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed” is only possible with the guarantee of freedom of assembly and association (Habermas, 1964, 49). The way in which authoritarian regimes operate, “in general, [marshaling] decision making power into an individual or family, the military, or at the highest ranks of a powerful organization such as a party-state,” cause public association and therefore the possibility of widespread difference to put the control of the regime in danger, leading to more extreme restrictions on the ability to associate (Hasmath, 2023, 4). The public sphere is powerful, and authoritarian states take care to prevent association in the public sphere from threatening their power. However, Hasmath proceeded to argue that the public sphere can be effective and present in authoritarian regimes when associations operate tactically to circumvent government repression. Regimes that rely on the strict adherence to national identity often find cultural, ethnic, and religious associations (formal and informal, political and nonpolitical) that differ from that promoted by the state as threatening. In the Xinjiang region of China, the state represses cultural gatherings among the Uyghur Muslim population “to prevent what they perceive as the threat of terroristic activities” (Brownlee, Kimberly, and Jenkins, 2019). The US Department of State additionally reported that,

“Labor laws in China do not allow for freedom of association, which is a core labor standard. Independent unions are illegal in China and employers are under no obligation to bargain with workers in good faith…In the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, state-sponsored forced labor remains a significant part of the CCP’s campaign of repression against Uyghurs and members of other Muslim minority groups.”

While the right to association is often more frequently perceived as threatening to authoritarian regimes and with higher perceived consequences, it has throughout history been seen in democratic states as threatening as well. In the United States “in the 1950s and 1960s, the Court adjudicated many cases in which the government asked U.S. citizens to reveal or disavow their actual or perceived affiliations with the Communist Party” (Cornell Law School). The United States government during the Red Scare was notorious for going after individuals with alleged associations with the Communist Party, enacting legislation that would regulate association in the name of protecting democracy. However, the 1951 US Supreme Court case of Dennis v. United States concurred “that there was a distinction between the mere teaching of communist philosophies and active advocacy of those ideas. Such advocacy created a ‘clear and present danger’ that threatened the government” (Oyez). The case decision maintained that it would be constitutional for the United States to restrict association if it was perceived as a clear and present danger. This decision was not overturned in the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio case, even though Dennis upheld its accordant restriction to free association and Brandenburg overturned its accordant restriction. In Brandenburg, the Court noted that the role of “the courts in applying the clear and present danger test were simply to determine whether, on balance, the ‘gravity of the ‘evil,’ discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.’ In fact, in Brandenburg, the Court cited Dennis as good law,” though scholars are still divided on whether the Brandenburg and Dennis decisions are in conflict and whether Brandenburg de facto discounted Dennis (Walker, 2009).

Unless there is a clear and present danger, the government must respect citizens’ right to associate freely as decided in the 1958 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) v. Alabama Supreme Court case. It was decided that the state of Alabama “obtaining the names of the Association's membership would likely interfere with the free association of its members, so the state's interest in obtaining the records was superseded by the constitutional rights of the petitioners” (Oyez). It should be noted that the fact that Alabama sought to regulate freedom of association by compelling the NAACP to release its membership list in the first place points to it perceiving the right as a threat. John Patterson, the attorney who filed the original lawsuit against the NAACP, “claimed that the organization had harmed the citizens of Alabama by promoting, among other things, the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the admission of Autherine Lucy to the University of Alabama. Patterson believed that the resulting negative publicity that accompanied these events in the national media had damaged the state's reputation” causing the need to disclose members’ identities (Brown, 2008).

References:

Alexander, Larry. 2008. “What is Freedom of Association, and What is its Denial?” Social Philosophy and Policy, 25 no. 2. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052508080163

Amnesty International. 2024. “Violations of rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly based on sexual orientation, gender identity and/or expression: Submission to the UN Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity.” https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior40/7655/2024/en/

Brown, Steven. 2008. “NAACP v. Alabama.” Encyclopedia of Alabama. Updated 2024. https://encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/naacp-v-alabama/

Brownlee, Kimberly, and David Jenkins. 2019. “Freedom of Association.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-association/

Cornell Law School. N.d. “Amdt1.8.1: Overview of Freedom of Association.” Legal Information Institute. Accessed June 14, 2024. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/overview-of-freedom-of-association

Democracy Web. n.d. “Freedom of Association: Essential Principles.” Accessed June 14, 2024. https://www.democracyweb.org/node/84

Emerson, Thomas. 1964. “Freedom of Association and Freedom of Expression.” The Yale Law Journal 74, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/794804

Habermas, Jurgen, Sara Lennox, and Frank Lennox. 1974. “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964).” New German Critique, no. 3, pp. 49-55. https://doi.org/10.2307/487737

Hasmath, Reza. 2023. “Discourse, Deliberation and Difference in an Authoritarian Public Sphere.” Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 18 no. 2. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.1182

Our World in Data. 2023. “Democracy Index, 2023.” https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu

Our World in Data. 2023. “Freedom of Association Index, 2023.” https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/freedom-of-association-index

Oyez. n.d. “Dennis v. United States.” Accessed June 14, 2024. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/341us494

Oyez. n.d. “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson.” Accessed June 14, 2024. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1957/91

US Department of State. n.d. “China’s Disregard for Human Rights.” Accessed June 17, 2024. https://2017-2021.state.gov/chinas-disregard-for-human-rights/

Walker, James. 2009. “Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).” Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/brandenburg-v-ohio/
}}

Voting Rights and Suffrage/Depends on governance

2024-07-26T22:38:36Z

Asylvester: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Voting Rights and Suffrage |section=Culture and Politics |question=Depends on governance |questionHeading=Is this right exercised in different ways depending on the political governance regime in place (democracy, autocracy, hybrid regime)? |pageLevel=Question |contents=The type of regime governing a state often influences the level of voting rights people have and the way in which those rights are exercised. According to the United States Central..."

{{Right section
|right=Voting Rights and Suffrage
|section=Culture and Politics
|question=Depends on governance
|questionHeading=Is this right exercised in different ways depending on the political governance regime in place (democracy, autocracy, hybrid regime)?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=The type of regime governing a state often influences the level of voting rights people have and the way in which those rights are exercised. According to the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), most countries regardless of regime type legally have universal suffrage, and most have an age requirement of over eighteen years old or a similar age (CIA). Some other common notes on suffrage statuses included a citizenship or residency year requirement and the exclusion of military and police force members from voting. These voting requirements and restrictions are not exclusive to democratic versus autocratic regimes. France, Mali, Thailand, and Afghanistan (countries encompassing a wide range of democracy levels) have universal suffrage for all citizens, but one must reside in the country for five years in order to become a citizen. However, countries leaning more autocratic commonly have longer or unknown residency requirements to become naturalized and therefore able to vote, such as Bhutan (ten years), Cambodia (seven years), China (unspecified residency and extremely difficult naturalization process), Oman (unknown), Kuwait (twenty years), and Venezuela (ten years except for applicants from a specified set of countries) (CIA). Additionally, more than half of all countries and territories have compulsory voting (Shumacher and Connaughton, 2020). There is no visible trend, however, about regime types that employ compulsory voting, as both democratic and autocratic states require it, including but not limited to Belgium, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Greece, North Korea, and Luxembourg (CIA).

There is much scholarship on the status of voting rights for non-resident citizens in stable democracies, violent democracies, and autocracies. According to a study by Frontiers in Political Science, the more democratized a regime is, the more likely it will grant non-resident citizens’ enfranchisement (along with enfranchisement of other marginalized groups), and the more autocratic a regime is, the less likely it will do so (Umpierrez de Reguero, Yener-Roderburg, and Cartagena, 2021, 2). Additionally, they found that “when the diaspora favors (or is perceived to favor) the incumbency, then external voting rights are extended; otherwise, third, they are withheld or limited for nonresident citizens” (1). Nyblade cites Umpierrez de Reguero and builds on the discussion of emigrant voting rights as determined by regime type, contributing research on violent democracies specifically. Using Pérez-Armendáriz’s definition that violent democracies are states in which “manifold political actors regularly use violence to compete for power and make demands within established democratic institutional frameworks,” Nyblade argues that “domestic political actors that rely on violence may be particularly resistant to adopting extraterritorial voting rights, as emigrant voters are more difficult to target with violence (and indeed, may have become emigrants in order to flee violence)” (Nyblade, Iams Wellman, and Allen, 2022, 2). violent democracies When violent democracies do grant external voting rights, they may prevent them from exercising the right by neglecting to put into place actual systems to register and count their votes from abroad (15). A regime’s status as a violent democracy contributes to distinct voting dynamics and practices in the state.

Rather than outright restricting the right to vote, violent democracies and autocracies will grant the right legally and then employ other tactics to ensure their desired electoral outcome. For instance, “elections may allow dictators to co-opt rivals, gain legitimacy, deter opposition, and learn about regime/opposition strength and standing in the broader population” (Knutsen, Mokleiv Nygard, and Wig, 2017, 98). Holding elections does garner the risk of defeat, even with vote-buying and election-rigging, but “many autocratic leaders, at least those who are not too myopic, accept the increased short-term risk of being ousted in exchange for an improved grip on power in the long run” (136).

Attitudes towards voting by citizens also differ depending on regime type: “scholars have long argued that where political institutions encompass broad views and interests in policymaking processes, citizens are more likely to engage in the political process, because they signal the openness of the political system to citizens, thus altering their belief about their influence” (Hyun Kim, 2019, 597). Theoretically in democracies, citizens vote because they trust that elections will be fair and reflect the will of the people; democracies make room for diverse citizen opinions to be heard. In contrast, citizens in autocracies understand the electoral corruption, and therefore may not have faith in their vote. Scholarly accounts conclude that this lack of trust in the regime does not stop people from voting. In Cameroon, “despite the fact that 70% of respondents believed the ruling party will win elections, when asked whether their vote makes a difference in elections, 65% of Cameroonians said it did” (Wenzell Letsa, 2019, 440). Though the people polled by Wenzell Letsa expressed various opinions of the ruling party, the party won 148 out of 180 seats in the 2013 legislative election and 71.28% of votes in the 2018 presidential election (443). In a study on voting in Russia, Reuter suggests that “the duty to vote under autocracy is rooted not in norms of democratic participation but rather in reverence for the state” (Reuter, 2021). Similarly, while Chinese political participation voting (in local/village elections) is tightly controlled, “Chinese citizens are often insistently ingenious in organizing protests or engaging in public discussions in ways that work around official controls, while leveraging official rules and promises” (He and Warren, 2011, 274).

References:

Central Intelligence Agency. “Field Listing- Suffrage.” CIA World Factbook. Accessed July 12, 2024. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/suffrage/

He, Baogang, and Mark Warren. 2011. “Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development.” Perspectives on Politics, 9 no. 2 269-289. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41479652

Hyun Kim, Jeong. 2019. “Direct Democracy and Women’s Political Engagement.” American Journal of Political Science, 63 no. 3. 549-610. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45132499

Knutsen, Carl, Havard Mokleiv Nygard, and Tore Wig. 2017. “Autocratic Elections: Stabilizing Tool or Force for Change?” World Politics, 69 no. 1 98-143. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26347385

Nyblade, Benjamin, Elizabeth Iams Wellman, and Nathan Allen. 2022. “Transnational voting rights and policies in violent democracies: a global comparison.” Comparative Migration Studies 10 no. 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-022-00299-9

Reuter, Ora John. 2021. “Civic Duty and Voting Under Autocracy.” The Journal of Politics, 83 no. 4. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/711718

Shumacher, Shannon and Aidan Connaughton. 2020. “From voter registration to mail-in ballots, how do countries around the world run their elections?” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/30/from-voter-registration-to-mail-in-ballots-how-do-countries-around-the-world-run-their-elections/

Umpierrez de Reguero, Sebastian, Inci Oyku Yener-Roderburg, and Vivian Cartagena. 2021. “Political Regimes and External Voting Rights: A Cross-National Comparison.” Frontiers in Political Science 3, Sec. Elections and Representation. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.636734

Wenzell Letsa, Natalie. 2019. “Expressive Voting in Autocracies: A Theory of Non-Economic Participation with Evidence from Cameroon.” Perspectives on Politics, 18 no. 2 439-453. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592719001002
}}

Voting Rights and Suffrage/Country intepretation

2024-07-24T18:38:23Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Voting Rights and Suffrage
|section=Culture and Politics
|question=Country intepretation
|questionHeading=Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=Voting culture, practices, and attitudes vary from state to state; cultural and political factors provide for distinct voting practices. Over half of all countries and territories require citizens to register to vote (Shumacher and Connaughton, 2020). Currently, twenty-one countries have compulsory voting. (Central Intelligence Agency). The first country to introduce compulsory voting (for men) was Belgium in 1892 in an amendment to Article 48 of its Constitution (“Compulsory Voting,” “Constitution of Belgium”). Each state that has compulsory voting implements it differently; some states write it into law and impose legal punishments for those who do not vote, while others may not write it into law but still impose sanctions on non-voters (Birch, 2009). Birch reports notable examples:

“Singapore operates an unusual system that combines the removal of voting rights with a fine. Non-voters have their names automatically removed from the electoral register and must pay a fee to have them reinstated unless they can produce a ‘valid and sufficient’ reason for not having participated” (8);

“Bolivians without a ‘suffrage certificate’ are forbidden from carrying out banking transactions or obtaining passports for 90 days following the election, and in Brazil such electors are in addition deprived by law of the right to state education. Until recently, non-voters in Greece were in theory unable to obtain driver’s licenses or passports” (9);

“in Iran where ‘though voting is not compulsory, citizens may have to show the stamp impressed on voters’ identity cards in polling stations when applying for passports’” (Kauz qtd. in Birch, 2009, 5);

in North Korea “‘although voting is not compulsory by law, the political prescriptions laid down in the party catechism prescribe it as the correct behaviour of every citizen. A simple negligence, let alone denial [sic] to take part in the polls, would be followed by harsh discrimination in the living and working sphere of the person concerned’” (Suh qtd. in Birch, 2009, 5).

Birch additionally comments on the aspects of language that engender different interpretations of the right to vote in terms of compulsory voting. The specific term, “compulsory voting” in the English language has a somewhat negative connotation to it (in American English; Australians use the term happily) because compulsion implies being forced to do something one does not want to do. In other languages, specifically other European languages, the terms to describe compulsory voting imply that the practice is more of an obligation and duty than a coercion. Further, the Dutch language has a word, opkomstplicht, translating to “compulsory (or obligatory) attendance at the polls,” not compulsory (or obligatory) voting because once the voter is in the privacy of the voting booth, the state cannot do anything to stop them from casting a blank or invalid ballot (Birch, 2009, 2-3).

Scholars have long disagreed over whether compulsory voting can be justified or not. Proponents of compulsory voting often argue that it increases voter turnout, therefore addressing issues of low and unequal voter turnout (Lever, 2010, 898). Additionally, supporters suggest it does not violate any rights in places where the ballot is secret (902). Opponents of compulsory voting argue that forcing people to exercise their rights is immoral; even if it is in one’s self interest to vote, people may disagree on what is in their self interest (906).

There are also many unique methods of voting in different states around the world. In The Gambia, voters drop glass marbles into drums corresponding to each political party, a system designed in 1965 so citizens who could not read were still able to vote (Boylston, 2023). In certain areas in Switzerland, citizens will assemble once a year in the town square to vote on different issues by raising their hands for a simple majority, a tradition dating back to the Middle Ages when alpine communities were isolated from one another (Boylston, 2023). These types of practices are official and important to the political process, but they also serve to honor the history of the polity and celebrate their culture and community.

Local elections are important in many places, but for some, especially those in autocratic and authoritarian regimes, local elections are the only way in which citizens can make their voices heard. Saudi Arabia does not hold national elections, so citizens must utilize municipal elections to contribute to the political system. Additionally, women were only granted the right to vote in these elections in 2015, and still face a multitude of barriers actually getting to the polls (Human Rights Watch, 2015). Despite the challenges, Saudi women are not giving up on fighting for their right to vote. In China, “two decades ago, leaders introduced village-level elections. Other innovations have followed, including approval and recall voting at the local level, public hearings, deliberative polls” (He and Warren, 2011, 269), though the regime seems to have no interest in democratizing at the national level. Chinese leaders have realized that allowing a controlled level of citizen participation provides them more legitimacy and allows them to maintain a social order while deflecting blame for tough decisions on to the electoral process (281). Nevertheless, “Chinese citizens are often insistently ingenious in organizing protests or engaging in public discussions in ways that work around official controls, while leveraging official rules and promises” (274).

References:

Birch, Sarah. 2009. Full Participation: A Comparative Study of Compulsory Voting. United Nations University Press. https://archive.unu.edu/unupress/sample-chapters/full_participation_web.pdf

Boylston, Alex. 2023. “Five Unique Voting Practices Around the World.” Assembly Voting. https://assemblyvoting.com/blog/five-unique-voting-practices-around-the-world/

Central Intelligence Agency. “Field Listing- Suffrage.” CIA World Factbook. Accessed July 12, 2024. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/suffrage/

“Compulsory Voting.” International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Accessed July 24, 2024. https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout-database/compulsory-voting

“Constitution of Belgium Amended to 1893.” World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzbe0041&i=8

He, Baogang, and Mark Warren. 2011. “Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development.” Perspectives on Politics, 9 no. 2 269-289. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41479652

Human Rights Watch. 2015. “Saudi Arabia: Landmark Elections for Women.” https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/12/11/saudi-arabia-landmark-elections-women?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwkdO0BhDxARIsANkNcrcATEB-bUAv5AImLQlVXX8ealDKtpwSsB2BpnGeHHi5sMKwScnw64AaAsbzEALw_wcB

Lever, Annabelle. 2010. “Compulsory Voting: A Critical Perspective.” British Journal of Political Science, 40 no. 4 897-915. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40930591

Shumacher, Shannon and Aidan Connaughton. 2020. “From voter registration to mail-in ballots, how do countries around the world run their elections?” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/30/from-voter-registration-to-mail-in-ballots-how-do-countries-around-the-world-run-their-elections/
}}

Voting Rights and Suffrage/Country intepretation

2024-07-24T18:37:43Z

Asylvester: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Voting Rights and Suffrage |section=Culture and Politics |question=Country intepretation |questionHeading=Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively |pageLevel=Question |contents=Voting culture, practices, and attitudes vary from state to state; cultural and political factors provide for distinct voting practices. Over half of all co..."

Privacy Rights/History/Country sources/Peru

2024-07-22T18:55:35Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Peru
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Article 193 of the 1823 Constitution guaranteed the inviolability of the "security of person and domicile.". The same article asserted the "inviolability of letters."

Article 31 of the 1920 Constitution guaranteed the inviolability of one's home against entry in the absence of a warrant from varying government officials: "The domicile is inviolable and may not be entered without first showing a warrant written by a justice or by the authority charged with preservation of public order. The officers of enforcement of sanitary and municipal ordinances may also enter the domicile. Both the ones and the others are obliged to show the warrant of their authority and to furnish a copy of the same when required to do so." Article 32 guaranteed the inviolability of correspondence.

Today, Article 2(7) protects privacy rights in Peru for one’s honor, reputation, personal and family life, voice, and image (Constitute Project, “Peru [[Probable year:: 1993]] rev. [[Probable year:: 2021]]” ). Similar rights appear to have been listed in Article 2 of the [[Probable year:: 1979]] constitution, but an English translation could not be found.

Article 2(5) and Article 2(6) of the 1993 Political Constitution of Peru protect the right to privacy of information and prohibits the supplying of information that affects personal and family privacy. Article 2(9) and Article 2(10) protect the privacy of the home and the privacy of one’s communications. The Personal Data Protection Law, enacted in 2011, additionally protects the right to privacy in Peru.

References:

“Data Protection Law in Peru.” 2023. DLA Piper. Accessed July 19, 2024. https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=PE#:~:text=Article%202%20of%20the%20Political,personal%20data%20of%20any%20natural

“Political Constitution of Peru, 1993.” World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzpe0043&i=4

LEGUIA, A. B. “CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF PERU.” The Southwestern Political Science Quarterly 2, no. 1 (1921): 108. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42883893.

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/Peru-Constitucion%20[[Probable year:: 1979]]. pdf

https://constituteproject.org/constitution/Peru_[[Probable year:: 2021]]? lang=en

Peru 1823 Constitution, from British and Foreign State Papers (1822-1823): https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/bfsprs0010&id=738&men_tab=srchresults#
}}

Privacy Rights/History/Country sources/Philippines

2024-07-22T18:52:28Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Philippines
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The [[Probable year:: 1935]] Constitution, enacted prior to independence from the United States, grants “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated” in Article III, Section 1(3) (Official Gazette, “The [[Probable year:: 1935]] Constitution”). Today, similar language is used in Article II, Section 1(2) (Official Gazette, “The [[Probable year:: 1935]] Constitution”). The Philippines gained independence in 1946 and ratified the new constitution in 1973. Article 4 Section 3 of the 1973 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated,” and outlines the procedures for the state to gain search warrants. Section 4 additionally ensures the privacy of communication and correspondence. Confidentiality of personal data is also protected in the 2012 Data Privacy Act and implemented by the National Privacy Commission of the Philippines (“Republic Act 10173”). Various “zones,” or aspects of privacy, such as privacy in the workplace, decisional privacy, and informational privacy, are further protected in Philippine case law (Bautista and Llanillo, 2020).

References:

Bautista, Khersien, and Llewellyn Llanillo. 2020. “Zones of Privacy: How Private.” Defense Counsel Journal 84, no. 3. International Association of Defense Counsel. https://www.iadclaw.org/defensecounseljournal/zones-of-privacy-how-private/

“Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.” 1973. World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzph0009&i=8

“Republic Act 10173 - Data Privacy Act of 2012.” National Privacy Commission. Accessed July 19 2024. https://privacy.gov.ph/data-privacy-act/

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-[[Probable year:: 1935]]- constitution/

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/[[Probable year:: 1987]]- constitution/
}}

Privacy Rights/History/Country sources/Paraguay

2024-07-22T18:43:50Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Paraguay
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1870 Constitution of the Republic of Paraguay guarantees in Article 19 that “domicile as well as correspondence and private papers are also inviolable; but a law may provide in which cases and on what grounds an order can be made as to when one may be entered and the other seized.” Article 23 additionally protects privacy, stating that “private acts, which in no way affect public order or morals or do wrong to third parties, are reserved for God alone and exempted from the jurisdiction of the constituted authorities.” The 1992 Constitution contains similar language about both privacy of the home and personal and familial intimacy. The protection of data falls under the rights guaranteed in Paraguay’s Constitution combined with its 2002 Private Information Law which “regulates the collection, storage, distribution, publication, modification, destruction, duration, and overall processing of personal data in files, registers, data banks, or other technical means of processing of public or private data intended to provide reports” (“Paraguay”).

References:

“Constitution of the Republic of Paraguay.” 1870. Comparative Constitutions Project, 2008. World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzpy0009&id=6&men_tab=srchresults

“Constitution of the Republic of Paraguay.” 1992. Translated by Maria del Carmen Gress, HeinOnline, 2008. World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzpy0024&id=10&men_tab=srchresults

“Paraguay.” DataGuidance. Accessed July 19, 2024. https://www.dataguidance.com/jurisdiction/paraguay
}}

Privacy Rights/History/Country sources/Panama

2024-07-22T18:42:04Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Panama
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1863 Constitution of the Sovereign State of Panama, enacted while Panama was under Colombian rule, guarantees in Article 2(14) “the inviolability of domicile and of private writings; so that the one cannot be forcibly entered into, nor the others intercepted or examined, but by competent authority, for the effect and with the formalities determined by law.” Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Panama in 1904 enacted after independence states that “correspondence and other private documents are inviolable, and neither the former nor the latter can be held or examined except by virtue of competent judicial authority and under the formalities prescribed by the Laws. In all cases secrecy will be observed in connection with the matters relating to the object of holding and examining same.” Article 23 prohibits home searches without a warrant. The 1972 Constitution expands upon the right to communication privacy in Article 28, stating that “private telephone communications also are inviolable and may not be intercepted. The examination of documents shall always take place in the presence of the interested person or of a member of his family, or if they are absent, before two honorable residents of the same place.” Additionally, exceptions for privacy of the home are permitted in Article 25 for labor, social welfare, and health officials if they give prior notice. The Data Protection Law, enacted in 2019 and supplemented by an executive decree in 2021, regulates and protects personal data in Panama (“Data Protection Law,” 2024).

References:

“Constitution of the Republic of Panama, Constitución (1904) English.” 1909. HathiTrust and University of Michigan. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.35112104577715

“Data Protection Law in Panama.” 2024. DLA Piper. Accessed July 19, 2024. https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=PA#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20provides%20that%20every,the%20provisions%20of%20the%20law.

“Political Constitution for the Sovereign State of Panama.” 1863. Translated 1864 C.T. Bidwell. World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzpa0105&id=1&collection=cow&index=

“Political Constitution of the Republic of Panama.” 1972. Organization of American States, 1974. World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzpa0032&id=8&men_tab=srchresults
}}

Privacy Rights/History/Country sources/Norway

2024-07-22T18:39:00Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Norway
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Article 102 of Norway’s 1814 Constitution states that “inquiries in private houses are not permitted, unless in criminal cases.” The 2018 Norwegian Data Protection Act additionally protects personal data and implements the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (“Data Protection Law,” 2024).

References:

“Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway, 1814”. Norwegian Government (1814), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/COWShow?collection=cow&cow_id=312

“Data Protection Law in Norway.” 2024. DLA Piper. Accessed July 19, 2024. https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=NO
}}

Privacy Rights/History/Country sources/Nicaragua

2024-07-22T18:37:31Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Nicaragua
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Article 28 of the 1826 Constitution of the State of Nicaragua states that “the private actions that do not damage the order, the morality, nor public decency, nor produce prejudices to third parties; are outside the action of the law.” The 1974 Constitution of the Republic of Nicaragua, however, contains different language on the right to privacy, and only deals with privacy of the home and property. Article 58 states that “The state guarantees the inviolability of the home, the dwelling, and of any other private premises of persons, which may be entered only by authorized officials, in the following cases,” containing nine specified points including but not limited to criminal investigations, natural disasters, and rescue efforts. The end of the Article specifies that “In the last four cases entry may not be made except pursuant to a written order stating the grounds therefor, issued by a competent authority; and the consent of the head of the household shall be necessary if it is to be carried out between 7 pm and 6 am.” The 1987 Political Constitution of the Republic of Nicaragua mentions other forms of privacy in addition to privacy of the home in Article 26: “All persons have the right to: 1. Privacy and the privacy of their family; 2. The inviolability of their home, correspondence and communications; 3. Respect for their honor and reputation,” and that “illegally seized letters, documents, and other private papers shall be null and void in legal proceedings or elsewhere.”

References:

Constitution of the State of Nicaragua, 1826. World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzni0038&i=1

Constitution of the Republic of Nicaragua, 1972. PAU/OAS, World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzni0032&i=1

Political Constitution of the Republic of Nicaragua, 1987. National Assembly (1989), World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzni0022&i=1
}}

Privacy Rights/History/Country sources/Mali

2024-07-22T18:34:37Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Mali
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Various aspects of the right to privacy are protected in Mali’s 1992 Constitution. Article 6 states that “The domicile, domain (people and things), private and family life, secrecy of correspondence and communication shall be inviolable. These areas shall only be touched within conditions preordained by the law.” Additionally, Law No. 15 of 2013 governs the protection of personal data in Mali, and the Mali Data Protection Authority (APDP) monitors data protection in the state (Watt and Itoua, 2024).

References:

“Mali 1992 Constitution.” Constitute Project, translated by Daniel G. Anna. Accessed July 19, 2024. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mali_1992

Watt, Fatoumata, and Ismael Itoua. 2024. “Mali - Data Protection Overview.” Data Guidance. https://www.dataguidance.com/notes/mali-data-protection-overview
}}

Privacy Rights/History/Country sources/Italy

2024-07-22T18:31:46Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Italy
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the Italian Constitution deal with various aspects of the right to privacy. Article 13 states that no person shall be inspected or searched without an order from the Judiciary. Article 14 expands upon that, stating that “home inspections, searches, or seizures shall not be admissible save in the cases and manners complying with measures to safeguard personal liberty. Controls and inspections for reason of public health and safety, or for economic and fiscal purposes, shall be regulated by appropriate laws.” Article 15 provides freedom of confidentiality of correspondence, with limitations only by judicial decision. Also, the 1997 Data Protection Act created the Italian Data Protection Authority which protects “fundamental rights and freedoms in connection with the processing of personal data, and to ensure respect for individuals' dignity.”

References:

“Constitution of the Italian Republic.” Senato della Repubblica. https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

“The Italian Data Protection Authority: Who We Are.” Garante Per La Protezione Dei Dati Personali. https://www.garanteprivacy.it/web/garante-privacy-en/the-italian-data-protection-authority-who-we-are#:~:text=The%20Italian%20Data%20Protection%20Authority%20
}}

Privacy Rights/History/Country sources/Indonesia

2024-07-22T18:28:39Z

Asylvester:

{{Right section
|right=Privacy Rights
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Indonesia
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=While the Republic of Indonesia’s Constitution does not explicitly mention privacy, it protects the right to communication in Article 28(f) and the right to security of oneself and one’s property in Article 28(g), concepts which are often in accordance with property rights (“State of Privacy,” 2019). However, separate laws in Indonesia have dealt with privacy rights, including the 1999 Law on Telecommunications. Article 40 of this law prohibits eavesdropping; Article 42(1) requires telecommunications providers to keep transmitted information confidential; and Article 42(2), Article 43, and Article 44 highlight the procedures for the state to gain information from telecommunications providers in criminal investigations. Additionally, protection of personal data and information has been included in a multitude of legislation in the past few decades, including but not limited to: the 1998 Banking Law, 1999 Consumer Protection Law, the 2008 Electronic Information and Transaction Law, and the 2009 Hospital Law (“State of Privacy,” 2019).

References:

“Constitution of Indonesia 1945 (reinst. 1959, rev. 2002)”. Constitute Project. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Indonesia_2002

“Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 36 of 1999 Regarding Telecommunications.” Department of Communications Directorate General of Post and Telecommunications. https://www.postel.go.id/content/EN/regulasi/telecommunication/uu/law36-1999.pdf

“State of Privacy in Indonesia”. 2019. Privacy International. https://www.privacyinternational.org/state-privacy/1003/state-privacy-indonesia
}}