International System of Protection

This article debates the question of whether the First Amendment repudiated seditious libel at the time of its adoption. It discusses the widely criticized Sedition Act of 1798 and concludes that even though the modern consensus is that the 1798 Act violated the First Amendment guarantees of right to freedom of speech and press, the proposition that the First Amendment at its adoption repudiated the common law crime of seditious libel remains doubtful.

Blasi provides, in the context of the US First Amendment, the canonical iteration the notion that free speech performs the function of checking governmental abuse of power, and discusses its utility as a consideration in adjudication on free speech issues.

“The normal treatment of governmental regulation of markets makes a sharp distinction between the ordinary market for goods and services and the activities covered by the First Amendment-speech, writing, and the exercise of religious beliefs -which [. H. Coase] call[s], for brevity, "the market for ideas." […] What is the general view that [R. H. Coase] will be examining? It is that, in the market for goods, government regulation is desirable whereas, in the market for ideas, government regulation is undesirable and should be strictly limited. In the market for goods, the government is commonly regarded as competent to regulate and properly motivated. Consumers lack the ability to make the appropriate choices. Producers often exercise monopolistic power and, in any case, without some form of government intervention, would not act in a way which promotes the public interest. In the market for ideas, the position is very different. The government, if it attempted to regulate, would be inefficient and its motives would, in general, be bad, so that, even if it were successful in achieving what it wanted to accomplish, the results would be undesirable.” 

The article discusses Sedition Law in the American context. It examines the historical interplay between Sedition laws and the Freedom of Speech.

"Freedom of expression and opinion online is increasingly criminalised with the aid of penal and internet-specific legislation. With this report, we hope to bring to light the problematic trends in the use of laws against freedom of expression in online spaces in Asia. In this special edition of GISWatch, APC brings together analysis on the criminalisation of online expression from six Asian states: Cambodia, India, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan and Thailand. The report also includes an overview of the methodology adapted for the purposes of the country research, as well as an identification of the international standards on online freedom of expression and the regional trends to be found across the six states that are part of the study. This is followed by the country reports, which expound on the state of online freedom of expression in their respective states."

“The Windhoek+30 Declaration was adopted on 03 May 2021 during a conference held to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Windhoek Declaration and World Press Freedom Day. The conference was held under the theme ‘Information as a Public Good’ from 29 April and ended on 03 May. The Windhoek Declaration was promulgated in 1991 and focused on the role of a free, independent and pluralistic media. The date of the declaration’s adoption, 03 May, was declared World Press Freedom Day. The Windhoek+30 Declaration has called on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and other intergovernmental organisations to reinforce cooperation with governments and civil society organisations in order to safeguard and enhance guarantees for the full exercise of the right to information and freedom of expression, both online and offline, with a particular focus on strengthening media freedom, diversity, and independence as well as media viability, transparency of digital platforms, and media and information literacy.”