Free speech: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
(New page: {{TOC|right}} Even in liberal democracies, there are differing views of '''free speech'''. Nations with the greatest tradition still restrict things that are an immediate danger, as Justi...)
 
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
Line 7: Line 7:


''[[Schenck v. United States]]'' further said, <blockquote>Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.</blockquote> The Court later refined its definition:<blockquote>These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.<ref name=Brandenburg>Bradenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969)</ref></blockquote>
''[[Schenck v. United States]]'' further said, <blockquote>Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.</blockquote> The Court later refined its definition:<blockquote>These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.<ref name=Brandenburg>Bradenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969)</ref></blockquote>
==Defamation of religion==
==Hate speech==
{{main|Hate speech}}
===Defamation of religion===
Various international organizations struggle with the issue of defamation of religion. Nations with a state religion, especially Islam, bar criticism of that religion. The [[Coalition to Defend Free Speech]], an affiliate of very disparate U.S. groups, is opposed to a charge of "defamation of religions", introduced to the [[UN Human Rights Council]] by the [[Organization of the Islamic Conference]] in 1999.<ref>{{citation
| url = http://www.defendfreespeech.net/
| title = Coalition to Defend Free Speech}}</ref> The charge was introduced by [[Pakistan]], entitled "Defamation of Islam".<ref>{{citation
| title = Don't Say a Word: A U.N. resolution seeks to criminalize opinions that differ with the Islamic faith.
| author = Christopher Hitchens | date = March 2, 2009
| journal = Slate
| url = http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/}}</ref>
 
Western democracies do tend to restrict on action, such as job and housing discrimination, based on religion. Nevertheless, there are active controversies, such as proposed bans, in [[France]], against wearing of religious garments.
 
==Political speech==
==Political speech==
==References==
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}

Revision as of 11:04, 27 March 2010

Even in liberal democracies, there are differing views of free speech. Nations with the greatest tradition still restrict things that are an immediate danger, as Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1919 case, Schenck v. United States,

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.[1]

Freedom of thought

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) does freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the right to change religions and to practice one's religion. This is not universally accepted, Based on the right of freedom of opinion, Article 19 state a right to transfer "information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Clear and present danger

UDHR Article 20 states a right of peaceful assembly and association, and denies compulsory membership in associations.

Schenck v. United States further said,

Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.

The Court later refined its definition:

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.[2]

Hate speech

For more information, see: Hate speech.

Defamation of religion

Various international organizations struggle with the issue of defamation of religion. Nations with a state religion, especially Islam, bar criticism of that religion. The Coalition to Defend Free Speech, an affiliate of very disparate U.S. groups, is opposed to a charge of "defamation of religions", introduced to the UN Human Rights Council by the Organization of the Islamic Conference in 1999.[3] The charge was introduced by Pakistan, entitled "Defamation of Islam".[4]

Western democracies do tend to restrict on action, such as job and housing discrimination, based on religion. Nevertheless, there are active controversies, such as proposed bans, in France, against wearing of religious garments.

Political speech

References

  1. Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919)
  2. Bradenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969)
  3. Coalition to Defend Free Speech
  4. Christopher Hitchens (March 2, 2009), "Don't Say a Word: A U.N. resolution seeks to criminalize opinions that differ with the Islamic faith.", Slate