Conflict of Rights and Interests

Conflict of rights and interests

International human rights law suggests a “balance of rights” approach to assess the legitimacy of state restriction to freedom of expression. The resources on this Module survey the application of this test to various areas of conflict, such as defamation and national security. Readings cover various national practices, and jurisprudence, along with academic critiques.

10 items found, showing 11 - 10

Incitement and Hate speech

Author: Florence Jaoko
Media Type Icon

In 2011 the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights organized expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred. This document is the contribution from Florence Jaoko, Chairperson of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, to the workshop held in Nairobi. The paper "examines the legal framework, (international, regional, constitutional and legislative) that address these issues and the standards used to ensure a proper balance we will also examine other institutional frameworks such as policy and mechanisms for redress including judicial interventions. The background information has dealt with various regional mechanisms and other country specific situations; [Then it] deal[s] with the Kenyan Situation in light of international and regional conventions and decisions."

UN OHCHR, Florence Jaoko's contribution to the Expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred, 2011 Expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred, Workshop for Africa (Nairbi, 6 and 7 April 2011)

 

Author: Kevin W. Saunders
Media Type Icon

"Free Expression and Democracy takes on the assumption that limits on free expression will lead to authoritarianism or at least a weakening of democracy. That hypothesis is tested by an examination of issues involving expression and their treatment in countries included on The Economist's list of fully functioning democracies. Generally speaking, other countries allow prohibitions on hate speech, limits on third-party spending on elections, and the protection of children from media influences seen as harmful. Many ban Holocaust denial and the desecration of national symbols. Yet, these other countries all remain democratic, and most of those considered rank more highly than the United States on the democracy index. This book argues that while there may be other cultural values that call for more expansive protection of expression, that protection need not reach the level present in the United States in order to protect the democratic nature of a country."

Saunders, Kevin W. Free Expression and Democracy: A Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. doi:10.1017/9781316771129.

Author: Josh Corngold
Media Type Icon

“Besides being protected by the First Amendment, the right of students and faculty to express different ideas and opinions—even discomfiting ideas and opinions—is central to the academic mission of schools, colleges, and universities. Two familiar arguments articulated by John Stuart Mill underscore this point: First, the dynamic clash of contrary ideas offers the best prospect we have of arriving at the “whole truth” about any complex subject. Second, unless it is subject to periodic questioning and critique, any established and received bit of wisdom “will be held in the manner of a prejudice with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.” These arguments notwithstanding, heated debates persist as to the proper bounds of free speech in educational institutions dedicated to open inquiry and the examination of multiple viewpoints. Two distinct positions provide us with a useful framework for analyzing many of these debates. The libertarian position rejects regulation of campus speech—except in extreme cases of speech that invade the rights of individuals or small specific groups of people—while instead championing a maximally free marketplace of ideas. The liberal democratic position, however, proposes that, in the interest of scholarly objectivity and rational autonomy, verbal interaction that denigrates or stigmatizes others on account of ascriptive characteristics such as gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation should be constrained in higher education. Adherents to the libertarian position oppose the implementation of campus hate speech codes on the grounds that such codes violate First Amendment principles and are not an effective bulwark against prejudice, discrimination, and inequality. Adherents to the liberal democratic position support narrowly tailored speech codes that formally sanction slurs, “fighting words,” and the like, but they generally believe that most of the work of regulating abusive speech should occur through the informal enforcement of new “norms of civility” on campus. Although these two positions constitute a major fault line in debates over campus speech, they do not capture the range of standpoints taken by participants in the debates. To cite one noteworthy example, some scholars, in the name of what they refer to as “an affirmative action pedagogy,” call for broader restrictions on speech (particularly classroom speech) than either the libertarian or liberal democratic positions endorse.”

Corngold, Josh. “Free Speech, Civility, and Censorship in Education”. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education (2021): https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.163.

Author: UNESCO
Media Type Icon

The report “provides a new perspective on the social and political dynamics behind the threats to expression. It develops a conceptual framework on the ‘ecology of freedom of expression’ for discussing the broad context of policy and practice that should be taken into consideration in discussions of this issue.”

Dutton, William H. Freedom of connection, freedom of expression: the changing legal and regulatory ecology shaping the Internet. Paris: UN, UNESCO, 2011.

Author: Paula Martins
Media Type Icon

In 2011 the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights organized expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred. This document is Paula Martins' contribution to the expert meeting held in Santiago, Chile.

UN OHCHR, Paula Martins, Freedom of Expression and Equality: The prohibition of incitement to hatred in Latin America (Work in Progress), 2011 Expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred, Workshop for the Americas (Santiago, 12 and 13 October 2011)

Author: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression
Media Type Icon

Here you will find the Syllabus for the MOOC 'Freedom of Expression in the Age of Globalization' created by Columbia Global Freedom of Expression. This course will examine the norms, institutions and forces that altogether have founded a global system of protection for freedom of expression and information. This Advanced  Course will focus on the multiple challenges brought about by the technology revolution of the last two decades. On one hand, it has given the world the means to realize its commitment to freedom of information without frontiers. Technology has shaped, reshaped, and radically transformed the production and distribution of information, profoundly impacting whole societies and greatly influencing, if not defining, information and communication. On the other hand, it has also precipitated or heightened a range of normative, regulatory and political issues related to the protection of freedom of expression, on and off line. This course will examine the complex, and often awkward, interplay of global information flows with national jurisdiction and state sovereignty, and what it means for the realization of a borderless vision for the right to freedom of expression.

Author: Centre for Law and Democracy and International Media Support
Media Type Icon

“This series of Briefing Notes is designed to give readers an understanding of the key international legal standards that apply in the context of freedom of expression. They are aimed at an audience which does not necessarily have a deep understanding of freedom of expression issues, but they also aim to be of interest and relevance to more sophisticated freedom of expression observers and practitioners. Thus, while the Briefing Notes are designed to be broadly accessible, they also provide readers with fairly in-depth knowledge about freedom of expression issues. Each individual Briefing Note addresses a different thematic freedom of expression issue. The first, perhaps predictably, is titled Freedom of Expression as a Human Right, while the second looks at the permissible scope of restrictions on freedom of expression under international law. Several of the Briefing Notes focus on different areas of media regulation, including print, broadcast and public service media, journalists, media diversity and independent regulation. This reflects the central role media regulation plays both in terms of guaranteeing freedom of expression and in the legal frameworks found in democracies relating to freedom of expression. There are also Briefing Notes on both criminal and civil restrictions on freedom of expression, as well as on the right to information (or freedom of information) and digital rights. In addition to providing substantive guidance in the relevant thematic area, the Briefing Notes contain a number of pithy quotes from leading sources. The idea is to provide readers with quick access to ‘quotable quotes’ for possible reuse in their work. Each Note also contains a section at the end on further resources, for readers who want to probe the subject more deeply.”

Centre for Law and Democracy and International Media Support. “Freedom of Expression Briefing Note Series”. 2014. https://www.mediasupport.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/foe-briefingnot….

Author: UNESCO
Media Type Icon

"The Freedom of Expression Toolkit is UNESCO’s contribution to freedom of expression and it is written with upper high school students in mind. The Toolkit covers the major concepts and issues and it is written in an easy to understand, conversational manner.” Among other, it aims to answer the following questions: What is freedom of Expression and why does it matter? When is freedom of expression at risk? What are the conditions needed for freedom of expression? What is the special role of journalism and journalists in freedom of expression? What about freedom of expression online? What are the limitations?" 

Lim, Ming-Kuok. Freedom of expression toolkit: a guide for students. Paris: UN, UNESCO, 2013 

Author: UNESCO
Media Type Icon

"With [a] global mandate to protect 'the free flow of ideas by word and image', UNESCO acts worldwide to advance fundamental freedoms, and to ensure that obligations are fulfilled and rights are exercised. [UNESCO works] to increase the knowledge and capacities of judiciary members on international and regional standards on freedom of expression and the safety of journalists. As a result, since 2013, more than 18,000 judicial operators and civil society representatives in Latin America, Africa and the Arab region have been trained on these issues. This toolkit on international standards for freedom of expression builds on these efforts, aiming to give a global scope to this endeavour. By reinforcing the knowledge and capacities of the judiciary, the toolkit effectively contributes to the implementation of the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, adopted by the UN Chief Executives Board in 2012 and recognised by the UN General Assembly in 2013. The Plan of Action aims to create "a free and safe environment for journalists and media workers in both conflict and non-conflict situations, with a view to strengthening peace, democracy and development worldwide". [It is hoped] that this toolkit will be a useful tool for judges, public prosecutors, judicial training institutes, academics and judicial actors at large, so that respect for freedom of expression, public access to information, and the safety of journalists become an integral part of efforts to guarantee and promote human rights in our societies."

UNESCO. “Global Toolkit for Judicial Actors: International Legal Standards on Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and Safety of Journalists”. 2021. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000378755. 

Author: IACmHR, SRFoE Edison Lanza
Media Type Icon

This section of a larger report on Violence against LGBTI persons “provides an overview of the Inter-American legal framework concerning hate speech and incitement to violence. This section also identifies and analyses various non-legal measures and good practices that can contribute to prevent and counter hate speech. The overall goal of this section is to establish the basis for an understanding of the scope of hate speech and allow for the development and implementation of effective responses. This report primarily addresses the obligations of States, but additionally examines the significant role that media can play in the implementation of varied strategies to prevent and combat hate speech.” 

OAS, IACmHR, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Edison Lanza.  Hate Speech and Incitement to Violence Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Persons in the Americas. OAS/Ser.L/V/II.rev.1 Doc. 36 12 November 2015