Menu Search VHL web CS

Limits of the Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech and its possible abuse (fighting words, inflammatory or hate speech, incitement, disturbance of public order)

Forms of government and human rights are interrelated. However, whereas different forms of government have come into existence in different societies, and forms themselves have changed profoundly in the course of human history, human rights, albeit discovered at the specific historical moment and within the orbit of one (Western) civilization, are perceived – because rooted, as we Europeans believe, in human nature itself – as everlasting, unchangeable and universal. What must be addressed first in the context of our debate is the status of freedom of expression within concrete, historically formed societies, characterized not only by their cultures, mentalities, traditions, and customs, but also by their forms of government. What we need to look at in the first place – of course, taking into account all the features which make all individual cases unique and in that sense irreplaceable – is the fundamental difference as far as elementary understanding of freedom of expression between democracies and autocracies.

Questions: How should we judge the statement of the British Prime Minister who, in reaction to a wave of violence and looting in English cities in August this year, said: if people use words in support of violence or intolerance or discrimination then “we need to stop them”? How would those words sound if spoken by the current Belorussian, Syrian, Cuban, or Iranian president? What makes the difference between democracies and autocracies, both European and non-European, when their representatives take a strong stand against “disturbers of the peace” in their societies, call for adequate measures to keep the public order, and suggest restrictions on freedom of expression?

New Challenges for Freedom of Speech

Freedom of expression in the age of internet and new media and Freedom of expression in the context of defamation of religion

Has the arrival of the age of internet and social media like Facebook or Twitter changed the content and scope of the concept of freedom of expression? Should we have any special concerns as far as their impact on the existing social and political order, because of their unprecedented potential to disseminate information? What must be reflected in the framework of human rights discourse today, is the fact that thanks to the explosive development of IT in recent years, free flow of certain ideas can, indeed, have potentially a very significant effect on the conduct of human societies; that among those who benefit from this technical revolution that has taken place just in a span of two decades, are not always democrats of different creeds and points of view, but also mobs and members of street gangs, sectarians of all kinds, pathological xenophobes, extremists, and of course terrorists.

Questions: Is some sort of control or regulation of free flow of information in cyberspace, necessary, even from the point of view of open and democratic societies? Will freedom of expression be further enhanced thanks to the internet and new social media, or will we rather see the arrival of an epoch of its gradual decay or even destruction? Does the outburst of freedom of speech in the Middle East during the Arab Spring really mark the beginning of era of Middle Eastern democracy? Or will it rather lead in the final result to the deterioration of the situation in the area of human rights and accelerate the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the region?

Existing international human rights law is based on the protection of rights of individuals (or their groups). Defamation of religion is a relatively new idea to protect in the first place not the rights of individuals, but the systems of faith and ideologies.

Questions: Is the concept of “defamation of religion’ compatible at all with the recognized principles of international human rights law? Do the restrictions of freedom of expression reasoned with its help go well beyond the limitations as defined, for instance, by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? Or can they be justified and covered behind the general label of “protection of the rights or reputation of others”?