Every person and the media have the right to freedom of speech and expression. This includes freedom to see, receive, and share information and ideas on public property or private property open to the public such as marketplaces, whether the ideas are popular or not, and to freely criticize government, religious, or business leaders through any media anywhere.
A Plan for our Human Family
Footer
Follow Us!
Would this include speech advocating violent overthrow of a government?
Every person has the right to seek and impart information of all kinds. It is on the basis of a plurality of sources of information that an individual can formulate his/her own opinion, and it is this protected opinion that he has the right to express. The right to freedom of opinion entails tolerance for the views of others, it means the right to dissent. Censorship is bad whether it is practiced by governments or by the private sector, especially when tech-giants constitute monopolies that can manipulate public opinion. In a democratic society information is key to be able to exercise the right to vote responsibly. When the private sector censors information or deliberately disseminates “fake news”, it undermines democracy. The media has the right and the duty to criticize government, to act as a watchdog, to disclose corruption and to publish whistleblowers. The exercise of the right of freedom of expression is subject to reasonable limitations, e.g. to protect the honour and reputation of others and to prevent harming the public interest by spreading rumours and creating panic, e.g. by shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. On the other hand, a democratic society lives from a plurality of views, which presupposes the right to be wrong, including with regard to historical matters. In its general comment 34 on freedom of expression, the Human Rights Committee stated: “Laws that penalise the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression. The Covenant does not permit general prohibition of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events.” This provision guarantees academic freedom and the right to question the mainstream narrative on historical events. The alternative is paralysis of research, intimidation and self-censorship, which in turn destroys the preconditions for a democratic society.
see https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/netherlands-international-law-review/article/abs/freedom-of-opinion-and-freedom-of-expression-some-reflections-on-general-comment-no-34-of-the-un-human-rights-committee/ADCD74F635F688851788E9079E1ABB76
I think that freedom of speech is a basic right for people as it is the best way to be informed and to express opinions, but in order to be well informed there should be a way to control if what is being freely said is true or not. An opinion is not something to use to hurt others, so this should also be limited.
I believe freedom of speech is essential in a democratic world, nonetheless, most of the documents tackling this topic forget to mention where does freedom of speech end. Some may argue that it does not have any limits, but the truth is that in the current world a lot of hate is coming to the surface, and protected by the freedom of speech, a lot of people is saying and promoting ideas that go against a lot of other rights.
This is a significant point that the DC needs to discuss. I happen to agree with you, but the trick is how to word it so that governments do not overly restrict speech. I do not believe that hate speech offers something to the marketplace of ideas and it should be legally limited. On the other hand, someone may hate a political candidate and say so, this must be protected too.
If you have specific wording to make this even stronger, please let us know. Thanks!
I think everyone should have the right to freedom of speech but I believe that there should be some limits in order to avoid the expansion of hate speech. Hate speeches that violate the rights and dignity of others should be not allowed.
This is a significant point that the DC needs to discuss. I happen to agree with you, but the trick is how to word it so that governments do not overly restrict speech. I do not believe that hate speech offers something to the marketplace of ideas and it should be legally limited. On the other hand, someone may hate a political candidate and say so, this must be protected too.
If you have specific wording to make this even stronger, please let us know. Thanks!
It is true that everyone should have the right to freedom of speech and expression but there should be some limitations when these speeches or expressions are threatening the dignity of other people or reminiscing past symbols that entail abuses or violations.
This is a significant point that the DC needs to discuss. I happen to agree with you, but the trick is how to word it so that governments do not overly restrict speech. I do not believe that hate speech offers something to the marketplace of ideas and it should be legally limited. On the other hand, someone may hate a political candidate and say so, this must be protected too.
If you have specific wording to make this even stronger, please let us know. Thanks!
I would suggest to place a certain limit to the right of freedom of speech in order to avoid the promotion of hate speech, as the line between freedom of speech and hate speech is very thin and the far-right takes advantage of it, and it attemps against the live, integrity and dignity of others, especially marginalised groups.
This is a significant point that the DC needs to discuss. I happen to agree with you, but the trick is how to word it so that governments do not overly restrict speech. I do not believe that hate speech offers something to the marketplace of ideas and it should be legally limited. On the other hand, someone may hate a political candidate and say so, this must be protected too.
If you have specific wording to make this even stronger, please let us know. Thanks!
I note that there is no limitation clause as in ICCPR article 19, para. 3. (UDHR article 19 has no limitation clause). In our contemporary world where there is so much hate speech, incitement and misinformation flowing through communications channels, it may be worthwhile to consider introducing a reference to strictly defined limitations on this right.
Agree. As DC members, with participation with all others interested to voice opinions on this site, let’s draft language for consideration by the DC.
Article 3 protects free speech in some privately owned areas such as marketplaces because this is where people are invited to gather and communicate with one another.