CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
Lesson 5
Free Speech Around the World
Teachers: This lesson offers a buffet for teaching about free speech in other countries. There are many
ways to approach it, so we have offered alternatives for you to sample. Select from among them – you
need not consume the whole thing.
Objectives
Students will recognize that free speech rights differ in countries around the
world.
Students will make connections between the internet, free speech, and
democracy movements in the U.S. and other countries.
Handouts (5-1) World Freedom Map; (5-2) Free Speech in Other Countries;
(5-3) Malema Judgement: What Do YOU Say?; (5-4) Social Media Critical to
Emerging Democracies Around the World; (5-5) Cyberspace Scenarios
Background Deliberations in a Democracy: Democratic Government: Protector and Regulator of
Free Expression, Constitutional Rights Foundation
Words that matter
hate speech
political speech
A. Daily warm-up and current events alert!
Warm-up – depending on what your last lesson was, choose one of the following:
• Stand up activity: “Free speech matters because … “
• Pretend that you are one of the framers (original writers) of our Constitution who
refused to sign the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. Explain, with emotion, why
you need a guarantee of free speech.
• About Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights: why do you think it was numbered ONE
and not, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10?
B. What is the Declaration of Human Rights?
Begin by asking students, “What do you think?” Do all countries protect free speech in the
same way we do in the United States? If not, why not? You can guess if you do not know
for sure! If you need a thinking partner, join another person to answer these questions.
Share your thoughts with the class.
Background: “The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in
1948, provides, in Article 19, that:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Technically, as a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly rather than a treaty, it
is not legally binding in its entirety on members of the UN. Furthermore, whilst some of its
provisions are considered to form part of customary international law, there is dispute as to
which. Freedom of speech is granted unambiguous protection in international law by the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is binding on around 150
1
Questions:
What is free speech? What free speech rights and responsibilities do we have? Is free speech vital to
a thriving democracy (why or why not)? What are the challenges to free speech in the coming year?
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
nations. “ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country. The
Declaration is found on Handout 3-1 from Lesson 3. Also on this handout are the free
speech protections in the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions.
Strategy: With students’ eyes closed, teacher reads Article 19 aloud (slowly). Ask: Think;
what is the main idea or the most important word(s) of Article 19? This could be an oral
discussion with the whole class or chalk-talk strategy. For chalk-talk, after reading Art. 19,
begin the “conversation” by writing Freedom of Expression on the board and circling it.
Students go to the board and, one at a time, respond to the prompt, “what is the main idea
or most important word(s) of Article 19?” The student draws a line from Freedom of
Expression (circled) to his or her word or comment and circles it. One at a time other
students add their comments. The exercise is totally silent – all communication is on the
board. Teacher may need to say a new prompt once or twice. The result will be a webbed
display of interesting and insightful thoughts.
C. What does free speech look like in other countries?
Students will make comparisons about free speech in other countries. Ask them what they
notice about other countries’ rights that are different from those in the U.S.? Resources
include a world map with a freedom rating identifying countries as free, partly free, or not
free (Handout 5-1); and a country by country description of free speech (from wikipedia,
although some of it will be advanced for some middle schoolers, it is a good, brief source;
Handout 5-2).
Divide countries among students. (Teachers will want to pick and choose from among the
countries in Handout 5-2.) In pairs – thinking partners – create a bumper sticker or miniposter showing how speech is or is not protected in their country.
Thinking points while researching:
• How does history affect the country’s approach (see Germany – hate speech not
allowed)?
• Which right is more important: free press or fair trial (see Canada, England, others)
• Has speech via the internet or social media played an important role (see China;
recent change countries in Africa and the Mideast are not included in this piece and
require independent research)?
Present your work to the class and advocate for the country you researched.
For more, helpful information on hate speech in the U.S. compared to other countries, listen
or read this March 2011 NPR interview with Charles Asher Small, founder of the Yale
Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism,
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/03/134239713/France-Isnt-The-Only-Country-To-ProhibitHate-Speech.
D. Should a liberation song be considered hate speech?
Use a current event in South Africa to explore what constitutes hate speech. A young ANC
leader (black) was found guilty of hate speech for singing a well-known liberation song
that includes the words “shoot the boer” (white). Bloggers’ comments both supporting and
opposing the ruling are listed in Handout 5-3. Use as a read aloud with teacher reading the
2
Questions:
What is free speech? What free speech rights and responsibilities do we have? Is free speech vital to
a thriving democracy (why or why not)? What are the challenges to free speech in the coming year?
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
story and students the roles of the bloggers. Class discussion will include topics such as
whether this song – or other songs – should be considered hate speech, and if the law is
different in South Africa and the U.S. The NPR interview referenced above contains helpful
information about hate speech in other countries.
E. What role is technology playing?
In many countries citizens are struggling to have their voices heard. Set the stage with a
read aloud of Social Media Critical to Emerging Democracies Around the World (Handout
5-4) for a good, quick overview from an interesting source, U.S. Embassy in Turkmenistan.
In our own country, struggles with what is and what is not permissible speech is ongoing.
In small groups, students will decide one of the Cyberspace Scenarios in Handout 5-5.
With social media and technology in mind, let’s go back to the future! Using the timeline
from Lesson 4 (Handout 4-1), ask students to think about technological advances and
predict the future of free speech. In pairs or triads, assign students to think one year, two
years, five, ten, twenty, or fifty years into the future. Discuss, then take a stand on the
timeline. Discussion prompts may include questions such as:
• What changes make free speech better?
• What are challenges to free speech?
• Will privacy be protected?
• Who will have access to technology?
• What will be government controlled? Controlled by corporations? Individuals?
• Will the changes be good for democracy?
E.
Extended Activities
Upper grades: contrast the First Amendment with Article 19. How are they the same?
Different? What about Oregon’s free speech law, Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 8?
More or less protection? (Handout 3-1)
For entertaining and challenging hypotheticals that explore the legal complexities
(imminent threat, time, place, manner, etc.) of speech issues, this law-student created
document is for you. It is entertaining because it uses celebrities in various situations but is
also difficult – geared for upper grades. Go to
http://www.law.washington.edu/Clinics/Streetlaw/lessons.aspx then look for Freedom
of Speech: Hypos and Supreme Court Arguments (2006) and click on Hypotheticals with
arguments.
For carefully crafted classroom discussion, see Constitutional Rights Foundation’s superb
Deliberating in a Democracy: Freedom of Expression Lesson Plan. It explores the question:
Should our democracy permit hate speech? Thoughtful reading guide, prompts, and
instructions are included,
http://www.did.deliberating.org/lessons/documents/DID%20FreedomofExpression_201
3
Questions:
What is free speech? What free speech rights and responsibilities do we have? Is free speech vital to
a thriving democracy (why or why not)? What are the challenges to free speech in the coming year?
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
1.pdf.
4
Questions:
What is free speech? What free speech rights and responsibilities do we have? Is free speech vital to
a thriving democracy (why or why not)? What are the challenges to free speech in the coming year?
Handout 5-1 World Freedom Map
Map of Freedom
FREED OM HOUSE
2011
Arc tic O cean
Greenland Sea
Beaufort Sea
Norwegian Sea
GREENLAND
ICELAND
NORWAY
U.S.A.
SWEDEN
RUSSIA
FINLAND
Bering Sea
Hudson Bay
Gulf of Alaska
Labrador Sea
DENMARK
U.K.
CANADA
RUSSIA
ESTONIA
LATVIA
LITHUANIA
Sea of Okhotsk
BELARUS
POLAND
NETHERLANDS
GERMANY
BELGIUM
TRANSNISTRIA
CZECH REP.
LUXEMBOURG
SLOVAKIA
UKRAINE
LIECHTENSTEIN
KAZAKHSTAN
MOLDOVA
SWITZERLAND AUSTRIA HUNGARY
SLOVENIA
ROMANIA
FRANCE ITALY CROATIA SERBIA
ABKHAZIA
BOSNIA & HERZ.
MONTENEGRO
BULGARIA
MONACO
SOUTH OSSETIA
UZBEKISTAN
ANDORRA SAN MARINO
MACEDONIA
GEORGIA
KYRGYZSTAN
AZERBAIJAN
KOSOVO
PORTUGAL
ARMENIA
GREECE
TURKMENISTAN
SPAIN
TURKEY
TAJIKISTAN
ALBANIA
NAGORNO
NORTHERN
KARABAKH
CYPRUS
MALTA
PAKISTANI KASHMIR
SYRIA
CYPRUS
TUNISIA
AFGHANISTAN
LEBANON
INDIAN KASHMIR
IRAQ
GAZA STRIP/ WEST BANK
MOROCCO
IRAN
ISRAEL
TIBET
JORDAN
IRELAND
Nor th Atlantic O cean
Nor th Pacific O cean
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MEXICO
KUWAIT
ALGERIA
Gulf of Mexico
BAHAMAS
LIBYA
EGYPT
WESTERN SAHARA
HAITI
DOM. REP.
Caribbean Sea
GUATEMALA
EL SALVADOR
DOMINICA
ST. LUCIA
ST. VINCENT & GRENADINES
BARBADOS
GRENADA
NICARAGUA
SENEGAL
CAPE VERDE
THE GAMBIA
GUINEA BISSAU
TRINIDAD & TOBAGO
COSTA RICA
VENEZUELA
PANAMA
NIGER
GUYANA
SURINAME
FRENCH GUIANA
BURKINA
FASO
BENIN
GUINEA
SIERRA LEONE
CÔTE GHANA
D’IVOIRE
TOGO
LIBERIA
COLOMBIA
CHAD
ERITREA
CAMEROON
THAILAND
South China Sea
VIETNAM
MARSHALL
ISLANDS
PHILIPPINES
CAMBODIA
SRI LANKA
ETHIOPIA
CENTRAL AFRICAN
REPUBLIC
MICRONESIA
PALAU
MALAYSIA
KENYA
TUVALU
SINGAPORE
RWANDA
CONGO (KINSHASA)
BURUNDI
INDONESIA
TANZANIA
PAPUA
NEW GUINEA
SEYCHELLES
BRAZIL
Indian O cean
COMOROS
ANGOLA
SOLOMON
ISLANDS
EAST TIMOR
ZAMBIA
BOLIVIA
VANUATU
MAURITIUS
ZIMBABWE
MALAWI
NAMIBIA
PARAGUAY
S outh Atlantic O cean
CHILE
BOTSWANA
MOZAMBIQUE
FIJI
MADAGASCAR
TONGA
AUSTRALIA
SWAZILAND
ARGENTINA
SOUTH AFRICA
S outh Pac ific O cean
KIRIBATI
NAURU
BRUNEI
MALDIVES
SOMALIA
UGANDA
GABON
SAMOA
HONG KONG
LAOS
SOMALILAND
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE)
PERU
Bay of Bengal
DJIBOUTI
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
SAO TOME & PRINCIPE
ECUADOR
YEMEN
Nor th Pac ific O cean
TAIWAN
BURMA
SUDAN
NIGERIA
JAPAN
BHUTAN
BANGLADESH
OMAN
MALI
SOUTH KOREA
East
China Sea
INDIA
SAUDI ARABIA
MAURITANIA
ST. KITTS & NEVIS
ANTIGUA & BARBUDA
NEPAL
NORTH KOREA
CHINA
QATAR
U.A.E.
PUERTO RICO
CUBA
JAMAICA
BELIZE
HONDURAS
PAKISTAN
BAHRAIN
MONGOLIA
LESOTHO
URUGUAY
Tasman Sea
NEW ZEALAND
Survey Findings
Freedom Status
Country Breakdown
FREE
87 (45%)
PARTLY FREE
NOT FREE
TOTAL
Population Breakdown
2,951,950,000 (43%)
60 (31%)
1,487,000,000 (22%)
47 (24%)
2,434,250,000 (35%)
194
6,873,200,000
The Map of Freedom reflects the findings of
Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2011 survey,
which rates the level of political rights and civil
liberties in 194 countries and 14 related and disputed
territories during 2010. Based on these ratings,
countries are divided into three categories: Free,
Partly Free, and Not Free.
A Free country is one where there is broad scope
for open political competition, a climate of respect for
civil liberties, significant independent civic life, and
independent media.
Partly Free countries are characterized by some
restrictions on political rights and civil liberties,
often in a context of corruption, weak rule of law,
ethnic strife, or civil war.
A Not Free country is one where basic political
rights are absent, and basic civil liberties are widely and
systematically denied.
Freedom House is an independent nongovernmental
organization that supports the expansion of freedom
worldwide.
www.freedomhouse.org
http://alexandravaliente.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/freedom-house-movements-org-hit-list/freedom-house-map-of-freedom-2010/
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
Handout 5-2
Freedom of speech by country
Source: Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country
Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion
publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public
speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved
in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal
recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless the degree to which the right is
upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly
those with relatively authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is
enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms (see propaganda
model) and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and
defamation laws even in countries seen as liberal democracies.
INTERNATIONAL LAW
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides, in
Article 19, that:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.[1]
Technically, as a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly rather than a treaty, it
is not legally binding in its entirety on members of the UN. Furthermore, whilst some of its
provisions are considered to form part of customary international law, there is dispute as to
which. Freedom of speech is granted unambiguous protection in international law by the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is binding on around 150
nations.
In adopting the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Monaco, Australia and the Netherlands insisted on reservations to Article 19
insofar as it might be held to affect their systems of regulating and licensing
broadcasting.[2]
AFRICAN CONTINENT
The majority of African constitutions provide legal protection for freedom of speech.
However, these rights are exercised inconsistently in practice. The replacement of
authoritarian regimes in Kenya and Ghana has substantially improved the situation in
those countries. On the other hand, Eritrea allows no independent media and uses draft
evasion as a pretext to crack down on any dissent, spoken or otherwise. One of the poorest
and smallest nations in Africa, Eritrea is now the largest prison for journalists; since 2001,
fourteen journalists have been imprisoned in unknown places without a trial. Sudan, Libya,
and Equatorial Guinea also have repressive laws and practices. In addition, many state
1
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
radio stations (which are the primary source of news for illiterate people) are under tight
control and programs, especially talk shows providing a forum to complain about the
government, are often censored. Also countries like Somalia and Egypt provide legal
protection for freedom of speech but it is not used publicly
South Africa
South Africa is probably the most liberal in granting freedom of speech, however in light of
South Africa's racial and discriminatory history, particularly the Apartheid era, the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 precludes expression that is
tantamount to the advocacy of hatred based on some listed grounds.[3] Freedom of speech
and expression are both protected and limited by a section in the South African Bill of
Rights, chapter 2 of the Constitution. Section 16 makes the following provisions:
§ 16 Freedom of expression
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes(a) freedom of the press and other media;
(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
(c) freedom of artistic creativity; and
(d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
(2) The right in subsection (1) does not extend to(a) propaganda for war;
(b) incitement of imminent violence; or
(c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that
constitutes incitement to cause harm.
In 2005, the South African Constitutional Court set an international precedent in the case of
Laugh It Off Promotions CC v South African Breweries International when it found that
the small culture jamming company Laugh-it-Off's right to freedom of expression
outweighs the protection of trademark of the world's second largest brewery.[4]
Sudan
Blasphemy against religion is illegal in Sudan under Blasphemy laws.[5]
AUSTRALIA
Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory
declaration of rights, with the exception of political speech which is protected from
criminal prosecution at common law per Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v
Commonwealth.
In 1992 the High Court of Australia judged in the case of Australian Capital Television Pty
Ltd v Commonwealth that the Australian Constitution, by providing for a system of
representative and responsible government, implied the protection of political
2
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
communication as an essential element of that system. This freedom of political
communication is not a broad freedom of speech as in other countries, but rather a freedom
whose purpose is only to protect political free speech. This freedom of political free speech
is a shield against government prosecution, not a shield against private prosecution (civil
law). It is also less a causal mechanism in itself, rather than simply a boundary which can
be adjudged to be breached. Despite the court's ruling, however, not all political speech
appears to be protected in Australia and several laws criminalise forms of speech that
would be protected in other democratic countries such as the United States.
In 1996, Albert Langer was imprisoned for advocating that voters fill out their ballot papers
in a way that was invalid.[6] Amnesty International declared Langer to be a prisoner of
conscience.[7] The section which outlawed Langer from encouraging people to vote this
way has since been repealed and the law now says only that it is an offence to print or
publish material which may deceive or mislead a voter.
The Howard Government re-introduced sedition law, which criminalises some forms of
expression. Media Watch ran a series on the amendments on ABC television.[8]
In 2006, CSIRO senior scientist Graeme Pearman was reprimanded and encouraged to
resign after he spoke out on global warming.[9] The Howard Government was accused of
limiting the speech of Pearman and other scientists.
ASIA
Several Asian countries provide formal legal guarantees of freedom of speech to their
citizens. These are not, however, implemented in practice in some countries. Countries
such as Myanmar, North Korea and some Central Asian Republics are reported to brutally
repress freedom of speech.[citation needed] Freedom of speech has improved somewhat in
the People's Republic of China in recent years,[citation needed] but the level of free
expression is still far from that of Western nations. There is no clear correlation between
legal and constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and actual practices among Asian
nations.
Iran
Blasphemy against Islam is illegal in Iran,[10]
Saudi Arabia
Blasphemy against Islam is illegal in Saudi Arabia.[11]
Pakistan
Articles 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees freedom of speech and expression,
and freedom of the press with certain restrictions.[12] Blasphemy against Islam is illegal in
Pakistan.[13] [14]
3
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
People's Republic of China (mainland)
Article 35 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China claims that:
Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of
assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.[15]
Nonetheless strict censorship is widespread in mainland China. There is heavy government
involvement in the media, with many of the largest media organizations being run by the
Communist government. References to democracy, the free Tibet movement, Taiwan as an
independent country, certain religious organizations and anything questioning the
legitimacy of the Communist Party of China are banned from use in public and blocked on
the Internet. Web portals including Microsoft's MSN have come under criticism for aiding
in these practices, including banning the word "democracy" from its chat-rooms in China.
Due to close geographical proximity to Hong Kong, parts of southern China are able to
receive broadcast signals from television channels in Hong Kong, where China's censorship
does not apply. However, comments that the Communist Party feel uncomfortable with are
cut out and replaced with TV commercials before they can reach consumers TVs in
mainland China. Very few Western films are given permission to play in Chinese theatres,
although widespread unlicensed copying of these films makes them widely available.
Hong Kong (editor’s note: officially part of PRC but different laws due to experience
under longtime British rule)
Under Hong Kong Basic Law,
* Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech.[16]
* The freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable.[17]
* The freedom and privacy of communication of Hong Kong residents shall be protected
by law.[18]
India
The Indian constitution guarantees freedom of speech to every citizen and there have been
landmark cases in the Indian Supreme Court that have affirmed the nation's policy of
allowing free press and freedom of expression to every citizen. In India, citizens are free to
criticize politics, politicians, bureaucracy and policies. The freedoms are comparable to
those in the United States and Western European democracies. Article 19 of the Indian
constitution states that:
All citizens shall have the right —
1. to freedom of speech and expression;
2. to assemble peaceably and without arms;
3. to form associations or unions;
4. to move freely throughout the territory of India;
5. to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
6. to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.[19]
4
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
These rights are limited so as not to effect:
* The integrity of India
* The security of the State
* Friendly relations with foreign States
* Public order
* Decency or morality
* Contempt of court
* Defamation or incitement to an offence[20]
Freedom of speech has been restricted by the constitution of the Indian Union by the
National Security Act which is still in effect and laws like POTO and TADA act in the past.
Indonesia
Blasphemy against religion is illegal in Indonesia under Blasphemy laws.[21]
Malaysia
In Malaysia, "God" and "Prophet Muhammad" are used by politicians to answer to the
peoples and the media. In May 2008, the Prime Minister of Malaysia Datuk Seri Abdullah
Ahmad Badawi put forward a headline "Media should practice voluntary selfcensorship",[22] saying there is no such thing as unlimited freedom and the media should
not be abashed of "voluntary self-censorship" to respect cultural norms, different societies
hold different values and while it might be acceptable in secular countries to depict a
caricature of Prophet Muhammad, it was clearly not the case here. "It is not a moral or
media sin to respect prophets. He said the Government also wanted the media not to
undermine racial and religious harmony to the extent that it could threaten national
security and public order. "I do not see these laws as curbs on freedom. Rather, they are
essential for a healthy society."[23]
South Korea
The South Korean constitution guarantees freedom of speech, press, petition and assembly.
However, behaviors or speeches in favor of the North Korean regime or communism can
be punished by the National Security Law, though in recent years prosecutions under this
law have been rare.
There is a strict election law that takes effect a few months before elections which prohibits
most speech that either supports or criticizes a particular candidate or party. One can be
prosecuted for political parodies and even for wearing a particular color (usually the color
of a party).[24]
The UN Human Rights Commission expressed concerns about South Korea's deterioration
of online free speech.[25]
5
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
EUROPE
Council of Europe
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), signed on 4 November 1950,
guarantees a broad range of human rights to inhabitants of member countries of the
Council of Europe, which includes almost all European nations. These rights include
Article 10, which entitles all citizens to free expression. Echoing the language of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights this provides that:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to
hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference
by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The Convention established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Any person
who feels his or her rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can
take a case to the Court. Judgements finding violations are binding on the States concerned
and they are obliged to execute them. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
monitors the execution of judgements, particularly to ensure payment of the amounts
awarded by the Court to the applicants in compensation for the damage they have
sustained.
The Convention also includes some other restrictions:
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities,
may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of
national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder
or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation
or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in
confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
For example, the Council of Europe Explanatory Report of the Additional Protocol to the
Convention on Cybercrime states the "European Court of Human Rights has made it clear
that the denial or revision of 'clearly established historical facts – such as the Holocaust –
[...] would be removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17' of the ECHR" in the
Lehideux and Isorni v. France judgment of 23 September 1998.[26]
Each party to the Convention must alter its laws and policies to conform with the
Convention, some, such as the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, have
expressly incorporated the Convention into their domestic laws. The guardian of the
Convention is the European Court of Human Rights. This court has heard many cases
relating to freedom of speech, including cases that have tested the professional obligations
of confidentiality of journalists and lawyers, and the application of defamation law, a
recent example being the so called "McLibel case".
6
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
European Union
Currently, all members of the European Union are signatories of the European Convention
on Human Rights along having various constitutional and legal rights to freedom of
expression at the national level. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
has been legally binding since December 1, 2009 when the Treaty of Lisbon became fully
ratified and effective. Article 11 of the Charter, in part mirroring the language of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights,
provides that
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to
hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by
public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
The European Court of Justice takes into account both the Charter and the Convention
when making its rulings. According to the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union accedes to
the European Convention as an entity in its own right, making the Convention binding not
only on the governments of the member states but also on the supranational institutions of
the EU.
Denmark
Freedom of speech in Denmark is granted by Grundloven:[27]
§ 77 Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in writing, and in speech,
subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive
measures shall never again be introduced.
France
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, states, in its
article 11:
The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious
rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, save [if it is necessary]
to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law.
In addition, France adheres to the European Convention on Human Rights and accepts the
jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
Restrictions
French law prohibits public speech or writings that incite to racial or religious hatred, as
well as those that deny the Holocaust.
In December 2004, a controversial addition was made to the law, criminalizing the
prohibition to hatred or violence against people because of their sexual orientation.
7
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
An addition to the Public Health Code was passed on the 31 December 1970, which
punishes the "positive presentation of drugs" and the "incitement to their consumption"
with up to five years in prison and fines up to €76,000. Newspapers such as Libération,
Charlie Hebdo and associations, political parties, and various publications criticizing the
current drug laws and advocating drug reform in France have been repeatedly hit with
heavy fines based on this law.
France does not implement any preliminary government censorship for written
publications. Any violation of law must be processed through the courts.
The government has a commission recommending movie classifications, the decisions of
which can be appealed before the courts. Another commission oversees publications for the
youth. The Minister of the Interior can prohibit the sale of pornographic publications to
minors, and can also prevent such publications from being publicly displayed or
advertised; such decisions can be challenged before administrative courts.[28]
The government restricts the right of broadcasting to authorized radio and television
channels; the authorizations are granted by an independent administrative authority; this
authority has recently removed the broadcasting authorizations of some foreign channels
because of their antisemitic content.
As part of “internal security” enactments passed in 2003, it is an offense to insult the
national flag or anthem, with a penalty of a maximum 9,000 euro fine or up to six months'
imprisonment.[citation needed] Restrictions on "offending the dignity of the republic", on
the other hand, include "insulting" anyone who serves the public (potentially magistrates,
police, firefighters, teachers and even bus conductors).[citation needed] The legislation
reflects the debate that raged after incidents such as the booing of the “La Marseillaise” at a
France vs. Algeria football match in 2002.
Germany
Freedom of expression is granted by Article 5 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of
Germany:[29]
1. Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in
speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally
accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts
and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
2. These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for
the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.
3. Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall
not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.
The most important and sometimes controversial regulations limiting freedom of speech
and freedom of the press can be found in the Criminal code:
* Insult is punishable under Section 185. Satire and similar forms of art enjoy more
freedom but have to respect human dignity (Article 1 of the Basic law).
* Malicious Gossip and Defamation (Section 186 and 187). Utterances about facts
8
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
(opposed to personal judgement) are allowed if they are true and can be proven. Yet
journalists are free to investigate without evidence because they are justified by
Safeguarding Legitimate Interests (Section 193).
* Hate speech may be punishable if against segments of the population and in a manner
that is capable of disturbing the public peace (Section 130 [Agitation of the People]),
including racist agitation and antisemitism.
* Holocaust denial is punishable according to Section 130 subsection 3.
* Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations (Section 86).
* Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations (Section 86a) as the Swastika.
* Disparagement of
o the Federal President (Section 90).
o the State and its Symbols (Section 90a).
* Insult to Organs and Representatives of Foreign States (Section 103).
* Rewarding and Approving Crimes (Section 140).
* Casting False Suspicion (Section 164).
* Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of
Life if they could disturb public peace (Section 166)
* Dissemination of Pornographic Writings (Section 184).
Blasphemy against religion is illegal in Germany under Blasphemy laws.[30]
Outdoor assemblies must be registered beforehand.[31] Assemblies at memorial sites are
banned.[32] Individuals and groups may be banned from assembling, especially those
whose fundamental rights have been revoked and banned political parties.[32] The Love
Parade decision (1 BvQ 28/01 and 1 BvQ 30/01 of 12 July 2001) determined that for an
assembly to be protected it must comply with the concept of a constituent assembly, or the
so-called narrow concept of assembly whereby the participants in the assembly must
pursue a common purpose that is in the common interest.[33]
Greece
The 14th article of the Constitution of Greece makes it an offence for the press to insult the
President of Greece as well as Christianity and any other religion recognized by the
state.[34]
Ireland
Freedom of speech is protected by Article 40.6.1 of the Irish constitution. However the
article qualifies this right, providing that it may not be used to undermine "public order or
morality or the authority of the State". Furthermore, the constitution explicitly requires that
the publication of "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" be a criminal offence,
leading the government to pass a new blasphemy law on 8 July 2009.
The scope of the protection afforded by this Article has been interpreted restrictively by the
judiciary, largely as a result of the wording of the Article, which qualifies the right before
articulating it. Indeed, until an authoritative pronouncement on the issue by the Supreme
Court, many believed that the protection was restricted to "convictions and opinions" and,
as a result, a separate right to communicate was, by necessity, implied into Article 40.3.2.
9
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
This judicial conservatism is at variance with the concept of speech as a democratic
imperative. This, albeit trite, justification for free speech has underpinned the liberal,
progressive interpretation of the First Amendment by the United States Supreme Court.
Under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, all of the rights afforded by
the European Convention form an integral part of the Republic of Ireland's laws. The act is,
however, subordinate to the constitution.
Italy
Blasphemy against religion is illegal in Italy under Blasphemy laws[30]
Malta
Blasphemy against the Roman Catholic church is illegal in Malta.[35]
The Netherlands
Article 7 of the Dutch Grondwet in its first paragraph grants everybody the right to make
public ideas and feelings by printing them without prior censorship, but not exonerating
the author from his liabilities under the law. The second paragraph says that radio and
television will be regulated by law but that there will be no prior censorship dealing with
the content of broadcasts. The third paragraph grants a similar freedom of speech as in the
first for other means of making ideas and feelings public but allowing censorship for
reasons of decency when the public that has access may be younger than sixteen years of
age. The fourth and last paragraph exempts commercial advertising from the freedoms
granted in the first three paragraphs.[36]
The penal code has laws however sanctioning certain types of expression. Such laws and
freedom of speech are at the centre of a public debate in The Netherlands after the arrest on
16 May 2008 of cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot. Jurisprudence from the 60's prohibits
prosecution of blasphemy. Parliament has recently expressed its wish to abolish the law
penalizing blasphemy. The current Christian Democrat Justice Minister would however
prefer to renew it and expand it to include non-religious philosophies of life, thus making it
possible to anticipate and prevent international outcry similar to the Jyllands-Posten
Muhammad cartoons controversy. Laws that punish discriminatory speech also exist and
are being used against Gregorius Nekschot. Laws on lèse majesté exist and are occasionally
used to prosecute.
[edit] Poland
"Statutes of Wiślica" introduced in 1347 by Casimir III of Poland codified freedom of speech
in medieval Poland e.g. book publishers were not to be persecuted. The Constitution of the
Republic of Poland, specifically forbids, the existence of "political parties and other
organizations whose programmes are based upon totalitarian methods and the modes of
activity of nazism, fascism and communism, as well as those whose programmes or
activities sanction racial or national hatred, the application of violence for the purpose of
obtaining power or to influence the State policy, or provide for the secrecy of their own
structure or membership". As of 2005[update][citation needed], people are sometimes
convicted and/or detained for about one day for insults to religious feeling (of the Roman
10
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
Catholic Church)[citation needed] or to heads of state who are not yet, but soon will be, on
Polish territory. On 18 July 2003, During 26–27 January 2005, about 30 human rights
activists were temporarily detained by the police, allegedly for insulting Vladimir Putin, a
visiting head of state. The activists were released after about 30 hours and only one was
actually charged with insulting a foreign head of state.[37]
Sweden
Freedom of speech is regulated in three parts of the Constitution of Sweden.
* Regeringsformen, Chapter 2 (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) protects personal
freedom of expression “whether orally, pictorially, in writing, or in any other way”[38]
* Tryckfrihetsförordningen (Freedom of the Press Act) protects the freedom of printed
press, as well as the principle of free access to public records (offentlighetsprincipen) and
the right to communicate information to the press anonymously. For a newspaper to be
covered by this law, it must be registered and have a “responsible editor”.[39]
* Yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen (Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression) extends
protections similar to those of Tryckfrihetsförordningen to other media, including
television, radio and web sites.[40]
Certain restrictions on freedom of speech exist, notably regarding hate speech against any
group based on ethnicity, race and creed, and since 2002 also against sexual orientation.
Some notable recent cases are Radio Islam and Åke Green.[citation needed]
United Kingdom
This section may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical
perspective. (May 2010)
United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the
common law.[41] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention,
and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law
under the Human Rights Act. There are many exceptions including incitement,[42]
incitement to racial hatred,[43] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism
including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[42][44]
glorifying terrorism,[45][46] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a
terrorist,[47][48] threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior,[49][50] treason
including imagining the death of the monarch,[51] sedition,[51] obscenity, indecency
including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[52] defamation,[53]
prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and
prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[54][55] prohibition of post-trial
interviews with jurors,[55] scandalizing the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[55]
time, manner, and place restrictions,[56] harassment, privileged communications, trade
secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on
commercial speech such as advertising.
UK law imposes a number of limitations on freedom of speech not found in some other
jurisdictions. For example, its laws recognise the crimes of incitement to racial hatred and
incitement to religious hatred. UK laws on defamation are also considered[by whom?]
11
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
among the strictest in the Western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the
defendant. However, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 guarantees freedom of speech (within
institutions of further education and institutions of higher education) as long as it is within
the law (see section 43 at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/61).
UK defamation law may have recently experienced a considerable liberalising effect as a
result of the ruling in Jameel v Wall Street Journal in October 2006. A ruling of the House of
Lords - the then highest court of appeal - revived the so-called Reynolds Defence, in which
journalism undertaken in the public interest shall enjoy a complete defence against a libel
suit. Conditions for the defence include the right of reply for potential claimants, and that
the balance of the piece was fair in view of what the writer knew at the time.
The ruling removed the awkward - and hitherto binding - conditions of being able to
describe the publisher as being under a duty to publish the material and the public as
having a definite interest in receiving it. The original House of Lords judgment in Reynolds
was unclear and held 3-2; whereas Jameel was unanimous and resounding.
Lord Hoffman's words, in particular, for how the judge at first instance had applied
Reynolds so narrowly, were very harsh. Hoffman LJ made seven references to Eady J, none
of them favorable. He twice described his thinking as unrealistic and compared his
language to “the jargon of the old Soviet Union.”
Illegal literature
On 6 December 2007, Samina Malik was convicted of possessing literature deemed illegal
by the Terrorism Act 2000. The illegal literature included poems she had written. She
received a nine-month suspended jail sentence.[57] This case has been condemned by Hizb
ut-Tahrir[58][59][60]
Abdul Patel was found guilty of possessing a document likely to be useful for terrorism (a
book on explosives).[61]
Mohammed Siddique was sentenced to eight years of prison for possessing and
distributing through his website freely available videos inciting martyrdom.[62][63]
On 27 February 2008 civil servant Darryn Walker was arrested by officers from Scotland
Yard's Obscene Publications Unit for posting a work of fiction allegedly describing the
kidnap, mutilation, rape and murder of the girl band 'Girls Aloud' on a fantasy
pornography website. While the website was hosted outside the UK, Walker's prosecution
was possible under UK law as he is a British citizen living in the UK. He was found not
guilty on 29 July 2009 as the CPS offered no evidence. The 1959 Obscene Publications Act
makes it illegal to publish material that tend to deprave and corrupt those reading or
viewing it. In 1960 a prosecution under the Act was brought against Penguin Books over
the novel 'Lady Chatterley's Lover'. Penguin was found not guilty and within a year the
book had sold more than two million copies.[64]
In 2009, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle were sentenced to prison time for publishing
material that was likely to incite racial and religious hatred. They had tried to escape to the
United States but were not granted political asylum and were deported back to the UK.[65]
12
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
Video Recordings & Games
The Video Recordings Act 2010 requires most video recordings and some video games
offered for sale in the United Kingdom to display a classification supplied by the BBFC.
There are no set regulations as to what cannot be depicted in order to gain a classification
as each scene is considered in the context of the wider intentions of the work; however
images that could aid, encourage, or are a result of the committing of a crime, along with
sustained and graphic images of torture or sexual abuse are the most likely to be refused.
The objectionable material may be cut by the distributor in order to receive a classification,
but with some works it may be deemed that no amount of cuts would be able to make the
work suitable for classification, effectively banning that title from sale in the country.
Recordings refused a classification by the BBFC may still be shown in cinemas providing
the local authority, from which a cinema must have a licence to operate, will permit them.
Norway
Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution has granted freedom of speech since 1814 and is
mostly unchanged since then. Article 142 of the penal code is a law against blasphemy, but
no one has been charged since 1933, though it was upheld as late as 2004. Article 135a of
the penal code is a law against hate speech, which is debated and not widely used.
Article 100 in the Constitution states:
* There shall be freedom of expression.
* No person 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 his 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.
* Prior censorship and other preventive measures may not be applied unless so required
in order to protect children and young persons from the harmful influence of moving
pictures. Censorship of letters may only be imposed in institutions.
* Everyone has a right of access to documents of the State and municipal administration
and a right to follow the proceedings of the courts and democratically elected bodies.
Limitations to this right may be prescribed by law to protect the privacy of the individual
or for other weighty reasons.
* It is the responsibility of the authorities of the State to create conditions that facilitate
open and enlightened public discourse.
Switzerland
The Swiss Constitution also guarantees Freedom of speech and Freedom of information for
every citizen (Article 16).[66] But still the country makes some controversial decisions,
13
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
which both Human Right Organizations and other states criticizes. The Swiss Animal Right
organization "Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz" took the country to the European Court
of Human Rights twice for censoring a TV-Advertisement of the organization, in which the
livestock farming of pigs is shown. The organization won both lawsuits, and the Swiss state
was convicted to pay compensations.[67] Another very controversial law of Switzerland is
that persons who refuse to recognize genocide like the Armenian Massacre of 1915 have to
face trial. The Turkish politician Doğu Perinçek was fined CHF 12,000 for denying the
existence of the Genocide in 2007. Switzerland was criticized by Turkish media and
Turkish politicians for acting against the freedom of opinion. Perinçek's application for a
revision was rejected by the court.[68]
Turkey
Article 26 of the Constitution of Turkey guarantees the right to "Freedom of Expression and
Dissemination of Thought". Moreover, the Republic of Turkey is a signatory of the
European Convention on Human Rights and submits to the judgments of the European
Court of Human Rights. The constitutional freedom of expression may be limited by
provisions in other laws, such as Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which outlaws
denigration of the Turkish Nation, while also providing that "expression of thought
intended to criticize shall not constitute a crime".
NORTH AMERICA
Cuba
Books, newspapers, radio channels, television channels, movies and music are censored.
Cuba's is one of the world's worst offenders of free speech according to the Press Freedom
Index 2008.[69] RWB states that Cuba is "the second biggest prison in the world for
journalists" after the People's Republic of China.[70]
Canada
The constitutional provision that guarantees Freedom of expression in Canada is section
2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... (b) freedom of thought,
belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of
communication
Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of
expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the
Charter states:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms
set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)
This section is double-edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech
prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free
14
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it
cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.
Despite these protections, Canada has had a string of high-profile court cases in which
writers have been prosecuted for their writings, in both magazines and web postings.
In February 2006, Calgary Muslim leader Syed Soharwardy filed a human rights
complaint against Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant. Levant was compelled
to appear before the Alberta Human Rights Commission to discuss his intention in
publishing the cartoons. Levant posted a video of the hearing on YouTube. Levant
questioned the competence of the Commission to take up the issue, and challenged
it to convict him, "and sentences me to the apology", stating that he would then take
"this junk into the real courts, where eight hundred years of common law" would
come to his aid.[71]
In 2007, a complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission
related to an article "The Future Belongs to Islam,"[41] written by Mark Steyn,
published in Maclean's magazine. The complainants alleged that the article and
Maclean's refusal to provide space for a rebuttal violated their human rights. The
complainants also claimed that the article was one of twenty-two (22) Maclean's
articles, many written by Steyn, about Muslims.[42] Further complaints were filed
with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human
Rights Tribunal.[72]
Steyn was eventually acquitted.
A Montreal neo-Nazi has been given a six-month prison sentence for wilfully
promoting hatred toward blacks and Jews on his website. Calling Jean-Sebastien
Presseault's opinions "vile" and "nauseating," Quebec Court Judge Martin Vauclair
sent the heavily tattooed man back to jail. The 24 tattoos, including several Ku Klux
Klan and Nazi symbols covering the defendant's torso, figure prominently in
Vauclair's decision to give jail time, as opposed to a sentence to be served in the
community, as the defence had hoped for. "The violence he inflicted on his own
body to leave almost-indelible marks of his convictions testify as to his unresolved
frustrations but also to his deep-seated racist and hateful beliefs," Vauclair said.
In the landmark Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Zundel (1992), the court struck down
a provision in the Criminal Code of Canada that prohibited publication of false information
or news, stating that it violated section 2(b) of the Charter.
Under section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to promote genocide. Under
section 319, it is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race,
religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true
or are made in good faith. The prohibition against inciting hatred based on sexual
orientation was added to the section in 2004 with the passage of Bill C-250.
Other laws that protect freedom of speech in Canada, and did so, to a limited extent, before
the Charter was enacted in 1982, include the Implied Bill of Rights and the Canadian Bill of
Rights.
15
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
United States
In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution. There are several statutory and common law exceptions
including obscenity,[73][74] defamation,[73][74] incitement,[74] incitement to riot or
imminent lawless action,[73][74] fighting words,[73] information decreed to be related to
national security such as classified information,[75] false advertising,[74] perjury,[74]
harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, copyright, patents, military conduct,
and time, place and manner restrictions.
Historically, local communities and governments have sometimes sought to place limits
upon speech that was deemed subversive or unpopular. There was a significant struggle
for the right to free speech on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley in the
1960s. And, in the period from 1906 to 1916, the Industrial Workers of the World, a
working class union, found it necessary to engage in free speech fights intended to secure
the right of union organizers to speak freely to wage workers. These free speech campaigns
were sometimes quite successful, although participants often put themselves at great
risk.[citation needed]
Freedom of speech is also sometimes limited to free speech zones, which can take the form
of a wire fence enclosure, barricades, or an alternative venue designed to segregate
speakers according to the content of their message. There is much controversy surrounding
the creation of these areas — the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people,
who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire
country an unrestricted free speech zone.[76] Civil libertarians claim that Free Speech
Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the
existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.[76]
Neither the federal nor state governments engage in preliminary censorship of movies.
However, the Motion Picture Association of America has a rating system, and movies not
rated by the MPAA cannot expect anything but a very limited release in theatres. Since the
organization is private, no recourse to the courts is available. The rules implemented by the
MPAA are more restrictive than the ones implemented by most First World
countries.[citation needed] However, unlike comparable public or private institutions in
other countries, the MPAA does not have the power to limit the retail sale of movies in tape
or disc form based on their content, nor does it affect movie distribution in public (i.e.,
government-funded) libraries. Since 2000, it has become quite common for movie studios to
release "unrated" DVD versions of films with MPAA-censored content put back in.
Unlike what has been called a strong international consensus that hate speech needs to be
prohibited by law and that such prohibitions override, or are irrelevant to, guarantees of
freedom of expression, the United States is perhaps unique among the developed world in
that under law hate speech regulation is incompatible with free speech.[77]
16
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
SOUTH AMERICA
Brazil
In Brazil, freedom of expression is a Constitutional right. Article Five of the Constitution of
Brazil establishes that the expression of thought is free, anonymity being forbidden.
Furthermore, the expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communications
activities is free, independently of censorship or license. However, there are legal
provisions criminalizing the desecration of religious artifacts at the time of worship, hate
speech, racism, defamation, calumny and libel. Brazilian Law also forbids "unjust and
grave threats".
Historically, freedom of speech has been a right in Brazilian Law since the 1824
Constitution was enacted, though it was banned by the Vargas dictatorship and severely
restricted under the military dictatorship in 1964-85.
References
1. ^ General Assembly of the United Nations (1948-12-10). "Universal Declaration of
Human Rights" (in English/French) (pdf). pp. 4–5. http://daccessods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/217(III)&Lang=E. Retrieved 2007-05-06.
2. ^ Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. "List of
Declarations and Reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights".
Archived from the original on 2007-01-22.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070122093223/http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries
/ratification/4_1.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-06.
3. ^ "Freedom of Expression" (doc). pre-1997. Archived from the original on 2007-06-14.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070614102820/http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/dow
nloads/Freedom+of+Expression.doc. Retrieved 2007-05-06.
4. ^ Laugh It Off Promotions CC v South African Breweries International (Finance) BV
t/a SabMark International (Freedom of Expression Institute as Amicus Curiae) 2006 (1) SA
144 (CC) http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2005/7.html
5. ^ "Teacher held for teddy bear 'blasphemy'". London: The Independent. 2007-11-27.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/teacher-held-for-teddy-bearblasphemy-760590.html.
6. ^ Triple J (2004-06-30). "The story of Albert Langer". Australian Broadcasting
Corporation. http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/events/election_04/albertlanger.htm.
Retrieved 2007-05-05.
7. ^ Amnesty International (1996-02-23). "Australia: Political activist becomes first
prisoner of conscience for over 20 years (Albert Langer) - Amnesty International".
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA120051996. Retrieved 2007-05-05. [dead
link]
8. ^ Media Watch (TV program) (2005-09-24). "Seditious opinion? Lock 'em up".
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Australian).
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1489465.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-05.
9. ^ Chandler, Jo (2006-02-13). "Scientists bitter over interference". The Age (Melbourne).
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/scientists-bitter-overinterference/2006/02/12/1139679479548.html.
10. ^ "Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious
17
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
Freedom May 2009". http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/iran.pdf. Retrieved 2009-0706.
11. ^ Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
May 2009
12. ^ "The Constitution of Pakistan". pakistani.org.
http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part2.ch1.html.
13. ^ "Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom May 2009". Pakistan. United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom. May 2009. http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/pakistan.pdf. Retrieved
2009-06-24.
14. ^ The relevant articles of Pakistan penal code against "Blasphemy 1) Religion 2) Quran
3) Prophets of Allah" are 295 (a), (b) and (c).
15. ^ "Chapter II. The Fundamental Rights and duties of Citizens". Constitution of the
People's Republic of China. 1982-12-04.
http://english.people.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html. Retrieved 2007-05-12.
16. ^ "Article 27". Basic Law Full Text.
http://www.info.gov.hk/basic_law/fulltext/content0203.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-06.
17. ^ "Article 28". Basic Law Full Text.
http://www.info.gov.hk/basic_law/fulltext/content0203.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-06.
18. ^ "Article 20". Basic Law Full Text.
http://www.info.gov.hk/basic_law/fulltext/content0203.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-06.
19. ^ "19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc." (doc). The
Constitution of India. 1949-11-26. pp. 8. http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/Art1-242%20(188).doc. Retrieved 2007-05-06.
20. ^ "19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc." (doc). The
Constitution of India. 1949-11-26. pp. 8. http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/Art1-242%20(188).doc. Retrieved 2007-05-06.
21. ^ "Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom May 2009". Indonesia. United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom. May 2009. http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/indonesia.pdf. Retrieved
2009-06-24.
22. ^ Thestaronline.tv
23. ^ Thestar.com.my
24. ^ Google.com
25. ^ Ryu (류), Nan-yeong (난영) (2011-05-31). "유엔 인권이사회 "한국, 인터넷상 표현의
자유 훼손 심각"" (in Korean). Newsis.
http://www.newsis.com/ar_detail/view.html?ar_id=NISX20110531_0008339498&cID=101
01&pID=10100. Retrieved 2011-06-29.
26. ^ Explanatory Report on the additional protocol to the convention on cybercrime
27. ^ Danmarks riges grundlov af 5. juni 1953 (English translation).
28. ^ Loi n°49-956 du 16 juillet 1949 sur les publications destinées à la jeunesse
29. ^ German Law Archive
30. ^ a b "EUROPE: Where there's a will, there is a law". Straits Times. 2006-02-08.
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-world.asp?parentid=38666.
31. ^ FRA 2008, p. 24
32. ^ a b FRA 2008, p. 23
33. ^ Legal Study on Homophobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation –
Germany. European Union Fundamental Rights Agency. February 2008. p. 23.
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/FRA-hdgso-NR_DE.pdf.
18
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
34. ^ http://www.ekloges.gr/syntagmaDetails.asp?pageid=3&langid=1&ArthroID=16
35. ^ Matthew Vella. http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/03/08/t13.html Maltatoday
on Sunday, 8 March 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-15.
36. ^ "De Grondwet". www.overheid.nl. 2011-04-29.
http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840#Hoofdstuk1/Artikel7.
37. ^ "28 Detained for insulting Putin?". Independent Media Center.
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/112837.shtml. Retrieved 2007-05-07. "Relacja z
demostracji w Krakowie" (in Polish). centrum niezalez'nych medio'w Polska (Independent
Media Center, Poland). http://pl.indymedia.org/pl/2005/01/11431.shtml. Retrieved 200705-07.
38. ^ "Chapter 2. Fundamental rights and freedoms". The Instrument of Government.
1974. http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6319.aspx. Retrieved
2007-05-07.
39. ^ Summary of The Freedom of the Press Act, Swedish Riksdag
40. ^ Summary of The Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression, Swedish Riksdag
41. ^ Klug, Francesca (1996). Starmer, Keir; Weir, Stuart. eds. The Three Pillars of Liberty:
Political Rights and Freedoms in the United Kingdom. The Democratic Audit of the United
Kingdom. p. 165. http://books.google.com/books?id=G0UMoZMrQh0C&pg=PA165.
42. ^ a b Joint Committee on Human Rights, Parliament of the United Kingdom (2005).
Counter-Terrorism Policy And Human Rights: Terrorism Bill and related matters: Oral and
Written Evidence. Counter-Terrorism Policy And Human Rights: Terrorism Bill and related
matters. 2. The Stationery Office. p. 114.
http://books.google.com/books?id=2CRQ6hNzHuAC&pg=PA114.
43. ^ Sadurski, Wojciech (2001). Freedom of Speech and Its Limits. Law and Philosophy
Library. 38. p. 179. http://books.google.com/books?id=4Ldb0cIbS7kC&pg=PA179.
44. ^ Conte, Alex (2010). Human Rights in the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism.
Springer. p. 643. http://books.google.com/books?id=pJsqayP3OD8C&pg=PA643.
45. ^ Crook, Tim (2010). Comparative Media Law and Ethics. p. 397.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Egsj58tyvdkC&pg=PA397.
46. ^ Joint Committee 2005, p. 116
47. ^ "Blogger who encouraged murder of MPs jailed". BBC News. 29 July 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-14344199. Retrieved 01 August 2011.
48. ^ West Midlands Police (29 July 2011). "Online extremist sentenced to 12 years for
soliciting murder of MPs". Press release. http://www.westmidlands.police.uk/np/wolverhampton/news/newsitem.asp?id=4066.
49. ^ Hensley, Thomas R. (2001). The Boundaries of Freedom of Expression & Order in
American Democracy. Kent State University Press. p. 153.
http://books.google.com/books?id=a1V53azMBlwC&pg=PA153.
50. ^ Klug 1996, pp. 175-179
51. ^ a b Klug 1996, p. 177
52. ^ Klug 1996, p. 173
53. ^ Klug 1996, pp. 169-170
54. ^ Klug 1996, pp. 156-160
55. ^ a b c Helsinki Watch; Fund for Free Expression (1991). Restricted Subjects: Freedom
of Expression in the United Kingdom. p. 53. http://books.google.com/books?id=sjvb0YiwqQC&pg=PA53.
56. ^ "Brown 'to change' protests laws". BBC News. 3 July 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6266420.stm. Retrieved 20 June 2010. "A 2005 law
created an "exclusion zone" inside which all protests required police permission. ... The
19
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
requirement for police permission was introduced in the Serious Organised Crime and
Police Act 2005."
57. ^ 'Lyrical terrorist' sentenced over extremist poetry
58. ^ The conviction of Samina Malik is a manifest injustice
59. ^ The crime of rhyme: the extraordinary case of Samina Malik
60. ^ In Britain, possessing a book can be 'Terrorism'
61. ^ "'Terror manual' teenager guilty". BBC News. 2007-09-26.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7014516.stm. Retrieved 2010-05-02.
62. ^ ITN - Student jailed for terror offences
63. ^ Theregister.co.uk
64. ^ Telegraph.co.uk
65. ^ BBC News
66. ^ Article 16 of the Swiss Constitution
67. ^ German: 3sat TV: Switzerland's violation against Freedom of speech
68. ^ Turkish politician fined over genocide denial
69. ^ "Press Freedom Index 2008" (PDF). Reporters Without Borders. 2008.
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/cl_en_2008.pdf.
70. ^ "Updated information on imprisoned Cuban journalists". Reporters Without
Borders. http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=367.
71. ^ note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Standard#cite_note-1
72. ^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn#Canadian_Islamic_Congress_human_rights_c
omplaint
73. ^ a b c d Neisser, Eric (1991). Recapturing the Spirit: Essays on the Bill of Rights at 200.
Rowman & Littlefield. p. 68. ISBN 9780945612230.
http://books.google.com/books?id=dj6Ddz0cFfcC&pg=PA68.
74. ^ a b c d e f Law and Business of the Entertainment Industries. Law and Business of
the Entertainment Industries Series. Greenwood Publishing Group. 2007. p. 457. ISBN
9780275992057. http://books.google.com/books?id=hKguqdfT3eMC&pg=PA457.
75. ^ Protection of National Security Information, Congressional Research Service, 30 June
2006, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL33502.pdf
76. ^ a b Secret Service Ordered Local Police to Restrict Anti-Bush Protesters at Rallies,
ACLU Charges in Unprecedented Nationwide Lawsuit. ACLU press release, 23 September
2003
77. ^ Schauer, Frederick (February 2005). "The Exceptional First Amendment". Working
Paper Series from Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
doi:10.2139/ssrn.668543. "On this cluster of interrelated topics, there appears to be a strong
international consensus that the principles of freedom of expression are either overridden
or irrelevant when what is being expressed is racial, ethnic, or religious hatred. ... In
contrast to this international consensus that various forms of hate speech need to be
prohibited by law and that such prohibition creates no or few free speech issues, the United
States remains steadfastly committed to the opposite view. ... In much of the developed
world, one uses racial epithets at one's legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other
trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against
religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment, but in the United States, all such
speech remains constitutionally protected.".
20
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
Further reading
* Milton, John. Areopagitica: A speech of Mr John Milton for the liberty of unlicensed
printing to the Parliament of England
* Hentoff, Nat. Free Speech For Me - But Not For Thee. How the American Left and Right
Relentlessly Censor Each Other 1992
* This page was last modified on 8 September 2011 at 21:49.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country
21
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
Handout 5-3
Malema Judgement: What do YOU say?
Words that matter:
•
•
•
“dubhula ibhunu” – a liberation song that includes the words "shoot the boer."
ANC – African National Congress; South Africa’s governing party since post-apartheid
in 1994; “left-wing,” committed to increase the rights of black South Africans.
Boer – White (Dutch colonists) population that settled in southern Africa in the late 17th
century whose descendants are the present-day Afrikaners.
Read the following account:
'Dubhula ibhunu' is hate speech
by Sapa and Lauren Holley, 12 September 2011 - 13:00
Julius Malema is guilty of hate speech. That is the ruling just handed down by Judge Collin
Lamont in the Equality Court against the ANC Youth League leader.
Lamont says Malema's singing of the words "dubhula ibhunu" or "shoot the boer" amounts
to hate speech, adding that they undermine the dignity of people and are discriminatory
and harmful. …
The judge says words are powerful weapons that could lead to disastrous actions and even
genocide. "The words of one person inciting others...that's how a genocide can start," he
said in handing down judgement.
Lamont says in determining the outcome of this case, the court had to analyse the meaning
of the words in the song, and its effect on society. He believes the Malema's singing of
'shoot the boer' has not been forgotten - as the words are derogatory and hurtful. Lamont
likened the songs by Malema as those sung by soldiers when they were at war.
Lamont noted that unfair discrimination remained rooted in certain structures of society.
Racial discrimination of one group or community over another could not be justified, and
certain groups did not enjoy "superior status" over others in a democracy.
Since apartheid, transformation had been difficult for some in South Africa. "Certain
members [of the public] embrace the new society, others found it hard to adjust... it will
continue for some time. There can be no transformation without pain," said Lamont. The
court heard that the Constitution provided for equality, and the eradication of social and
economic inequalities. South Africa had international obligations under the United Nations
for peace and unity including the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, and
discrimination against women. …
Source: EastCoastRadio – Durban’s No. 1 (South Africa)
http://www.ecr.co.za/kagiso/content/en/east-coast-radio/east-coast-radionews?oid=1362829&sn=Detail&pid=490476&-Dubhula-ibhunu--is-hate-speech
1
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
Bloggers had a great deal to say about the ruling; a representative dozen are below. Assign
students the roles of the bloggers and read aloud:
by MyNews24 Editor
2011-09-12 11:49
Shonitso Vhota:
This is not hate speech at all. Our constitution or law is the one which is not clear, this case
is far from over I'm telling you.
Graeme Martin:
Of course it’s hate speech! You do not have to be white or a judge to hear it only once, and
know that it is nothing less. The majority of normal South Africans (green, pink and blue
included) will in their hearts agree with this ruling. The ANC should have reprimanded
him immediately before the court action developed into such a farce. This trial was a waste
of public money, now wait for the appeals to follow. This will further divide our beautiful
country.
Rochelle Butler:
The judge’s ruling should be respected. Apartheid is over, why dwell on the past? Aren’t
we supposed to be moving forward as a democratic country? The struggle is over,
oppression is over why is it so difficult for Julius Malema and the ANCYL to accept this,
get over it and work together to form a united South Africa? As youth league leaders,
they're supposed to be setting an example for the youth of SA to become a united SA,
instead they want to sing Shoot the Boer!! They are missing the point of what they are put
in government and leadership to do.
Mahlangu Fana:
“Shoot the Boer” is not hate speech. The context in which it was composed was never as a
result of hatred but as a reaction to a system that was oppressive to the majority of the
people in the country. This is the same context in which “Ngeke ngiye KwaZulu kwafel’
umama” was never hate speech but social commentary. If this is hate speech then 80% of
all struggle songs are hate speech.
Kim Rogers:
Anything with the words “shoot”, “kill”, etc. is hate speech. How can you justify such
words as anything but hateful? Right is right and wrong is wrong irrespective of race,
colour or creed.
Dhirendra Mistry:
Thought become words, word become actions and action eventually becomes your
character!
Wandile Zibi:
So it means singing leads to action. Whites who are members of the ANC also hate other
whites as they also sing this song and this song can lead them to kill their fellow whites. So
songs like Siyaya e Pitori should not be sung because they will incite people to go and
crowd the Union Building in Pretoria. And Christians should stop singing about the
Egyptians who oppressed the Israelites.
2
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
Alf van Wyk:
By singing this song, Julius Malema is inciting hate of white (Afrikaans) people. Have you
ever noticed how worked up his supporters get when they sing this song? I believe that
Malema has created more hate between whites and blacks, not only with the singing of the
song 'Shoot the Boer', but by his actions and speeches as well.
Lorraine Windvoel:
The judge missed the point; all revolutionary songs must then be banned. Does this judge
really know or understand why these songs were sung? These songs used to liberate our
parents emotionally where the apartheid system was very tough to then. And that was
enforced by their forefathers.
Susan da Costa:
Very glad that Shoot the Boer constitute hate speech. Because that is exactly what it is all
about - pure hate. We can not build a nation with that type of behaviour.
Siphiwo Mendu:
I think the judge has missed the point. These songs are part of us. We will sing them until
we die - we have a history with these songs that can’t just vanish into thin air.
Eric Martinisch:
First of all I must say that we are talking about a Liberation song. Does this mean that a
liberation song will be banned from being sung or is the song to be amended? This
judgment would surely mean that all songs, by whatever artist it is sung and that could
contain hate speech can't be sung any longer in South Africa.
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by
members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own
and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit
or delete any and all comments received.
Whole class discussion: what would you say?
• Can a liberation song be hate speech? Why or why not?
• Does the law in the United States differ from the law in South Africa? Why or why not?
• Can you think of other anthems or symbols that have violent themes? (Your school
fight song? Confederate flag?)
3
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
Handout 5-4
Social Media Critical to
Emerging Democracies Around the World
Embassy of the United States Ashgabat, Turkmenistan
Statement on World Press Freedom Day, May 3, 2011
by Charge d’Affaires, a.i. Ambassador Eileen A. Malloy
Social media users are playing a starring role in the drama unfolding in the Middle
East and North Africa. In many countries in the region - including Tunisia, Egypt,
Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria - the Internet is serving as a catalyst for journalists,
activists, and citizens alike to connect with each other and share their stories and
calls for change with the world.
“We were unplugged for five days, no Internet connection no mobile devices. We
were like in a big prison in Egypt,” says Egyptian Blogger Dalia Ziada, in explaining
what it felt like when former President Hosni Mubarak’s regime switched off the
power to the Internet and blocked mobile phone communications in an attempt to
stifle press freedom and the freedoms of citizens to access information and assemble
peacefully.
But the dark did not stop people from gathering in the streets to demand change.
“The civil rights movement is not new,” Ziada explained, “but it did not succeed
until the Internet appeared and social networks like Facebook and Twitter attracted
larger number of Egyptians.”
The Internet is the global gate which has amplified demands for freedom of
expression and other universal human rights, facilitated vibrant and open
discussions on a wide range of topics and connected citizens with each other and
with people around the world. Indeed, access to information has been profoundly
altered with the arrival of the digital age.
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said earlier this year: “The Internet has become
the public space of the 21st century—the world’s town square, classroom,
marketplace, coffeehouse and night club. We all shape and are shaped by what
happens there, all 2 billion of us (on the Internet) and counting.”
In this new public space crowded with news and chatter, journalists play an
essential role in searching for truth, analyzing trends, maintaining credibility, and
providing reports to serve the public good. Undoubtedly, the arrival of the digital
age – the evolution of the Internet, the emergence of new forms of media and the
rise of online social networks – has sparked debate as to what it means to be a
1
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
journalist, what role bloggers play, and what the effect of a blurring of lines between
citizen journalists and professionals will be on the media of today and tomorrow. …
“When a free media is in jeopardy,” Secretary Hillary Clinton has said, “all other
human rights are also threatened. So in that spirit, let us continue to champion those
who stand for media freedom – and expose those who would deny it. And let us
always work toward a world where the free flow of information and ideas remains a
powerful force for progress.”
We are facing a critical, transformative moment in our history. Around the world
people are calling out for freedom, transparency, and self-determination. New
digital tools are supporting this cause in a way that is faster and more widespread
than ever before, and journalists are playing a central role in this effort.
Unfortunately, many of them have been killed or injured as they’ve sought to report
on the grave challenges facing us today. It is up to each of us to honor their legacy
and do all we can – both virtually and in reality – to support press freedom as a
fundamental right to be enjoyed by everyone, everywhere.
* This site is managed by the U.S. Department of State. External links to other Internet sites
should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.
http://turkmenistan.usembassy.gov/statement20110503.html
2
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
Handout 5-5
Cyberspace Scenarios
Instructions: Pretend you are a Supreme Court justice. Discuss and resolve the case using
reasoning from the Constitution and previous cases.
Busted Blogger?
Administrators bar a high school student from running in a student election after
the student criticizes them in a blog for their handling of a student festival. In the
blog, the student calls the administrators names and asks fellow students and
parents to complain to the superintendent to make him mad. Inappropriate
language was used in the post, which was written and sent from home.
Q: Does the student blogger have a free speech defense?
Cyberbully Suspended?
Student 1 wrote derogatory and hateful comments about Student 2 and posted them
online for everyone to read. The comments caused significant emotional distress
and interfered with Student 2’s ability to participate fully in school. School officials
punished Student 1; the parents of Student 1 are suing the school. The school takes
the position that it can punish student conduct if it disrupts class work or involves
substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others even if the student is not in
class.
Q: When do students’ online comments “cross the line” and become First
Amendment concerns?
Additional questions
1. Should Internet speech be regulated?
2. If so, what criteria should be used?
3. Does it matter if a teacher is being defamed instead of a student?
4. Would the answer be different in another country? Name a country and explain.
1
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech
Lesson 5
ANSWERS
Both scenarios provide the solution found by the court in its jurisdiction, however, this is an evolving
area of law. Other courts rule the other way under similar facts. Students should understand that this is
an unsettled area of law with much grey area.
Busted Blogger?
Administrators bar a high school student from running in a student election after the student
criticizes them in a blog for their handling of a student festival. In the blog, the student calls the
administrators names and asks fellow students and parents to complain to the superintendent
to make him mad. Inappropriate language was used in the post, which was written and sent
from home.
Q: Does the student blogger have a free speech defense?
In 2008, the 2nd Circuit Court ruled for the school officials in Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41
(2nd Cir. 2008). School officials could punish a student for blogging critical comments about a
school administrator. “We have determined, however, that a student may be disciplined for
expressive conduct, even conduct occurring off school grounds, when this conduct ‘would
foreseeably create a risk of substantial disruption within the school environment,’ or at least
when it was similarly foreseeable that the off-campus expression might also reach campus,” the
court concluded. http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/doninger-v-niehoff
Cyberbully Suspended?
Student 1 wrote derogatory and hateful comments about Student 2 and posted them online for
everyone to read. The comments caused significant emotional distress and interfered with
Student 2’s ability to participate fully in school. School officials punished Student 1; the parents
of Student 1 are suing the school. The school takes the position that it can punish student
conduct if it disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of
others even if the student is not in class.
Q: When do students’ online comments “cross the line” and become First Amendment
concerns?
Student 1’s comments did not cross the line here. Cyberbully’s father, Evan Cohen, sued his
daughter’s school district when the school, Beverly Vista School in Beverly Hills, CA,
disciplined his eighth-grade daughter. After school one day in May 2008, Cohen’s daughter,
known in court papers as J. C., videotaped friends at a cafe, egging them on as they laughed
and made mean-spirited, sexual comments about another eighth-grade girl, C. C., calling her
“ugly,” “spoiled,” a “brat” and a “slut.” J. C. posted the video on YouTube. The next day, the
school suspended her for two days. Judge Stephen V. Wilson of Federal District Court found
that the off-campus video could be linked to the school: J. C. told perhaps 10 students about it;
the humiliated C. C. and her mother showed it to school officials; educators watched it and
investigated. But the legal test was whether J. C.’s video had caused the school “substantial”
disruption. Judge Wilson ruled in favor of the cyberbully, because the disruption was only
minimal: administrators dealt with the matter quietly and before lunch recess. This legal test
comes from a 1969 Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
District. The court overturned the suspension, but crafted a balance between a school’s
authority and a student’s freedom of expression. When a student’s speech interferes
substantially with the school’s educational mission, a school can impose discipline.
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/03/02/facebook-poses-problems-to-schools-
and-raises-privacy-free-speech-questions/
Lesson source:
Freedom of Speech: Finding the Limits – a Lesson by Linda Weber for Sunnylands Seminars 2009
(Annenberg Foundation Trust)
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/files/documents/lessonplans/FreeSpeechLessonPlan.pdf
2