Daily Archives: January 7, 2022

Literature has always been tricky. At times, people find certain books to be offensive or inappropriate. People will even go to great lengths to challenge or ban books just because of differing opinions. Limiting free speech has been a constant and continuous argument throughout history. One side argues that certain pieces of writing should be banned or censored due to words, content and themes that are either viewed as inappropriate, controversial or contain language that is no longer acceptable. Violence, profanity, racial terms, and sexual content are some examples. The other side strongly believes that the First Amendment should be upheld regardless of the what the content is and how it is presented. Freedom of speech should not be limited.

We will write a Limits to Freedom of Speech specifically for you!

The First Amendment is defined as the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and protest. It is said that freedom of the press is more important than freedom of speech because it can reach a bigger audience therefore making it more dangerous. (The First Amendment, 2:10 2:40 ). When something is written down and out for everyone to see, it can have more power and be more far reaching than the spoken word. However, freedom of speech is not absolute. Some limitations of free speech are, you are not allowed to harm others to get what want, you cant deceive someone or threaten them, you cant misrepresent the truth, and you cant abuse someone. (The Limits of Free Speech, 0:50 1:16) These limits are designed to protect people and set moral boundaries for the overall well-being of humanity. Topics such as, science, religion, morality, and social issues as well as art and even personal gossip (Ms.Griffin) can be talked about freely. It is important to note that typically, parents challenge materials more often than any other group. (Ms.Griffin) People tend to challenge books that make them feel uncomfortable. Parents can be reactive to sensitive topics, such as sexuality, cursing and violence. At times, a word or part of a book can make a whole group uncomfortable and thats when things get complicated.

Some may claim that harsh and cruel subjects should not be covered in books. These subjects can range from racial slurs to sexual content. Books for teenagers have become dark, graphic, and gruesome to an unprecedented degree. (Young Adult Literature) While this statement can ring true, it shouldnt be an excuse to get rid of the books all together. If a teen feels that he or she can handle the content presented in a book, they should be able to read it. As stated in the previous paragraph, parents are the ones who usually feel that particular books should be banned. They may be trying to protect their kids but at the same time they are arguing to remove classics such as Huckleberry Finn and The Outsiders. Such books provide horrible role models for young people and encourage bad behavior. (Young Adult Literature) Arguably, there can be awful people described in books but like it or not, teens make decisions on their own terms. A book is not going to influence their decision to curse or to have sex. In addition, books directed toward teens that include topics such as sex, drugs and alcohol are describing typical situations in teen life. Getting rid of books that include these subjects, in a way, would deny that teens go through serious challenges. A teenagers life is in no way flawless or cookie cutter perfection. Therefore books shouldnt try to cover up the imperfections.

Further insight about this argument is that books should not be limited to describing situations where everything is always joyful. Many of the best works of literature have very serious aspects to them. However, certain people feel that classics should be altered in a way to make them less offensive and cruel. This misguided act would be damaging to the original text. Critics of editing classic books insist that changing an authors original words changes the intent. (Editing The Classics) Undoubtedly, altering one word or phrase could change the whole context of the dialogue.

Another good point is that a book should not be removed from a shelf just because of someones opinion.Opponents contend that great works of art should not be changed simply because somebody finds them uncomfortable look at. (Editing The Classics) Consequently, one persons opinion shouldnt affect the majoritys view. If a book truly makes someone uncomfortable, then they can choose not to read it. For example, if a parent feels that a book is too harsh for their child to read, they can decide to not buy the book rather than try to get it banned from everyone.

Critics of limiting free speech feel that humans have the intelligence to figure out the real intent of a written work. Critics argue that readers should be smart enough to discern the true meaning of a text by themselves without an editor filtering it for them. We, as people, should be able to see deeper meanings and read between the lines. For instance, its typical for evil and crude characters to curse. The cursing can help give voice to a significant part of their personality. Curse words are also commonly used to portray strong emotions.

For this project I read the book Angus Thongs and Full Frontal Snogging. I enjoyed the book and would have never thought it would have been a book that was challenged. I think of the book as a cheesy teen story. Surprisingly, the book was considered scandalous by a parent and consequences followed. Retained with limited access at the Maplewood Middle School Library in Menasha, Wis. (2008). The coming-of-age novel, which has sexual content, was found offensive by a parent. In addition to retaining the book, board members voted unanimously to adopt procedures intended to secure and record parental consent before limited access books are released to students. (Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom) Yet the sexual content within the book is quite mild. Georgia, the main character, makes out with boys like many teens do. She argues with her parents and curses sometimes. Georgia and her friends discuss lesbianism and she even considers it to solve her boy problems. All of these things can occur during a teens life. There is no shame in any of it. Georgias actions are similar to many of my peers.

There are two sides to every argument. The topic of freedom of speech inspires disagreements and debates. Those who support censorship cite books that include themes such as violence, sexual content, cursing, racial slurs, age inappropriateness and controversial ideas. Carelessly, certain people believe that because one person/group becomes uncomfortable with a book, it should be booted off shelves. In contrast, others believe that freedom of speech is everyones right, regardless of content. Parents are are usually responsible for the banning of a book. While they believe they are protecting their kids, they are essentially censoring them from the real world. A book can evoke empathy and connections, even allowing a teen to feel like they are sharing the same experience as a character in a book.

As a result, they feel like they have someone to relate to. During a time when many young people can feel misunderstood, books can help the feel like they are not alone. Editors shouldnt have to alter books just to please an opinion. It would change the intent of classics completely. If someone is sincerely bothered by a book they should step away and choose not to read it then go on their way. Their opinion should not impact everyone else. All in all, free speech should not be limited. There is no point is censoring books that so importantly reveal society truthfully.

Limits To Freedom Of Speech. (2019, May 17).Retrieved January 7, 2022 , from https://studydriver.com/limits-to-freedom-of-speech/

Read more from the original source:
Limits To Freedom Of Speech - Free Essay Example ...

Constitutionally provided right

The Constitution of India provides the right of freedom, given in article 19 with the view of guaranteeing individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the constitution. The right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, as one of its six freedoms.[1]

The law in the current form finds its root in the Hate Speech Law Section 295(A) enacted by the British Administration in India. This act was brought about in the backdrop of a series of murders of Arya Samaj leaders who polemicized against Islam. This started in 1897 with the murder of Pandit Lekhram by a Muslim because he had written a book criticizing Islam.[2] Koenraad Elst argues that "Section 295b was not instituted by Hindu society, but against it. It was imposed by the British on the Hindus in order to shield Islam from criticism".[2] The murder series caught lime-light in December, 1926 after the murder of Swami Shraddhananda for the protection he gave to a family of converts from Islam to Hinduism in addition to writing Hindu Sangathan, Saviour of the Dying Race in 1926.[2][3]

Precedence to this law started even before this as in a case against Arya Samaj preacher Dharm Bir in 1915, ten Muslims were sentenced for rioting, but Dharm Bir was also charged under section 298 for "using offensive phrases and gestures () with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings" of another community; and under Section 153, for "wantonly provoking the riot which subsequently occurred" and "a judge was brought in who could assure conviction".[4]

The Constitution of India 1950 was drafted by the Constituent Assembly from 1946 to 1950. However, this Constitution drew on a longer history of antecedents documents drafted either as legislation governing British India or aspirational political documents.[5]

The Constitution of India Bill 1895, widely considered to be the first Indian articulation of a constitutional vision, contained the following provision related to freedom of speech and expression - 'Every citizen may express his thoughts by words or writings, and publish them in print without liability to censure, but they shall be answerable to abuses, which they may commit in the exercise of this right, in the cases and in the mode the Parliament shall determine.'

Other constitutional antecedent documents too contained provisions on freedom of speech and expression. These included: Commonwealth of India Bill 1925, Nehru Report 1928, and States and Minorities 1945. In most cases, the provisions contained some form of restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.

The Constituent Assembly of India debated on freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1) of the Draft Constitution,1948) on 1 December 1948, 2 December 1948 and 17 October 1949. The draft article read:

'Subject to the other provisions of this article, all citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression;

Proviso: Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of this article shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, relating to libel, slander, defamation, sedition or any other matter which offends against decency or morality or undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State.'

Most members of the Constituent Assembly welcomed the inclusion of the right. However, conflict emerged around the provision in the Article that placed restrictions on the right: while some members opposed the mention of restrictions on the right, others supported it. Members who opposed the restrictions argued that 1. There is no point in having a right to freedom of speech and expression in the presence of restrictions. 2. Putting restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression was a British practice.

Members who supported the restrictions argued that

In the end, the Constituent Assembly voted on the Article and included a "Right to freedom of speech and expression" in the Constitution of India, 1950 with restrictions similar to the ones mentioned in the Draft Constitution, 1948.

In a landmark judgment of the case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,[6] the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression has no geographical limitation and it carries with it the right of a citizen to gather information and to exchange thought with others not only in India but abroad also.

The constitution of India does not specifically mention the freedom of press. Freedom of press is implied from the Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Thus the press is subject to the restrictions that are provided under the Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Before Independence, there was no constitutional or statutory provision to protect the freedom of press. As observed by the Privy Council in Channing Arnold v. King Emperor:[7] "The freedom of the journalist is an ordinary part of the freedom of the subject and to whatever length, the subject in general may go, so also may the journalist, but apart from statute his privilege is no other and no higher. The range of his assertions, his criticisms or his comments is as wide as, and no wider than that of any other subject". The Preamble of the Indian Constitution ensures to all its citizens the liberty of expression. Freedom of the press has been included as part of freedom of speech and expression under the Article 19 of the UDHR. The heart of the Article 19 says: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

In Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras,[8] Patanjali Shastri, Chief Justice observed: "Freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular government, is possible."

The Supreme Court observed in Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms:[9] "Onesided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information, all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. Freedom of speech and expression includes right to impart and receive information which includes freedom to hold opinions".

In Indian Express v. Union of India,[10] it has been held that the press plays a very significant role in the democratic machinery. The courts have duty to uphold the freedom of press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that abridge that freedom. Freedom of press has three essential elements. They are:

In India, the press has not been able to practise its freedom to express the popular views. In Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India,[12] the Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960, which fixed the number of pages and size which a newspaper could publish at a price was held to be violative of freedom of press and not a reasonable restriction under the Article 19(2). Similarly, in Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India,[13] the validity of the Newsprint Control Order, which fixed the maximum number of pages, was struck down by the Supreme Court of India holding it to be violative of provision of Article 19(1)(a) and not to be reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). The Court struck down the rebuttal of the Government that it would help small newspapers to grow[how?].

In Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950), entry and circulation of the English journal "Cross Road", printed and published in Bombay, was banned by the Government of Madras. The same was held to be violative of the freedom of speech and expression, as "without liberty of circulation, publication would be of little value". In Prabha Dutt v. Union of India (1982), the Supreme Court directed the Superintendent of Tihar Jail to allow representatives of a few newspapers to interview Ranga and Billa, the death sentence convicts, as they wanted to be interviewed.

There are instances when the freedom of press has been suppressed by the legislature. The authority of the government, in such circumstances, has been under the scanner of judiciary. In the case of Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (AIR 1950 SC 129), the validity of censorship previous to the publication of an English Weekly of Delhi, the Organiser was questioned. The court struck down the Section 7 of the East Punjab Safety Act, 1949, which directed the editor and publisher of a newspaper "to submit for scrutiny, in duplicate, before the publication, till the further orders , all communal matters all the matters and news and views about Pakistan, including photographs, and cartoons", on the ground that it was a restriction on the liberty of the press. Similarly, prohibiting newspaper from publishing its own views or views of correspondents about a topic has been held to be a serious encroachment on the freedom of speech and expression.[14]

Under Indian law, the freedom of speech and of the press do not confer an absolute right to express one's thoughts freely. Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Indian constitution enables the legislature to impose certain restrictions on free speech under following heads:

Reasonable restrictions on these grounds can be imposed only by a duly enacted law and not by executive action.[15]

Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the freedom of speech and expression, in the interest of the security of the State. All the utterances intended to endanger the security of the State by crimes of violence intended to overthrow the government, waging of war and rebellion against the government, external aggression or war, etc., may be restrained in the interest of the security of the State.[16] It does not refer to the ordinary breaches of public order which do not involve any danger to the State.[8]

This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951. The State can impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression, if it tends to jeopardise the friendly relations of India with other States.

This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 in order to meet the situation arising from the Supreme Court's decision in Romesh Thapar's case (AIR 1950 SC 124). The expression 'public order' connotes the sense of public peace, safety and tranquillity.

In Kishori Mohan v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court explained the differences between three concepts: law and order, public order, security of State. Anything that disturbs public peace or public tranquillity disturbs public order.[17] But mere criticism of the government does not necessarily disturb public order.[18] A law punishing the utterances deliberately tending to hurt the religious feelings of any class has been held to be valid as it is a reasonable restriction aimed to maintaining the public order.[19]

It is also necessary that there must be a reasonable nexus between the restriction imposed and the achievement of public order. In Superintendent, Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohiya (AIR 1960 SC 633), the Court held the Section 3 of U.P. Special Powers Act, 1932, which punished a person if he incited a single person not to pay or defer the payment of Government dues, as there was no reasonable nexus between the speech and public order. Similarly, the court upheld the validity of the provision empowering a Magistrate to issue directions to protect the public order or tranquillity.[20]

The word 'obscenity' is identical with the word 'indecency' of the Indian Constitution. In an English case of R. v. Hicklin,[21] the test was laid down according to which it is seen 'whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene tend to deprave and corrupt the minds which are open to such immoral influences'. This test was upheld by the Supreme Court in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 881). In this case the Court upheld the conviction of a book seller who was prosecuted under Section 292, I.P.C., for selling and keeping the book Lady Chatterley's Lover. The standard of morality varies from time to time and from place to place.

The constitutional right to freedom of speech would not allow a person to contempt the courts. The expression Contempt of Court has been defined Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The term contempt of court refers to civil contempt or criminal contempt under the Act. But judges do not have any general immunity from criticism of their judicial conduct, provided that it is made in good faith and is genuine criticism, and not any attempt to impair the administration of justice. In In re Arundhati Roy ((2002) 3 SCC 343), the Supreme Court of India followed the view taken in the American Supreme Court (Frankfurter, J.) in Pennekamp v. Florida (328 US 331: 90 L Ed 1295 (1946)) in which the United States Supreme Court observed: "If men, including judges and journalists, were angels, there would be no problem of contempt of court. Angelic judges would be undisturbed by extraneous influences and angelic journalists would not seek to influence them. The power to punish for contempt, as a means of safeguarding judges in deciding on behalf of the community as impartially as is given to the lot of men to decide, is not a privilege accorded to judges. The power to punish for contempt of court is a safeguard not for judges as persons but for the function which they exercise". In E.M.S. Namboodripad v. T.N. Nambiar ((1970) 2 SCC 325; AIR 1970 SC 2015), the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the High Court, holding Mr. Namboodripad guilty of contempt of court. In M.R. Parashar v. Farooq Abdullah ((1984) 2 SCC 343; AIR 1984 SC 615.), contempt proceedings were initiated against the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. But the Court dismissed the petition for want of proof.

The clause (2) of Article 19 prevents any person from making any statement that injures the reputation of another. With the same view, defamation has been criminalised in India by inserting it into Section 499 of the I.P.C. Where defamation is concerned, in case of a criminal defamation suit as laid down in Sections 499 and Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, the issue - in question - being the truth isn't considered a defence. Even if a person has spoken the truth, he can be prosecuted for defamation. Under the first exception to Section 499, truth will only be a defence if the statement was made 'for the public good.' And that, is a question of fact to be assessed by the judiciary. The erstwhile Economic & Political Weekly (EPW) Editor Paranjoy Guha Thakurta's resignation following a legal notice by the lawyers for Adani Power Limited (APL) to the owners the trustees of Sameeksha Trust, which owns and runs the Journal, Editor and authors of an article later withdrawn for "failing to meet editorial standards," brought the reach of IPC's Section 499[22] back into limelight.

This ground was also added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. The Constitution also prohibits a person from making any statement that incites people to commit offense.

This ground was also added subsequently by the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. This is aimed to prohibit anyone from making statements that challenge the integrity and sovereignty of India.

The Indian Constitution, while not mentioning the word "press", provides for "the right to freedom of speech and expression" (Article 19(1) a). However this right is subject to restrictions under sub clause, whereby this freedom can be restricted for reasons of "sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, preserving decency, preserving morality, in relation to contempt, court, defamation, or incitement to an offense". Laws such as the Official Secrets Act and Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act[23](PoTA) have been used to limit press freedom. Under PoTA, person could be detained for up to six months for being in contact with a terrorist or terrorist group. PoTA was repealed in 2006, but the Official Secrets Act 1923 continues.

For the first half-century of independence, media control by the state was the major constraint on press freedom.Indira Gandhi famously stated in 1975 that All India Radio is "a Government organ, it is going to remain a Government organ..."[24]With the liberalization starting in the 1990s, private control of media has burgeoned, leading to increasing independence and greater scrutiny of government.

It ranks poorly at 138th[25] rank out of 180 listed countries in the Press Freedom Index 2018 released by Reporters Without Borders (RWB).[26] Analytically India's press freedom, as could be deduced by the Press Freedom Index, has constantly reduced since 2002, when it culminated in terms of apparent freedom, achieving a rank of 80 among the reported countries. In 2018, India's freedom of press ranking declined two placed to 138. In explaining the decline, RWB cited growing intolerance from Hindu nationalist supporters of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and the murders of journalists such as Gauri Lankesh.[27][28][29]

Hate speech laws in India are regularly abused by political organisations and other influential people. Although these cases rarely result in a conviction, it is used as a form of intimidation which leads to wide spread self-censorship by the people. Apart from hate speech laws there are many other sections in the Indian Penal Code that curtails free speech. Books about history and religion are often targeted due to their very nature of promoting historical criticism.

The vague phrase "decency or morality" used in article 19(2) of the constitution has long enabled the state to engage in wide spread moral policing of mass media and the film and entertainment industry as religious groups often object to liberal ideas and deem all progressive values as indecent.

Freedom of speech and expression, which enable an individual to participate in public activities. The phrase, "freedom of press" has not been used in Article 19, though freedom activists, as well as most scholars and industrialised jurisdictions throughout the world recognise that freedom of expression includes freedom of press. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of public order, security of State, decency or morality.

According to the estimates of Reporters Without Borders, India ranks 138th worldwide in press freedom index ( The press freedom index for India is 43.24 for 2018).[30] The Indian Constitution, while not mentioning the word "press", provides for "the right to freedom of speech and expression" (Article 19(1) a). However this right is subject to restrictions under subclause (2), whereby this freedom can be restricted for reasons of "sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, preserving decency, preserving morality, in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence". Laws such as the Official Secrets Act and Prevention of Terrorism Act[31](POTA) have been used to limit press freedom. Under POTA, person could be detained for up to six months before the police were required to bring charges on allegations for terrorism-related offences. POTA was repealed in 2004, but was replaced by amendments to UAPA.[32] The Official Secrets Act 1923 remains in effect.

For the first half-century of independence, media control by the state was the major constraint on press freedom. Indira Gandhi famously stated in 1975 that All India Radio is "a Government organ, it is going to remain a Government organ..."[33][34] On 26 June 1975, the day after the so-called emergency was declared in violation of the natural rights of Indian citizens, the Mumbai edition of The Times of India in its obituary column carried an entry that read "D.E.M O'Cracy beloved husband of T.Ruth, father of L.I.Bertie, brother of Faith, Hope and Justica expired on 26 June".[35] With the liberalisation starting in the 1990s, private control of media has increased, leading to increasing independence and greater scrutiny of government.

Organisations like Tehelka and NDTV have been particularly influential, e.g. in bringing about the resignation of powerful Haryana minister Venod Sharma. In addition, laws like Prasar Bharati act passed in recent years contribute significantly to reducing the control of the press by the government. In recent times, the Indian government has been accused of trying to curtail this freedom through various means.[36][37]

According to the English Law, sedition embraces all the practices whether by word or writing which are calculated to disturb the tranquillity of the State and lead an ignorant person to subvert the Government.[38] Basic criticism of the government is not seen as sedition unless the Government believes that it was calculated to undermine the respect for the government in such a way so as to make people cease to obey it.[39] Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of sedition as follows: "Sedition. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine". But Explanation 3 says "Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section".[40] In Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955), the court upheld the constitutional validity of the Section 124A of I.P.C and also upheld the view taken in Niharendu's case.

National Security Act (NSA) introduced in 1980.[43] Unlawful Activities Prevention Act where the conviction rate is 2% enacted in 1967.[44]

The sedition laws have empowered the executive branch of the government to use the ambiguously defined provision as an instrument to regulate public opinion and indiscriminately wield power.[45]

Excerpt from:
Freedom of expression in India - Wikipedia

Eighty-one years ago this week, President Franklin Roosevelt delivered what was, from a substantive perspective, the most important speech of his unique and remarkable presidency.

While the 1933 inaugural speech (We have nothing to fear but fear itself.) is almost certainly better known, FDRs Jan. 6, 1941 address to Congress commonly referred to as the Four Freedoms Speech is now rightfully remembered, alongside Lincolns Gettysburg Address, as one of the best and most inspiring testimonials to the cause of human freedom (and enunciations of national purpose) ever offered by an American chief executive.

The speech was delivered at a time the U.S. was still wrestling with what its role should be in combating Nazi Germany and in it, Roosevelt forcefully called for the intentional construction of a world in which such noxious and destructive forces be forever banished and all human beings would enjoy a series of fundamental birthrights.

Today, at another moment of national and global peril (and in which the basic concept of human freedom has frequently been twisted and misdirected off onto weird tangents like the possession of assault weapons, slashing taxes on corporations, and the resistance of basic public health guidelines) its an apt time to recall and celebrate the four freedoms FDR lifted up and to add a fifth that he would have undoubtedly included had he been able to foresee the changes that have overtaken our planet in the intervening decades.

Freedom No. One on FDRs list was the freedom of speech and expression. Of course, in some ways, the world has made important strides in this realm over the last 81 years. Here in the United States and many other parts of the world, for instance, the freedom of artists resides in a much stronger position than it did in the mid-20th Century when thousands were blacklisted for leftist political views and films and books were regularly banned for obscene content. The advent of the internet has contributed to this trend by making it harder than ever for would-be censors to monitor and control what people express and consume.

But, of course, the fight in this realm continues. In just the last year, forces of the political right have launched a new and concerted campaign to whitewash how American history is taught and renewed efforts to prevent schoolchildren from accessing celebrated authors. Meanwhile, in other parts of the globe perhaps most notably, Xis China and Putins Russia the right to openly criticize the government and champion meaningful political change remains effectively nonexistent.

A similar story can be told with respect to FDRs second core freedom the freedom of worship. While some countries have made enormous strides in ending government efforts to stifle or advance religious belief, the trend is decidedly negative elsewhere. Not only do many nations remain organized as repressive theocracies, but even in the United States, our historic commitment to separation of church and state is under a new and energetic assault.

And then there are Freedoms Three and Four the freedom from want and the freedom from fear. Here too, of course, the record is decidedly mixed.

Across the planet, even as millions of humans live longer and healthier lives than ever before, millions of others live in abject poverty with hunger and hopelessness their constant companions even here in the U.S.

And while the world has made important strides in turning away from the threat of nuclear annihilation that so dominated and poisoned human mental well-being throughout the second half of the 20th century, today we rightfully fear an equally daunting existential threat: the global environmental emergency.

As more and more people are coming to realize especially in the dark shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic the planet Earth is, effectively, shrinking. The global population continues to grow and resources and inhabitable land become stretched thinner and thinner. As the destructive impacts of climate change become more apparent, humans are, tragically, right to fear for the long-term sustainability of life as weve come to know it.

Its for this reason that we would do well to supplement FDRs still excellent list with a fifth freedom on which all others remain utterly dependent the freedom of a sustainable environment. After all, the cause of human freedom wont amount to much in the long run without rapid and intentional efforts to preserve the fragile biosphere upon which all life is dependent.

The bottom line: The Year 2022 is sure to feature passionate and important debates on a dizzying array of political, social, economic issues so much so that it will become easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. At such a time, caring and thinking people would do well to stay focused on a discreet list of guiding objectives, and the one we might describe as the Five Freedoms is a good place to start.

Rob Schofield, director of NC Policy Watch, has three decades of experience as a lawyer, lobbyist, writer and commentator. Republished from NCPolicyWatch.org.

See the rest here:
OPINION: The five freedoms we must champion in the New Year - The Richmond Observer

There are three flagpoles outside Boston City Hall. One flies the United States flag. Another flies the Massachusetts state flag. What can and cant fly from the third is an issue being taken up by the Supreme Court.

On Jan. 18, 2022, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Shurtleff v. Boston. The case addresses whether the city violated the First Amendment by denying a request to temporarily raise the Christian flag on a flagpole outside City Hall, where Boston has temporarily displayed many secular organizations flags.

The case raises important questions about free speech at a time when many members of the Supreme Court seem concerned about restrictions on religion. The courts decision will likely clarify one or more free speech doctrines, impacting how courts nationwide interpret the First Amendments guarantees.

Shurtleff v. Boston also highlights disagreements about the nature and scope of freedom of speech, the kind of disputes I study in my work on free speech and the First Amendment.

Boston permits groups to request that a flag temporarily fly alongside the American and Massachusetts flags at City Hall to mark special occasions, replacing the city flag that usually occupies the third post. Past examples include flag requests from the Chinese Progressive Association and the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation.

In 2017, Camp Constitution, a New Hampshire-based organization, requested to fly the Christian flag, which has a cross in the upper left corner and was designed by a Sunday school teacher and a missionary executive in the late 1800s. Today, some Protestant denominations display the flag inside their churches.

Camp Constitution asked to fly the flag as part of a planned event to celebrate the civic contributions of Bostons Christian community. The organization says its mission is to enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage, our American heritage of courage and ingenuity, including the genius of our United States Constitution, and the application of free enterprise.

Boston denied the request. The city cited concerns that raising the Christian flag at Boston City Hall would violate the First Amendments establishment clause, which bars the government from promoting particular religions over others. After making a second request, which Boston also denied, Camp Constitution sued.

A federal district court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Boston on the grounds that flying a flag on the third flagpole was government speech, not private speech and therefore the city was entitled to refuse to fly the Christian flag on its flagpole.

Camp Constitution appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted review.

The cases outcome will likely hinge on the Supreme Courts determination of whose views are represented by the flagpole outside City Hall: the private organization whose flag is temporarily flying, or the government. In other words, this case is about who is speaking when that flag goes up, and whose free speech rights are protected.

If the court determines that Camp Constitution is speaking, then a framework the court has developed, known as the public forum doctrine, will apply. This would likely result in a ruling favoring Camp Constitution.

If the court determines that the city of Boston is speaking, then the courts government speech doctrine will apply. This would likely result in a ruling favoring Boston.

Federal, state and local governments oversee a wide variety of public spaces, such as parks, universities and courthouses, just to name a few. These areas serve different functions, some of which require more regulation of speech than others.

The Supreme Court has organized government spaces into several categories, each of which permits different types of restrictions on free speech. This set of categories and permitted restrictions is referred to as the public forum doctrine.

Spaces like public parks and sidewalks are considered public forums, the category that permits the fewest restrictions on speech. In a public forum, a government can never restrict speech based on viewpoint specific positions on a topic and is severely limited as to when it can restrict speech based on content a given topic.

Normally, a flagpole outside a city hall would not be considered a public forum. However, the Supreme Court also recognizes a separate category, designated public forums, which are spaces the government converts into public forums. In a designated public forum, free speech regulation is limited in the same way it would be in a public forum.

In Shurtleff v. Boston, both parties agree that the area surrounding the flagpole is a public forum. But they disagree over whether the flagpole itself is a designated public forum. Camp Constitution argues that Boston has turned the flagpole into a designated public forum by allowing other groups to fly their flags there. Meanwhile, Boston argues that it has not, because the city retained control by permitting limited types of groups to raise their flags.

Camp Constitution notes that Boston previously approved 284 requests to raise other flags, and that there is no record of a prior request being denied.

But Boston counters that none of those previous requests were for religious flags. The city argues that only two types of flags have been permitted: flags representing territories, nations and ethnicities, and flags associated with publicly recognized days of observance, such as Veterans Day and LGBTQ Pride Month. Boston argues that such limited categories of approval are not what one would expect in a designated public forum, and that this is evidence that Boston has not turned its flagpole into a designated public forum.

[3 media outlets, 1 religion newsletter. Get stories from The Conversation, AP and RNS.]

Over 30 years ago, in Rust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court recognized that the government itself is a speaker with First Amendment rights an idea known as the government speech doctrine. Government speech is not subject to the public forum doctrine. Instead, the government has much greater discretion in deciding which messages it endorses.

Boston argues that raising a flag on the third flagpole at City Hall is government speech and therefore the city has the right to determine what views it wants to express on its flagpole. Camp Constitution disagrees, maintaining that the flagpole is a designated public forum and therefore few restraints on private groups free speech are allowed on the flagpole.

Both parties arguments rely on competing interpretations of the government speech doctrine put forward by the Supreme Court in two cases, Pleasant Grove v. Summum and Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans.

In 2009, the Supreme Court held in Pleasant Grove v. Summum that the permanent monuments in a park owned and operated by the town were government speech. The Supreme Courts unanimous decision allowed the town to deny a request from a small religious group, Summum, to install a permanent monument expressing its beliefs, even though the park had previously accepted a monument of the Ten Commandments.

In 2015, the Supreme Court held in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans that license plates were government speech. This permitted Texas to deny a request for a specialty license plate featuring the Confederate flag, even though Texas offered a wide range of other specialty plates. Unlike Pleasant Grove v. Summum, this case was decided by a slim 5-4 majority.

Shurtleff v. Boston will likely require the court to further clarify the government speech doctrine. The central issue is this: When another flag temporarily replaces Bostons own, who is speaking?

View original post here:
Can a Christian flag fly at city hall? The Supreme Court will have to decide - The Conversation AU

ALLaround the world we are seeing people losing freedoms to a small group of politicians and you will know that my view is that we are in danger of doing this in the UK.

A few weeks ago I wrote about the threat to human rights in the UK and at the heart of this is the current UK governments distaste for the Human Rights Act, based as it is on the European Convention on Human Rights.

There's nothing wrong with this Act, they just don't like it because it's based on something that came from Europe, forgetting the fact that the Convention was largely drafted by British lawyers and the UK was the first to sign it.

Those who make the case for the abolition of human rights laws tend to claim that we have ancient freedoms enshrined in common law (which doesnt exist in Scotland by the way).

They say that there's no need then for anything else. That is a complete misreading of history.

READ MORE:Dominic Raab reforms to strengthen 'typically British' rights

They usually start their argument with Magna Carta. While this document was useful in declaring the king was not above the law it was simply an agreement designed to appease a small group of landed gentry who, to modern eyes, look more like organised crime lords running a protection racket.

There was nothing in that document for ordinary people nor was it intended that there should be. Magna Carta was ditched by the then king as soon as he had the chance.

We come then to the Bill of Rights in 1689 but again this was a document aimed at a very small group of people who believed that they should govern the country and notthe vast bulk of ordinary people.

These people claimed rights against the Crown but denied any rights to their tenants.

There was no freedom save for a small group of the very rich. If we look at Britain at the end of the 18th century it looks very much like an authoritarian dictatorship.

The government had a system of spies, it censored publications and freely imprisoned people for sedition for what we would simply see it as the exercise of freedom of speech.

When 80,000 people gathered in Manchester in 1815 to demand democratic rights they were cut down by cavalry officers in what became known as the Peterloo Massacre. Murdered for wanting the vote.

It was not an isolated incident. There then followed another period of oppression where working men in Tolpuddle tried to organise a trade union and were deported as criminals for their pains. This was no freedom-loving land.

READ MORE:Four iconic Welsh protests you might not have heard of

In the 19th century common people in Scotland were forced off the land to make way for sheep to graze.

In Ireland the vast bulk of the population was excluded from public life because they were from the wrong religion. That country was governed by what was in effect a dictatorship based on religion.

Even in Wales until the 1890s people were forced to contribute 10 per centof what they produced to the Church of England which most people weren't even members of. If you didn't pay your property was confiscated.

Let's not pretend that freedom is something that is ingrained in the British system. It is not.

Freedoms had to be won over the years.

In 1832 the self-perpetuating elite that governed this country were forced to extend the franchise to a wider group of people but it took until nearly the middle of the 20th century for a proper democracy to exist in Britain.

None of these things were granted because of the benevolence of a small class of rulers, rather they had to be won through protest whether it was through the Chartist movement or the suffragettes in later years.

READ MORE:UKlegislation could kill theright to protest in Wales

It simply isn't the case that freedom is something that we have taken for granted for centuries.

Before 1998 Human Rights Act there was no right of free speech in Britain. Rather it was allowed rather than endorsed as a positive right.

There are of course restrictions on free speech; you cannot go around to your neighbours house and threaten to kill them without being prosecuted for doing that. You cannot incite racial hatred against many groups of people or threaten members of the public.

You cannot libel or slander anybody. These are restrictions that have been placed on freedom of speech over the years thatmost people would probably agree with.

We do have a right to free expression and cannot be prosecuted for having different views to those who rule us.

READ MORE:Leanne Wood on Rosa Parks and other inspirational figures

However, if the UK parliament decided to restrict free speech it could do so, there is no law preventing it from so doing.

Because we dont have a written constitution, we dont have a right to freedom of thought and expression that is beyond the ability of the UK Parliament to remove.

If you abolish the Human Rights Act you remove protections against abuse of power.

Thats why we must always be on our guard against any changes to the rights that UK citizens have enjoyed for the duration of this century.

If you valueThe National'sjournalism, help grow our team of reporters bybecoming asubscriber.

Read the original post:
Carwyn Jones on the threat to human rights in the UK - The National Wales

OPINION:

When former Sen. Harry Reid gets laid to rest this weekend, hell be eulogized as a former boxer who fought for America. But Ill be thinking of the time the Nevada Democrat threw a cheap shot at the First Amendment, only to have Rush Limbaugh knock him out cold.In my interview with James Bo Snerdley Golden about his book, Rush on the Radio: A Tribute from His Sidekick for 30 Years, we marveled at our bosss ability to absorb dishonest blindsides without ever fighting dirty.

Limbaugh was Rocky; the haters were Ivan Drago growling, I must break you. But Limbaugh would not be broken. He was, as the big Soviet said of Balboa, like a piece of iron.

In October 2007, what became known as the Harry Reid Smear Letter presented the most powerful opponent of Limbaughs career. Forty-one Senate Democrats wrote his syndicator demanding they repudiate radios G.O.A.T. It was a violation of the First Amendments spirit, as chilling as a law abridging the freedom of speech.

Mr. Reids letter started with a lie, which as Edith Keeler told James T. Kirk, is a terrible way to say, Hello. Like his baseless claim that Sen. Mitt Romney hadnt paid taxes in 10 years, Mr. Reid charged that Rush had called troops who opposed the Iraq War phony soldiers.

Rush invited Mr. Reid on the show, challenging him, Say it to my face, but the senator feared stepping into the ring. He knew the long history of publicity seekers claiming to have served from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli. The odious David Duke lied about fighting in Vietnam. So did Sens. Tom Harkin (who signed the Smear Letter) and Dick Blumenthal, both Democrats.

Others wove tales of marching at Bull Run, charging San Juan Hill, or dog-fighting the Red Barron. Two years before the Smear Letter, CBS News reported that Stolen Valor author B.G. Burkett had exposed more than 1,000 phony vets, and the media had hyped more than one who ripped former President George W. Bushs Iraq policy. Everyone knew who Limbaugh meant, even Mr. Reid.

Rather than throw in the towel to whats now called cancel culture, Limbaugh came out swinging. As EIB strategist Brian Glicklich wrote in The Wall Street Journal, Rush auctioned their letter off in a show of gleeful brio matched the $2.1 million winning bid with his own funds and donated the money to scholarships for the children of fallen service members and police officers.

That charity, the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, doesnt ask a deceased loved ones political affiliation. That your mother or father died serving America is all that matters to them, and all that mattered to Limbaugh.

The issue appeared on Limbaughs radar for a Morning Update on Jesse MacBeth a fake Army Ranger that the media touted as an anti-war war hero and again with The New Republics debunked Baghdad Diaries. Those tales of U.S. atrocities read as so fictionalized, Pulitzer Prize-winner Peggy Noonan was immediately skeptical, thinking, Thats not Iraq. Thats a Vietnam War movie.

The phrase phony soldiers also aired when Limbaugh took a call from a Missouri mother lamenting, I have a son in Afghanistan, a son-in-law in Iraq, and these phony soldiers and by that, I mean these guys [like MacBeth] that were not men enough to cut basic or to get through basic they make me sick.

Six months earlier, Mr. Reid had declared, This war is lost, inspiring the enemies trying to kill our troops. Desperate to flip the script, he plucked the phony soldiers term out of context, dreaming itd drop Limbaugh to the canvas like Apollo Creed.

Instead, that auction raised $4.2 million, and Limbaugh challenged Democrats to match the amount. (They didnt.) The scheme collapsed. Mr. Reid was forced to crawl to the Senate floor and in a craven attempt to claim credit praise Limbaugh as if theyd funded those scholarships together.

As Washington Times opinion editor Charles Hurt said of the recent funeral of another senator, Bob Dole, In the cavernous halls of Washington, every occasion is an opportunity for politicians to celebrate themselves, and thats already the case with Harry Reid.

But we can hope that former President Bill Clintons sentiment eulogizing Richard Nixon will prevail: May the day of judging [him] on anything less than his entire life and career come to a close.

Rather than canonize Mr. Reid as a statesman, lets hope history considers his full legacy, including the bout with Limbaugh a fight where free speech prevailed, forcing the boxer-turned-party boss to cry, No mas, Rush! No mas!

Dean Karayanis @HistoryDean is a producer for the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show, longtime Rush Limbaugh staffer and host of the History Author Show on iHeartRadio.

Go here to see the original:
Sen. Harry Reid rumbled with Rush Limbaugh and got knocked out cold - Washington Times