Scope of Freedom of Expression

The author provides an account of the historical evolution of the doctrine of sedition which is important for analyzing the basis of modern Sedition Laws.

“This guide was designed as a basic and synthetic input to help judges and legal practitioners across the Americas who must apply international (especially inter-American) standards that enshrine and protect the fundamental right to freedom of expression.” Available only in Spanish.

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

The toolkit “is organized in six thematic modules that offer up to date information on the protection and promotion of freedom of expression, access to public information and safety of journalists in Judicial Systems in Ibero America. It also provides a range of learning activities, assessment tools, and didactic resources, with the aim of becoming a dynamic component of basic and advance training in Judicial Schools”. Available only in Spanish.

This summer, the UN launched Global Principles for Information Integrity, which tackle the main information challenges of our technological era – misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech. Grounded in international law and consultations with Member States, scholars, media, civil society, and private sector representatives, the principles serve as a framework that invites “multi-stakeholder action for a healthier information ecosystem.” There are five principles: 1) Societal Trust and Resilience, 2) Healthy Incentives, 3) Public Empowerment, 4) Independent, Free, and Pluralistic Media, and 5) Transparency and Research. The recommendations follow the principles’ descriptions and address technology companies, AI actors, advertisers and other private sector actors, news media, researchers, civil society, states, other political actors, and the UN.

The article examines fragments of the history of sedition and like prosecutions in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America in the twentieth century. It argues that, as long as the various sedition offences remain, governments will inevitably be tempted to use them improperly, especially when highly unpopular opinions are expressed, that the law of sedition is anachronistic and an unjustified interference with freedom of expression, and that abolition of sedition offences at both Commonwealth and State level is therefore to be preferred to any attempt to “modernise” the crime of sedition.