Freedom of Expression/Limitations - Restrictions/Derogations - Revision history

Jkochan1 at 13:30, 6 June 2023

2023-06-06T13:30:35Z

Jkochan1 at 12:17, 6 February 2023

2023-02-06T12:17:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:17, 6 February 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|questionHeading=Under international human rights laws, what permissible exceptions (often called derogations) exist?		\|questionHeading=Under international human rights laws, what permissible exceptions (often called derogations) exist?
	\|pageLevel=Question		\|pageLevel=Question
	\|contents=		\|contents=Universal Declaration of Human Rights: This was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948.
	Universal Declaration of Human Rights: This was adopted by the UN General Assembly in ~~[[Probable year::~~ 1948]].		Article 29 stipulates that the rights found in this document, including free expression, “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.”
			European Convention on Human Rights: This treaty was ratified by most of Europe in 1953 (it is unrelated to the EU). It is enforced in the European Court of Human Rights. From Article 10:
	Article 29 stipulates that the rights found in this document, including free expression, “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.”

	European Convention on Human Rights: This treaty was ratified by most of Europe in ~~[[Probable year::~~ 1953]] (it is unrelated to the EU). It is enforced in the European Court of Human Rights. From Article 10:

	The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.		The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
			Depending on the case, the court has ruled that hate speech is not protected under Article 10. For example, in Aksoy v. Turkey (2000), it held that “remarks aimed at inciting racial hatred in society or propagating the idea of a superior race can not claim any protection under Article 10 of the Convention” (Flauss 2009, 838). It has refused to protect “revisionist language” (837), that which denies certain notorious historical truths. For example, Holocaust denial may not be protected under Article 10. Finally, the court has ruled that Article 10 does not protect speech likely to lead to violence (840).
	Depending on the case, the court has ruled that hate speech is not protected under Article 10. For example, in Aksoy v. Turkey (~~[[Probable year::~~ 2000]]) , it held that “remarks aimed at inciting racial hatred in society or propagating the idea of a superior race can not claim any protection under Article 10 of the Convention” (Flauss ~~[[Probable year::~~ 2009]], 838). It has refused to protect “revisionist language” (837), that which denies certain notorious historical truths. For example, Holocaust denial may not be protected under Article 10. Finally, the court has ruled that Article 10 does not protect speech likely to lead to violence (840).		In Ceylan v. Turkey (2000), the court ruled on Turkey’s conviction of a columnist who opposed Turkey’s policies toward Kurds. The court used proportionality analysis to determine that the infringement on free expression outweighed the security risk of the piece, which did not directly call for violence. In a concurring opinion, one judge argued that the court should use a clear-and-present-danger test.
			American Convention on Human Rights: This human-rights framework was created in 1969, and over the ensuing decades, has been ratified, at least in part, by nearly all of Central and South America. There exists a corresponding inter-American Court of Human Rights. From Article 13:
	In Ceylan v. Turkey (~~[[Probable year::~~ 2000]]) , the court ruled on Turkey’s conviction of a columnist who opposed Turkey’s policies toward Kurds. The court used proportionality analysis to determine that the infringement on free expression outweighed the security risk of the piece, which did not directly call for violence. In a concurring opinion, one judge argued that the court should use a clear-and-present-danger test.

	American Convention on Human Rights: This human-rights framework was created in ~~[[Probable year::~~ 1969]], and over the ensuing decades, has been ratified, at least in part, by nearly all of Central and South America. There exists a corresponding inter-American Court of Human Rights. From Article 13:

	The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure:		The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure:
			a. respect for the rights or reputations of others; or
	a. respect for the rights or reputations of others; or		b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.

	b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.

	“Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above, public entertainments may be subject by law to prior censorship for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence.”		“Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above, public entertainments may be subject by law to prior censorship for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence.”
			“Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law.”
	“Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law.”		Article 11 of the convention guarantees a right to privacy, which includes protections against attacks on one's honor, dignity, and reputation. As such, the court must balance these two considerations, as occurs in cases of libel, slander, and defamation (Posenato 2016, 64). The exceptions for national security, public health, public order, and morals have been interpreted narrowly, so as not to allow authoritarian restrictions on free speech (65).
			Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam: This 1990 document was ratified by 45 states in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. There is no relevant court.
	Article 11 of the convention guarantees a right to privacy, which includes protections against attacks on one's honor, dignity, and reputation. As such, the court must balance these two considerations, as occurs in cases of libel, slander, and defamation (Posenato ~~[[Probable year::~~ 2016]], 64). The exceptions for national security, public health, public order, and morals have been interpreted narrowly, so as not to allow authoritarian restrictions on free speech (65).		Article 22:

	Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam: This ~~[[Probable year::~~ 1990]] document was ratified by 45 states in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. There is no relevant court. Article 22:

	(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.		(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.

	1. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah.		1. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah.

	(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.		(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
			(d) It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination.
	(d) It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination.		International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: This is a UN treaty from 1966. Under certain circumstances, it may be enforced by the International Court of Justice, but the ICJ generally only hears disputes between countries.
	International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: This is a UN treaty from ~~[[Probable year::~~ 1966]]. Under certain circumstances, it may be enforced by the International Court of Justice, but the ICJ generally only hears disputes between countries. Article 19:		Article 19: Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
	Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

	2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.		2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

	3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:		3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

	(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;		(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

	(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals.		(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals.
			African Charter on Human and People’s Rights: This charter, with 54 signatories, came into effect in 1986. Article 9 guarantees the right to free expression, although no exceptions are enumerated. The African Court of Human and People’s Rights has repeatedly protected free expression, but not without limit. For example, in Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. The Republic of Rwanda (2017), the court held that minimizing a genocide need not be protected because it could disturb public order and peace.
	African Charter on Human and People’s Rights: This charter, with 54 signatories, came into effect in ~~[[Probable year::~~ 1986]]. Article 9 guarantees the right to free expression, although no exceptions are enumerated. The African Court of Human and People’s Rights has repeatedly protected free expression, but not without limit. For example, in Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. The Republic of Rwanda (~~[[Probable year::~~ 2017]]) , the court held that minimizing a genocide need not be protected because it could disturb public order and peace.		REFERENCES
			Universal Declaration of Human Rights: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
			European Convention of Human Rights: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
			American Convention: https://www.cidh.oas.org/basicos/english/basic3.american%20convention.htm
			Posenato: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295244849_THE_PROTECTION_OF_THE_RIGHT_ TO_FREEDOM_OF_EXPRESSION_A_PANORAMA_OF_THE_INTER-AMERICAN_COU RT_OF_HUMAN_RIGHTS_CASE_LAW_A_PROTECAO_DO_DIREITO_A_LIBERDADE_ DE_EXPRESSAO_UM_PANORAMA_DA_JURISPRUDENCIA_DA_COR/link/56e9708808a edfed7389909f/download
			International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx
			Article about whether and how the ICJ enforces human-rights law: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=njih r
			Flauss: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=ilj
			Cairo Declaration: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/cairodeclaration.html
			African Charter: https://www.achpr.org/legalinstruments/detail?id=49
			Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. The Republic of Rwanda (2017), https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/african_courts_decisions_final_eng_1.pdf
	}}		}}

Import-sysop: transformed

2022-12-28T22:09:12Z

transformed

Import-sysop: transformed

2022-11-25T19:51:16Z

transformed

New page

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=Limitations - Restrictions
|question=Derogations
|questionHeading=Under international human rights laws, what permissible exceptions (often called derogations) exist?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: This was adopted by the UN General Assembly in [[Probable year::1948]].

Article 29 stipulates that the rights found in this document, including free expression, “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.”

European Convention on Human Rights: This treaty was ratified by most of Europe in [[Probable year::1953]] (it is unrelated to the EU). It is enforced in the European Court of Human Rights. From Article 10:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Depending on the case, the court has ruled that hate speech is not protected under Article 10. For example, in Aksoy v. Turkey ([[Probable year::2000]]) , it held that “remarks aimed at inciting racial hatred in society or propagating the idea of a superior race can not claim any protection under Article 10 of the Convention” (Flauss [[Probable year::2009]], 838). It has refused to protect “revisionist language” (837), that which denies certain notorious historical truths. For example, Holocaust denial may not be protected under Article 10. Finally, the court has ruled that Article 10 does not protect speech likely to lead to violence (840).

In Ceylan v. Turkey ([[Probable year::2000]]) , the court ruled on Turkey’s conviction of a columnist who opposed Turkey’s policies toward Kurds. The court used proportionality analysis to determine that the infringement on free expression outweighed the security risk of the piece, which did not directly call for violence. In a concurring opinion, one judge argued that the court should use a clear-and-present-danger test.

American Convention on Human Rights: This human-rights framework was created in [[Probable year::1969]], and over the ensuing decades, has been ratified, at least in part, by nearly all of Central and South America. There exists a corresponding inter-American Court of Human Rights. From Article 13:

The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure:

a. respect for the rights or reputations of others; or

b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.

“Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above, public entertainments may be subject by law to prior censorship for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence.”

“Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law.”

Article 11 of the convention guarantees a right to privacy, which includes protections against attacks on one's honor, dignity, and reputation. As such, the court must balance these two considerations, as occurs in cases of libel, slander, and defamation (Posenato [[Probable year::2016]], 64). The exceptions for national security, public health, public order, and morals have been interpreted narrowly, so as not to allow authoritarian restrictions on free speech (65).

Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam: This [[Probable year::1990]] document was ratified by 45 states in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. There is no relevant court. Article 22:

(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.

1. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah.

(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.

(d) It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: This is a UN treaty from [[Probable year::1966]]. Under certain circumstances, it may be enforced by the International Court of Justice, but the ICJ generally only hears disputes between countries. Article 19:
Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals.

African Charter on Human and People’s Rights: This charter, with 54 signatories, came into effect in [[Probable year::1986]]. Article 9 guarantees the right to free expression, although no exceptions are enumerated. The African Court of Human and People’s Rights has repeatedly protected free expression, but not without limit. For example, in Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. The Republic of Rwanda ([[Probable year::2017]]) , the court held that minimizing a genocide need not be protected because it could disturb public order and peace.

}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:30, 6 June 2023
Line 7:		Line 7:
	\|contents=Universal Declaration of Human Rights: This was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948.		\|contents=Universal Declaration of Human Rights: This was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948.
	Article 29 stipulates that the rights found in this document, including free expression, “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.”		Article 29 stipulates that the rights found in this document, including free expression, “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.”

	European Convention on Human Rights: This treaty was ratified by most of Europe in 1953 (it is unrelated to the EU). It is enforced in the European Court of Human Rights. From Article 10:		European Convention on Human Rights: This treaty was ratified by most of Europe in 1953 (it is unrelated to the EU). It is enforced in the European Court of Human Rights. From Article 10:
	The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.		The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
	Depending on the case, the court has ruled that hate speech is not protected under Article 10. For example, in Aksoy v. Turkey (2000), it held that “remarks aimed at inciting racial hatred in society or propagating the idea of a superior race can not claim any protection under Article 10 of the Convention” (Flauss 2009, 838). It has refused to protect “revisionist language” (837), that which denies certain notorious historical truths. For example, Holocaust denial may not be protected under Article 10. Finally, the court has ruled that Article 10 does not protect speech likely to lead to violence (840).		Depending on the case, the court has ruled that hate speech is not protected under Article 10. For example, in Aksoy v. Turkey (2000), it held that “remarks aimed at inciting racial hatred in society or propagating the idea of a superior race can not claim any protection under Article 10 of the Convention” (Flauss 2009, 838). It has refused to protect “revisionist language” (837), that which denies certain notorious historical truths. For example, Holocaust denial may not be protected under Article 10. Finally, the court has ruled that Article 10 does not protect speech likely to lead to violence (840).
	In Ceylan v. Turkey (2000), the court ruled on Turkey’s conviction of a columnist who opposed Turkey’s policies toward Kurds. The court used proportionality analysis to determine that the infringement on free expression outweighed the security risk of the piece, which did not directly call for violence. In a concurring opinion, one judge argued that the court should use a clear-and-present-danger test.		In Ceylan v. Turkey (2000), the court ruled on Turkey’s conviction of a columnist who opposed Turkey’s policies toward Kurds. The court used proportionality analysis to determine that the infringement on free expression outweighed the security risk of the piece, which did not directly call for violence. In a concurring opinion, one judge argued that the court should use a clear-and-present-danger test.

	American Convention on Human Rights: This human-rights framework was created in 1969, and over the ensuing decades, has been ratified, at least in part, by nearly all of Central and South America. There exists a corresponding inter-American Court of Human Rights. From Article 13:		American Convention on Human Rights: This human-rights framework was created in 1969, and over the ensuing decades, has been ratified, at least in part, by nearly all of Central and South America. There exists a corresponding inter-American Court of Human Rights. From Article 13:
	The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure:		The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure:
Line 18:		Line 20:
	“Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law.”		“Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law.”
	Article 11 of the convention guarantees a right to privacy, which includes protections against attacks on one's honor, dignity, and reputation. As such, the court must balance these two considerations, as occurs in cases of libel, slander, and defamation (Posenato 2016, 64). The exceptions for national security, public health, public order, and morals have been interpreted narrowly, so as not to allow authoritarian restrictions on free speech (65).		Article 11 of the convention guarantees a right to privacy, which includes protections against attacks on one's honor, dignity, and reputation. As such, the court must balance these two considerations, as occurs in cases of libel, slander, and defamation (Posenato 2016, 64). The exceptions for national security, public health, public order, and morals have been interpreted narrowly, so as not to allow authoritarian restrictions on free speech (65).

	Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam: This 1990 document was ratified by 45 states in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. There is no relevant court.		Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam: This 1990 document was ratified by 45 states in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. There is no relevant court.
	Article 22:		Article 22:
Line 30:		Line 33:
	(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;		(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
	(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals.		(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals.

	African Charter on Human and People’s Rights: This charter, with 54 signatories, came into effect in 1986. Article 9 guarantees the right to free expression, although no exceptions are enumerated. The African Court of Human and People’s Rights has repeatedly protected free expression, but not without limit. For example, in Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. The Republic of Rwanda (2017), the court held that minimizing a genocide need not be protected because it could disturb public order and peace.		African Charter on Human and People’s Rights: This charter, with 54 signatories, came into effect in 1986. Article 9 guarantees the right to free expression, although no exceptions are enumerated. The African Court of Human and People’s Rights has repeatedly protected free expression, but not without limit. For example, in Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. The Republic of Rwanda (2017), the court held that minimizing a genocide need not be protected because it could disturb public order and peace.
	~~REFERENCES~~
			References:

	Universal Declaration of Human Rights: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/		Universal Declaration of Human Rights: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

	European Convention of Human Rights: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf		European Convention of Human Rights: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

	American Convention: https://www.cidh.oas.org/basicos/english/basic3.american%20convention.htm		American Convention: https://www.cidh.oas.org/basicos/english/basic3.american%20convention.htm

	Posenato: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295244849_THE_PROTECTION_OF_THE_RIGHT_ TO_FREEDOM_OF_EXPRESSION_A_PANORAMA_OF_THE_INTER-AMERICAN_COU RT_OF_HUMAN_RIGHTS_CASE_LAW_A_PROTECAO_DO_DIREITO_A_LIBERDADE_ DE_EXPRESSAO_UM_PANORAMA_DA_JURISPRUDENCIA_DA_COR/link/56e9708808a edfed7389909f/download		Posenato: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295244849_THE_PROTECTION_OF_THE_RIGHT_ TO_FREEDOM_OF_EXPRESSION_A_PANORAMA_OF_THE_INTER-AMERICAN_COU RT_OF_HUMAN_RIGHTS_CASE_LAW_A_PROTECAO_DO_DIREITO_A_LIBERDADE_ DE_EXPRESSAO_UM_PANORAMA_DA_JURISPRUDENCIA_DA_COR/link/56e9708808a edfed7389909f/download

	International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx		International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx

	Article about whether and how the ICJ enforces human-rights law: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=njih r		Article about whether and how the ICJ enforces human-rights law: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=njih r

	Flauss: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=ilj		Flauss: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=ilj

	Cairo Declaration: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/cairodeclaration.html		Cairo Declaration: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/cairodeclaration.html

	African Charter: https://www.achpr.org/legalinstruments/detail?id=49		African Charter: https://www.achpr.org/legalinstruments/detail?id=49

	Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. The Republic of Rwanda (2017), https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/african_courts_decisions_final_eng_1.pdf		Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. The Republic of Rwanda (2017), https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/african_courts_decisions_final_eng_1.pdf
	}}		}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:09, 28 December 2022
Line 6:		Line 6:
	\|pageLevel=Question		\|pageLevel=Question
	\|contents=		\|contents=
	Universal Declaration of Human Rights: This was adopted by the UN General Assembly in [[Probable year::1948]].		Universal Declaration of Human Rights: This was adopted by the UN General Assembly in [[Probable year:: 1948]].

	Article 29 stipulates that the rights found in this document, including free expression, “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.”		Article 29 stipulates that the rights found in this document, including free expression, “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.”

	European Convention on Human Rights: This treaty was ratified by most of Europe in [[Probable year::1953]] (it is unrelated to the EU). It is enforced in the European Court of Human Rights. From Article 10:		European Convention on Human Rights: This treaty was ratified by most of Europe in [[Probable year:: 1953]] (it is unrelated to the EU). It is enforced in the European Court of Human Rights. From Article 10:

	The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.		The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

	Depending on the case, the court has ruled that hate speech is not protected under Article 10. For example, in Aksoy v. Turkey ([[Probable year::2000]]) , it held that “remarks aimed at inciting racial hatred in society or propagating the idea of a superior race can not claim any protection under Article 10 of the Convention” (Flauss [[Probable year::2009]], 838). It has refused to protect “revisionist language” (837), that which denies certain notorious historical truths. For example, Holocaust denial may not be protected under Article 10. Finally, the court has ruled that Article 10 does not protect speech likely to lead to violence (840).		Depending on the case, the court has ruled that hate speech is not protected under Article 10. For example, in Aksoy v. Turkey ([[Probable year:: 2000]]) , it held that “remarks aimed at inciting racial hatred in society or propagating the idea of a superior race can not claim any protection under Article 10 of the Convention” (Flauss [[Probable year:: 2009]], 838). It has refused to protect “revisionist language” (837), that which denies certain notorious historical truths. For example, Holocaust denial may not be protected under Article 10. Finally, the court has ruled that Article 10 does not protect speech likely to lead to violence (840).

	In Ceylan v. Turkey ([[Probable year::2000]]) , the court ruled on Turkey’s conviction of a columnist who opposed Turkey’s policies toward Kurds. The court used proportionality analysis to determine that the infringement on free expression outweighed the security risk of the piece, which did not directly call for violence. In a concurring opinion, one judge argued that the court should use a clear-and-present-danger test.		In Ceylan v. Turkey ([[Probable year:: 2000]]) , the court ruled on Turkey’s conviction of a columnist who opposed Turkey’s policies toward Kurds. The court used proportionality analysis to determine that the infringement on free expression outweighed the security risk of the piece, which did not directly call for violence. In a concurring opinion, one judge argued that the court should use a clear-and-present-danger test.

	American Convention on Human Rights: This human-rights framework was created in [[Probable year::1969]], and over the ensuing decades, has been ratified, at least in part, by nearly all of Central and South America. There exists a corresponding inter-American Court of Human Rights. From Article 13:		American Convention on Human Rights: This human-rights framework was created in [[Probable year:: 1969]], and over the ensuing decades, has been ratified, at least in part, by nearly all of Central and South America. There exists a corresponding inter-American Court of Human Rights. From Article 13:

	The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure:		The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure:
Line 30:		Line 30:
	“Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law.”		“Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law.”

	Article 11 of the convention guarantees a right to privacy, which includes protections against attacks on one's honor, dignity, and reputation. As such, the court must balance these two considerations, as occurs in cases of libel, slander, and defamation (Posenato [[Probable year::2016]], 64). The exceptions for national security, public health, public order, and morals have been interpreted narrowly, so as not to allow authoritarian restrictions on free speech (65).		Article 11 of the convention guarantees a right to privacy, which includes protections against attacks on one's honor, dignity, and reputation. As such, the court must balance these two considerations, as occurs in cases of libel, slander, and defamation (Posenato [[Probable year:: 2016]], 64). The exceptions for national security, public health, public order, and morals have been interpreted narrowly, so as not to allow authoritarian restrictions on free speech (65).

	Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam: This [[Probable year::1990]] document was ratified by 45 states in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. There is no relevant court. Article 22:		Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam: This [[Probable year:: 1990]] document was ratified by 45 states in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. There is no relevant court. Article 22:

	(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.		(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.
Line 41:		Line 41:

	(d) It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination.		(d) It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination.
	International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: This is a UN treaty from [[Probable year::1966]]. Under certain circumstances, it may be enforced by the International Court of Justice, but the ICJ generally only hears disputes between countries. Article 19:		International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: This is a UN treaty from [[Probable year:: 1966]]. Under certain circumstances, it may be enforced by the International Court of Justice, but the ICJ generally only hears disputes between countries. Article 19:
	Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.		Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

Line 52:		Line 52:
	(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals.		(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals.

	African Charter on Human and People’s Rights: This charter, with 54 signatories, came into effect in [[Probable year::1986]]. Article 9 guarantees the right to free expression, although no exceptions are enumerated. The African Court of Human and People’s Rights has repeatedly protected free expression, but not without limit. For example, in Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. The Republic of Rwanda ([[Probable year::2017]]) , the court held that minimizing a genocide need not be protected because it could disturb public order and peace.		African Charter on Human and People’s Rights: This charter, with 54 signatories, came into effect in [[Probable year:: 1986]]. Article 9 guarantees the right to free expression, although no exceptions are enumerated. The African Court of Human and People’s Rights has repeatedly protected free expression, but not without limit. For example, in Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. The Republic of Rwanda ([[Probable year:: 2017]]) , the court held that minimizing a genocide need not be protected because it could disturb public order and peace.


	}}		}}