By the end of this section, you will be able to:
- Outline the components of the rights to privacy, self-determination, and freedom of expression that are deemed essential according to human rights norms.
- Analyze how different government systems around the world treat the rights to privacy, self-determination, and freedom of expression.
- Describe the paradox of tolerance.
While most constitutions around the world guarantee due process, how the high courts of each state interpret the standard of due process differs considerably from state to state.31 Most due process clauses provide that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. One often thinks of liberty as freedom from incarceration, but it means much more than that.
To have liberty is to have personal autonomy, and to have personal autonomy, one must have the right to make personal decisions. Thus, the most fundamental aspect of civil liberty is privacy, and in most constitutions, liberty includes the right to privacy.
The Right to Privacy
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law defines the right to privacy as “the right of a person to be free from intrusion into or publicity concerning matters of a personal nature.”32 Another way to define the right to privacy is “the right to be left alone.”33 In a liberal democratic system, privacy is a space separate from public life, allowing individual personal autonomy. Privacy is the ability to think, speak, and behave without being monitored or surveilled by another person or the government. Are you permitted to decide whether to have children and how many? To choose whom you marry? Decisions concerning what to wear, what to study in school, what career to pursue, and what religious beliefs to instill in one’s children are all privacy issues. They are all personal decisions or decisions about which there is debate on whether governments can restrict or require certain conduct.
In their influential article “The Right to Privacy,” attorney Samuel Warren and US Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis define privacy as the “right of the individual to be let alone.”34 The right to privacy has been used to assert that liberty exists in a wide range of civil liberties cases in the United States. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Supreme Court found that the 14th Amendment prevents the state from interfering with parents’ choices regarding their child’s education.35 In Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas, the court struck down several laws criminalizing sexual and reproductive decisions between consenting adults in private activities, citing a right to privacy.36 In Lawrence, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote:
“The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.”37
Griswold vs. Connecticut: The Most Important Supreme Court Case You’ve Never Heard Of
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the US Supreme Court established the Right to Privacy as a liberty implied but not stated in numerous places across the Constitution.
Most countries explicitly recognize a right to privacy. For example, the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 states:
Right to respect for private and family life
- Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
- There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.38
The US Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy, but the right to privacy is an essential idea behind several of the rights it specifies.39 The US Supreme Court has recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right.40 As Justice Brandeis wrote in the wiretapping case of Olmstead v. United States (1928), “the right to be let alone [is] the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.”41
The First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and 14th Amendments do explicitly state, in what are referred to as enumerated rights, instances for which the US Supreme Court has affirmed that a right to privacy exists.42
|Prohibits restrictions on free speech, peaceful assembly (association), and the free exercise of religion
|Prohibits the government from requiring individuals to house or feed soldiers in peacetime
|Prohibits the government from unreasonably searching or seizing an individual or their property; requires the government to appear in court and show probable cause before receiving a court order or a warrant to search or seize an individual or their property
|Guarantees the right to remain silent in a police interrogation
|States that rights not explicitly outlined in the Constitution may still exist with the people
|Prohibits the government from denying equal protection of the laws to all persons
Implicit in the First Amendment protections of free speech, peaceful assembly (association), and free exercise of religion is the right to participate or not participate as an individual decides,43 and the Ninth Amendment states that rights not explicitly outlined in the Constitution may still exist.
Like many national constitutions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes an express right to privacy. Article 12 of the declaration states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.44
Even though member countries have endorsed the UDHR, how each government enacts the right to privacy it contains varies greatly. The UN has appointed a special rapporteur (a person appointed by an organization to report on its meetings) to monitor and report annually on how countries comply with the UN declaration of a right to privacy expressed in the UDHR, especially as it relates to digital surveillance.45
When viewed as a civil liberty, the right to privacy erects a barrier between individuals and an overly intrusive government. But when is government intrusion permitted?
When Does the Government Restrict Individual Privacy Rights?
Restrictions on the right of privacy or personal autonomy vary widely by country. In the United States, same-sex relations are considered private and protected by the US Constitution. In most of Africa, LGBTQ+ relations or orientation are illegal and considered a detriment to the welfare of the community.46
Personal privacy boundaries often change as society’s views of personal liberty change. Under a democratic government, it is a society that interprets what is acceptable and if there is a compelling reason for government restrictions on personal decisions. For example, until 1967, many states had laws that declared interracial marriage a crime. In Loving v. Virginia, the US Supreme Court interpreted that due process and a right to privacy require that the choice of whom to love and marry be a personal, private one.47 It was not until 2015 that this same right was interpreted to include same-sex marriage.48 As society’s interpretation of what is personal and individual and what is necessary for the good of the community changes, the interpretation of the right to privacy changes. Authoritarian governments force the people to acquiesce to the government’s interpretation of personal private conduct.
Civil Liberties around the World
You can use one of the following online resources to compare which liberties different countries recognize. Can you spot any trends? How do different countries interpret similar types of liberties in different ways?
Explore civil liberties around the world at the National Constitution Center.
Compare statistical data about human rights at Our World in Data.
Read up-to-date reports on the state of human rights at Human Rights Watch.
Track trends in freedom using the Cato Institute’s yearly Human Freedom Index.
Monitor levels of freedom according to the human rights and rule of law index at TheGlobalEconomy.com.
The degree to which governments recognize the right to make personal, private decisions varies widely around the world. In China, the government restricts the number of children couples may have.49 In some countries, forced marriages are still common.50 In some countries, girls are banned from attending school or even suffer violence for attending, and the government does not protect their right to an education, even if their parents want them to attend school.51 Many countries have laws that require women to wear specific clothing in public or prohibit women from wearing certain items of clothing, restricting a woman’s right to make a personal decision.52 Thus, even in countries that declare that they will protect privacy and individualism, society’s interpretation of what is necessary to create a community can lead to restrictions intended to contribute to the common good.
What about privacy in areas where security issues arise? The growing prevalence and sophistication of cyber technologies place increasing pressure on the right to privacy in the context of freedom from surveillance.
Cyber Data Issues with Privacy
State and federal laws in the United States protect personal cyber data—that is, data stored electronically.53 Online users frequently utilize privately owned browsers and social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter. These private businesses allow users to choose their level of privacy settings. However, in response to increasing issues with the amount of scrutiny that private businesses provide, the federal government has implemented several laws to regulate private companies’ storage of personal data. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA), for example, permits parents to control what information websites collect about their children.54 European countries have even more robust data privacy laws regarding information about children.55
The History of Internet Tracking and the Battle for Privacy
Internet tracking may have innocent beginnings, but it has become the subject of major political debate.
Another privacy issue is the government’s ability to access an individual’s cyber information. US government agencies’ arguments that they need access to this information in the name of safety and national security have long come up against the US Constitution’s guarantees of the right to privacy. The government asserts that, for the good of the community, it needs access to certain information.56 Individuals argue that their right to privacy of digital personal data is the same as their right to privacy in the form of “houses, papers, and effects” explicitly protected under the Fourth Amendment; thus, the government must show probable cause and obtain a warrant from a judge to look at that digital information. Individuals contend that they have the right to confront the government and argue the issue in open court.57 US government intelligence agencies say that protecting the privacy of this personal information compromises safety and national security58 and that any intelligence review of a person’s digital data must be secret to avoid tipping off the individual under investigation. This debate is ongoing in the United States and around the world.
Countries whose constitutions include a right to privacy differ in how broadly they interpret that right when it comes to data privacy. The European Union has enacted extensive data protection laws applicable to all member countries.59 The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides that data about citizens may only be gathered or processed in specific instances. These rules apply to private businesses and government agencies. The restrictions on collecting information are strictly interpreted, providing comprehensive protection to the individual.
The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) actively monitors data privacy issues and laws within its member countries. It has noted that “the collection, use and sharing of personal information to third parties without notice or consent of consumers” has become a significant concern. The UNCTAD Global Cyberlaw Tracker tracks data for 194 states on laws concerning e-transactions, cybercrime, and consumer protection.60 According to UNCTAD, as of February 2022, “137 out of 194 countries had put in place legislation to secure the protection of data and privacy.”61
Even though the Chinese constitution includes the right to privacy, the Chinese government has found many reasons to interpret the right narrowly. Article 40 of the constitution of the People’s Republic of China provides for both the freedom and privacy of communication.
“Freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People’s Republic of China are protected by law. No organization or individual may, on any ground, infringe upon citizens’ freedom and privacy of correspondence, except in cases where, to meet the needs of State security or of criminal investigation, public security or procuratorial organs are permitted to censor correspondence in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law.”62
However, in China, persons are subject to surveillance in almost all public places, and all cyber communications are monitored. China uses mass surveillance to “eradicate ideological viruses,” which they identify as the religious and cultural beliefs of certain ethnic groups. Thus, while the Chinese constitution contains a right to privacy, the government broadly interprets the exception for safety and security. In practice, the right to privacy in China is almost nonexistent.63
China: “The World’s Biggest Camera Surveillance Network”
China’s massive surveillance network uses facial recognition and can track any individual’s movements within China.
As the amount of information stored digitally increases, so do the threats of that material being stolen or used by businesses as marketing information without people’s consent. At the same time, governments increasingly seek to regulate access to information that they deem unacceptable or that may pose a threat to their residents’ safety. This is a developing area of tension between individual privacy and government protection or regulation of the community.
Freedom of Expression of Ideas
Another area of ongoing tension between individuals and the government is the freedom of expression of ideas. This freedom includes the right to free speech and the right to the free exercise of religion. Article 19 of the UDHR states, “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.”64 Article 18 provides that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”65
The UDHR is not itself legally binding, but the principles it sets out were implemented among UN member countries through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both of which were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966. Member countries agree to be monitored on their activities under the provisions of the covenants, which echo much of the language of the UDHR, although some provisions are new. Article 27 of the ICCPR, for example, states that members of “ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities . . . shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.”66 Together, the UDHR, the ICCPR, and the ICESCR make up what is known as the International Bill of Human Rights.67
However, freedom of expression and religion is not absolute. Even in countries with extensive speech protections, certain types of speech are never protected. These include libel, slander, obscenity, fighting words or threats, incitement to lawless conduct, breach of national security or classified information, disclosures that impact the right of privacy, and perjury. Some examples of these were discussed earlier in this chapter.
In liberal democracies, the state agrees to tolerate free expression of ideas, and restrictions on expression are minimal; however, many of these countries place restrictions on the expression of specific ideas that do not meet the limited exceptions to protected speech set forth above. This is referred to as the paradox of tolerance. People who hold intolerant ideas argue that the state and society only tolerate those ideas that align with their own viewpoint and that therefore, the government and society are not tolerant of personal ideas and do not respect that degree of personal liberty.
Civil Liberties and Social Responsibility
Many people who hear the term civil liberties think about limits on government interference in individuals’ lives, and they may see government acts that limit or direct their behavior as infringements of their liberties. In these instances, it is important to remember that people live in diverse communities made up of many individuals who may have different perspectives, traditions, beliefs, and needs. Each person’s actions have the potential to affect other individuals in the community and the community as a whole. As discussed in this chapter, members of a community have responsibilities to that community. Understanding the differences between groups within a society is often referred to as intercultural competence, and it is a key component of social responsibility.
Different countries adopt a variety of strategies to address the varying needs of different groups. Within the United States, the corporate world has recently taken up the banner of “social responsibility.” Whether looking at an issue from a corporate position, an advocacy position (such as from the perspective of an interest group), the position of an attorney representing someone whose rights have been violated, or the position of a concerned citizen, linking the ideas of civil liberties with the larger concept of social responsibility allows one to appreciate how the rights of individuals and the larger community are intertwined and how government actions often seek to balance the freedom of the individual with the needs and desires of the community.
For example, in Germany, it is illegal to support the Nazi Party or to deny the Holocaust.68 Section 130 of the German criminal code “bans incitement to hatred and insults that assault human dignity against people based on their racial, national, religious or ethnic background.” Violations of this code carry a five-year prison sentence. Germany has used section 14 of the law, which bans defiling the memory of the dead, to prosecute Holocaust deniers.69 The German Basic Law provides that “every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.”70 Thus, many argue that the restrictions on expressing particular viewpoints show limited tolerance of ideas in Germany, and a paradox of tolerance exists.71In the United States, hate speech laws encounter the same objection. However, in the United States, speech enjoys broad protections, and hate speech laws are limited to instances where speech involves violence, intimidation, and direct threats.72
Germany’s Online Hate Speech Laws: Protecting Free Speech While Fighting Online Hate?
Germany’s Network Enforcement Act allows people to report criminal hate speech online and requires platforms to take down the content or face stiff fines. The policy has raised questions about whether it inappropriately interferes with constitutional guarantees of a right to free speech.
While in Germany particular viewpoints on politics are regulated, in some other countries, all opposition to the government is suppressed. In Belarus, political opponents have been sentenced to prison for opposing the ruling government.73 Other countries are taking steps to open up the free exchange of ideas, even those ideas that challenge traditional religious and cultural norms. For example, at a recent international symposium on philosophy in Saudi Arabia, the speakers and audience openly discussed ideas that are usually restricted in the country.74
The paradox of tolerance is a frequent issue when it comes to religious expression. The expression of religious beliefs has received special consideration throughout history. Freedom of religion involves two interrelated issues: the free exercise of religion and the government establishment of religion. While it is impossible to separate the two completely, they can be distinguished for learning purposes.
The US Constitution contains two separate clauses about religion: one, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” known as the establishment clause; and two, that Congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”75 The complicated relationship between religion and the government in the United States is a subject worthy of study in itself; the following is an outline of some of the primary issues.
In Everson v. Board of Education, a landmark case with regard to the interpretation of the establishment clause, the US Supreme Court observed that in the United States, no government should aid or hinder any religion.76
In Everson, the court considered whether a city allowing all K–12 students to ride public transit buses for free was an unconstitutional establishment of religion because some of the students receiving free rides attended parochial schools operated by religious groups. It was argued that this amounted to an establishment of religion because, in addition to regular school classes, these students took classes in religion and were thus taught particular religious beliefs. According to this argument, the government assisted in the religious indoctrination by providing free transportation, thus putting a stamp of approval on the religious instruction. The court found that the bus rides did not violate the establishment clause because the law was neutral and beneficial for all K–12 students. If the law had only given free rides to parochial school students, it probably would have been found to violate the establishment clause, as the government would have been treating a religious institution differently and preferentially. Conversely, suppose that free rides had been denied to parochial school students and given only to students attending schools that did not teach religion. In that case, the action could be interpreted as a violation of the free exercise of religion and parental privacy in children’s education. It would violate free exercise because it would explicitly target and place restrictions on schools based on religion. This example illustrates the degree of complication in this area of the law. One must look at specific government action and ask whether it is neutral and general or explicitly benefits or intrudes on a religion.
Not all religious practices are acceptable, even in an individualist government. For example, in the United States, religious practices that are deemed abusive to children are prohibited.77 Those who hold views anathema to most of society, such as White supremacist churches, are allowed to operate as long as they keep the expression of their opinions nonviolent and within the church. An area of controversy arises when a person running a business refuses to comply with a customer request because it violates their personal religious views, thus putting into direct conflict the constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion and the constitutional requirement for equal treatment of all persons. The US Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits any business that is open to the public from engaging in discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or religion. When the Civil Rights Act went into effect, some for-profit businesses argued that it violated their personal and religious principles of White supremacy by prohibiting them from barring minorities from their business or refusing to hire employees based on their race. In the early years after the act was passed, courts across the United States upheld the act against the religious arguments for White supremacy. They found a more significant community good in supporting nondiscrimination than in this view of the free exercise of religion. Today, controversies continue, with some business owners complaining that serving LGBTQ+ customers violates their religious beliefs and that to require them to serve LGBTQ+ customers would violate their right to free exercise of religion. This controversy is ongoing in the United States and around the world.78
In western European countries, similar issues arise. All have constitutional provisions similar to the US Constitution’s religious clauses, but some have officially recognized state religions. Anglicanism, as represented by the Church of England, is the official religion of England. Up until the 20th century, people were persecuted for not adhering to the official doctrine; however, now individuals are free to practice any religion they want as long as it complies with England’s generally applicable neutral laws.79 Around the world, restrictions on religion have been increasing. These restrictions can take two forms: government preference for a particular religion and government restriction on religious practices. Many Islamic majority countries limit freedom of religion and require residents to adhere to an established religion. A Pew Research study noted:
“Government restrictions have risen in several different ways. Laws and policies restricting religious freedom (such as requiring that religious groups register in order to operate) and government favoritism of religious groups (through funding for religious education, property and clergy, for example) have consistently been the most prevalent types of restrictions globally and in each of the five regions tracked in the study: Americas, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Middle East-North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Both types of restrictions have been rising; the global average score in each of these categories increased more than 20% between 2007 and 2017.”80 (emphasis in original)
Iran's Dilemma: Should Women Wear a Hijab or Not?
Women in Iran who appear in public without wearing an Islamic hijab can be imprisoned or fined. In recent years, some Iranians have pushed back against this policy.
The growing tendency toward government restrictions on religion may be in opposing directions. For example, French law prohibits women from wearing certain items of clothing that express their religious beliefs, and the government disfavors religion.81 In contrast, in Qatar, Islam is the official state religion, and laws require women to wear religious dress in public. Additionally, Qatar has enacted laws that restrict non-Islamic faiths by limiting worship services and prohibiting the display of non-Islamic religious symbols.82 In China, specific religious groups have been subjected to severe restrictions, even internment in prison reeducation camps, as religious practices are considered detrimental to the country’s communist goals.83 Thus, in both impairing religion and fostering an established religion, some countries have opted to observe localized interpretations of civil liberties with regard to religion, rather than aligning with the norms described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Katika sehemu hii, utaweza kuelezea vipengele vya haki za faragha, kujitegemea, na uhuru wa kujieleza ambazo zinachukuliwa kuwa muhimu kulingana na kanuni za haki za binadamu. - Uchambuzi jinsi mifumo tofauti ya serikali duniani kote kutibu haki ya faragha, kujitegemea, na uhuru wa kujieleza. - Eleza hali ya kutoelewana ya uvumilivu. """Wakati katiba nyingi duniani kote zinahakikisha utaratibu sahihi, jinsi mahakama za juu za kila jimbo zinavyofafanua kiwango cha utaratibu sahihi hutofautiana sana kutoka jimbo moja hadi jingine."" - Katiba ya Marekani, kifungu cha 3 (a) na (b) ya Katiba ya Marekani, kifungu cha 4 (b) cha Katiba ya Marekani, kifungu cha 4 (c) cha Katiba ya Marekani." Mara nyingi mtu hufikiria uhuru kuwa uhuru kutoka kwa kifungo, lakini humaanisha mengi zaidi ya hayo. Kuwa na uhuru ni kuwa na uhuru wa kibinafsi, na kuwa na uhuru wa kibinafsi, mtu lazima awe na haki ya kufanya maamuzi ya kibinafsi. Kwa hiyo, sehemu ya msingi zaidi ya uhuru wa kiraia ni faragha, na katika katiba nyingi, uhuru ni pamoja na haki ya faragha. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika Kamusi ya Sheria ya Merriam-Webster, ""haki ya faragha ni haki ya mtu kuwa huru kutoka kwa uvamizi au utangazaji kuhusu mambo ya asili ya kibinafsi."" - Kamusi ya Merriam-Webster ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Merriam-Webster, ""haki ya faragha ni nafasi tofauti na maisha ya umma, kuruhusu uhuru wa kibinafsi wa mtu binafsi.""" Faragha ni uwezo wa kufikiri, kusema, na kutenda bila kufuatiliwa au kufuatiliwa na mtu mwingine au serikali. Je, unaruhusiwa kuamua ikiwa utapata watoto na ni wangapi? Utachagua kuolewa na nani? Maamuzi kuhusu nini kuvaa, nini kusoma katika shule, nini kazi ya kufuatilia, na nini imani ya kidini kuingiza katika watoto wa mtu ni masuala yote ya faragha. Hizi ni maamuzi ya kibinafsi au maamuzi ambayo kuna mjadala juu ya kama serikali zinaweza kuzuia au kudai tabia fulani. Katika makala yao yenye ushawishi "Haki ya faragha", mwanasheria Samuel Warren na hakimu wa Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani Louis Brandeis hufafanua faragha kama "haki ya mtu binafsi kuachwa peke yake."34 Haki ya faragha imetumiwa kudai kwamba uhuru upo katika aina mbalimbali za kesi za uhuru wa kiraia nchini Marekani. "Katika kesi ya Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Mahakama Kuu iligundua kwamba Marekebisho ya 14 yanazuia serikali kuingilia kati ya uchaguzi wa wazazi kuhusu elimu ya mtoto wao. ""Katika kesi ya Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, na Lawrence v. Texas, mahakama ilikataza sheria kadhaa zinazohukumu maamuzi ya ngono na uzazi kati ya watu wazima katika shughuli za kibinafsi, ikitaja haki ya faragha. """ Serikali haiwezi kudharau kuwepo kwao au kudhibiti hatima yao kwa kufanya mwenendo wao wa kibinafsi wa kingono kuwa uhalifu. "Hii ni kwa sababu sheria ya sheria ya Marekani ya haki ya kujitegemea inatoa haki kamili ya kufanya kazi bila kuingiliwa na serikali, na sheria ya sheria ya Marekani ya haki ya kujitegemea inatoa haki ya kujitegemea bila kuingiliwa na serikali. ""Griswold v Connecticut: The Most Important Supreme Court Case You've Never Heard Of"" - ""Griswold v Connecticut: The Most Important Supreme Court Case You've Never Heard Of.""" Nchi nyingi zinatambua wazi haki ya faragha. "Kwa mfano, Sheria ya Haki za Binadamu ya Uingereza ya 1998 inasema: ""Haki ya kuheshimiwa kwa maisha ya kibinafsi na ya familia: Kila mtu ana haki ya kuheshimiwa kwa maisha yake ya kibinafsi na ya familia, nyumba yake na barua yake.""" "Hakuna mamlaka ya umma ambayo inaweza kuingilia katika matumizi ya haki hii isipokuwa kama ilivyo kwa mujibu wa sheria na ni muhimu katika jamii ya kidemokrasia kwa maslahi ya usalama wa kitaifa, usalama wa umma au ustawi wa kiuchumi wa nchi, kwa kuzuia machafuko au uhalifu, kwa ulinzi wa afya au maadili, au kwa ulinzi wa haki na uhuru wa wengine. "" - Asma Al-Sisi, Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani, 14th, 14th, 14th, 14th, na 14th Amendment, ""Hakuna sheria inayotangaza haki ya uhuru wa kujieleza.""" Kama ilivyo na katiba nyingi za kitaifa, Azimio la Ulimwenguni Pote la Haki za Binadamu linatia ndani haki ya wazi ya faragha. "Kifungu cha 12 cha Katiba ya Umoja wa Mataifa kinasema: ""Hakuna mtu anayepaswa kuingiliwa kwa hiari katika maisha yake ya kibinafsi, familia, nyumba au mawasiliano, wala kushambuliwa kwa heshima na sifa yake.""" Kila mtu ana haki ya ulinzi wa sheria dhidi ya uingiliaji au mashambulizi kama hayo.44 Ingawa nchi wanachama zimeidhinisha Mkataba wa Universal Declaration of Human Rights, jinsi kila serikali inavyotekeleza haki ya faragha inayomo, inatofautiana sana. "Mwanamke huyo ameweka ""mjumbe maalum"" (mtu aliyechaguliwa na shirika kutoa ripoti juu ya mikutano yake) kufuatilia na kutoa ripoti kila mwaka juu ya jinsi nchi zinavyolingana na tamko la Umoja wa Mataifa la haki ya faragha iliyoelezwa katika UDHR, haswa linapohusiana na ufuatiliaji wa dijiti. ""Kama inavyoonekana kama uhuru wa kiraia, haki ya faragha inaweka kizuizi kati ya watu binafsi na serikali ya kuingilia." Lakini ni wakati gani serikali inaruhusiwa kuingilia mambo? Ni Wakati Gani Serikali Huzidisha Haki za Kibinafsi za Mtu? Vizuizi juu ya haki ya faragha au uhuru wa kibinafsi hutofautiana sana kutoka nchi moja hadi nyingine. Katika nchi za Marekani, mahusiano ya jinsia moja yanajulikana kama mahusiano ya kibinafsi na yanalindwa na katiba ya Marekani. Katika sehemu kubwa ya Afrika, mahusiano ya LGBTQ+ au mwelekeo ni haramu na huonwa kuwa ni uharibifu kwa ustawi wa jamii.46 Mipaka ya faragha ya kibinafsi mara nyingi hubadilika kama maoni ya jamii ya uhuru wa kibinafsi hubadilika. Chini ya serikali ya kidemokrasia, ni jamii ambayo hufafanua kile kinachokubalika na ikiwa kuna sababu ya kulazimisha kwa vikwazo vya serikali juu ya maamuzi ya kibinafsi. Kwa mfano, hadi mwaka wa 1967, majimbo mengi yalikuwa na sheria zilizotangaza ndoa kati ya watu wa jamii tofauti kuwa uhalifu. Katika kesi ya Loving v. Virginia, Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani ilifasiri kwamba utaratibu sahihi na haki ya faragha inahitaji kwamba uchaguzi wa nani kupenda na kuolewa kuwa binafsi, faragha moja.Hata 2015 haki hiyo hiyo ilifasiriwa kujumuisha ndoa ya jinsia moja. Serikali zenye mamlaka huwafanya watu wakubaliane na ufafanuzi wa serikali wa mwenendo wa kibinafsi. Uhuru wa kiraia duniani kote Unaweza kutumia moja ya rasilimali zifuatazo mtandaoni kulinganisha ambayo uhuru nchi tofauti kutambua. Je, unaweza kuona mwelekeo wowote? Nchi tofauti-tofauti hufafanuaje aina zinazofanana za uhuru kwa njia tofauti? Chunguza uhuru wa kiraia ulimwenguni pote katika Kituo cha Taifa cha Katiba. Linganisha takwimu za takwimu kuhusu haki za binadamu kwenye Our World in Data. Soma ripoti za hivi karibuni juu ya hali ya haki za binadamu katika Human Rights Watch. Fuatilia mwenendo wa uhuru kwa kutumia Kiashiria cha Kila Mwaka cha Uhuru wa Binadamu cha Taasisi ya Cato. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika ripoti ya ""Human Rights and Rule of Law Index"" iliyochapishwa na The Global Economy." Kiasi ambacho serikali zinatambua haki ya kufanya maamuzi ya kibinafsi, ya kibinafsi hutofautiana sana ulimwenguni pote. "Hata hivyo, katika nchi nyingine, wanawake wanakatazwa kwenda shule au hata wanateswa kwa sababu ya kwenda shule, na serikali hailindi haki yao ya kupata elimu, hata kama wazazi wao wanataka waende shule. "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" Namna gani kuhusu faragha katika maeneo ambako matatizo ya usalama hutokea? Kuongezeka kwa kuenea na utaalam wa teknolojia za mtandao huweka shinikizo kubwa juu ya haki ya faragha katika muktadha wa uhuru kutoka kwa ufuatiliaji. Sheria za serikali na serikali za shirikisho nchini Marekani zinalinda data za kibinafsi za mtandao, yaani, data zilizohifadhiwa kwa njia ya elektroniki.53 Watumiaji wa mtandaoni mara nyingi hutumia vivinjari vya kibinafsi na majukwaa ya media ya kijamii, kama vile Facebook na Twitter. Biashara hizi za kibinafsi huruhusu watumiaji kuchagua kiwango cha mipangilio yao ya faragha. Hata hivyo, kwa kukabiliana na kuongezeka kwa masuala ya kiasi cha uchunguzi kwamba biashara binafsi kutoa, serikali ya shirikisho imetekeleza sheria kadhaa kudhibiti makampuni binafsi kuhifadhi data ya kibinafsi. Sheria ya Ulinzi wa Faragha ya Mtandao ya Watoto (COPPA) ya 1998 inaruhusu wazazi kudhibiti ni habari gani tovuti zinakusanya kuhusu watoto wao, na nchi za Ulaya zina sheria kali zaidi za faragha ya data kuhusu habari kuhusu watoto. Suala jingine la faragha ni uwezo wa serikali kupata habari za kibiashara za mtu binafsi. """Hatua za serikali za Marekani za kutaka kupata habari hizo kwa ajili ya usalama wa taifa zimepingana na sheria za Marekani zinazohakikisha haki ya faragha." Serikali inadai kwamba, kwa manufaa ya jamii, inahitaji upatikanaji wa habari fulani.Watu binafsi wanasema kwamba haki yao ya faragha ya data ya kibinafsi ya dijiti ni sawa na haki yao ya faragha katika fomu ya nyumba, karatasi, na athari zilizohifadhiwa wazi chini ya Marekebisho ya Nne; kwa hivyo, serikali lazima ionyeshe sababu ya uwezekano na kupata kibali kutoka kwa hakimu kuangalia habari hiyo ya dijiti. "Watu binafsi wanadai kuwa wana haki ya kukabiliana na serikali na kujadili suala hilo katika mahakama ya wazi. ""Mashirika ya ujasusi ya serikali ya Marekani wanasema kwamba kulinda faragha ya habari hii ya kibinafsi inahatarisha usalama na usalama wa kitaifa na kwamba uchunguzi wowote wa ujasusi wa data ya digital ya mtu lazima uwe siri ili kuepuka kuondoa mtu binafsi chini ya uchunguzi." Mazungumzo haya yanaendelea nchini Marekani na ulimwenguni pote. Nchi ambazo katiba zao zinajumuisha haki ya faragha hutofautiana katika jinsi wanavyofafanua haki hiyo kwa ujumla linapokuja suala la faragha ya data. Umoja wa Ulaya umepitisha sheria za ulinzi wa data zinazotumika kwa nchi zote wanachama. (EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) inatoa kwamba data kuhusu raia inaweza kukusanywa au kusindika tu katika kesi maalum. Kanuni hizi zinatumika kwa biashara binafsi na mashirika ya serikali. Vizuizi juu ya kukusanya habari hufafanuliwa kwa ukali, kutoa ulinzi wa kina kwa mtu binafsi. Mkutano wa Umoja wa Mataifa wa Biashara na Maendeleo (UNCTAD) unafuatilia kwa bidii masuala ya faragha ya data na sheria ndani ya nchi wanachama wake. Imeona kwamba "kukusanya, kutumia na kushiriki habari za kibinafsi kwa watu wa tatu bila taarifa au idhini ya watumiaji" imekuwa wasiwasi mkubwa. UNCTAD Global Cyberlaw Tracker inafuatilia data kwa nchi 194 juu ya sheria zinazohusu shughuli za elektroniki, uhalifu wa mtandao, na ulinzi wa watumiaji.Kulingana na UNCTAD, kufikia Februari 2021, nchi 137 kati ya 194 zilikuwa zimeweka sheria ili kuhakikisha ulinzi wa data na faragha. Kifungu cha 40 cha katiba ya Jamhuri ya Watu wa China kinatoa uhuru na faragha ya mawasiliano. "Uhuru na faragha ya mawasiliano ya raia wa Jamhuri ya Watu wa China zinalindwa na sheria". """Hakuna shirika au mtu binafsi anaweza, kwa sababu yoyote, kuvunja uhuru wa raia na faragha ya mawasiliano, isipokuwa katika kesi ambapo, ili kukidhi mahitaji ya usalama wa serikali au uchunguzi wa jinai, usalama wa umma au vyombo vya mashtaka vinaruhusiwa kukagua mawasiliano kulingana na taratibu zilizopangwa na sheria." China hutumia ufuatiliaji wa wingi "kuondoa virusi vya itikadi", ambavyo wanaitambulisha kama imani za kidini na kitamaduni za vikundi fulani vya kikabila. "Kwa hivyo, wakati katiba ya China ina haki ya faragha, serikali inafafanua kwa upana ""kutofautiana kwa usalama na usalama.""" "Kwa mfano, China ina mtandao mkubwa wa uchunguzi wa kamera, ""The World's Largest Camera Surveillance Network"" ambao hutumia utambuzi wa uso na unaweza kufuatilia harakati za mtu yeyote ndani ya China." Kama kiasi cha habari kuhifadhiwa digital huongezeka, hivyo kufanya vitisho ya kwamba nyenzo kuwa kuibiwa au kutumika na biashara kama habari ya masoko bila idhini ya watu. Wakati huo huo, serikali zinazidi kutafuta kudhibiti upatikanaji wa habari ambazo zinaona zisizokubalika au ambazo zinaweza kutishia usalama wa wakazi wao. Hii ni eneo linaloendelea la mvutano kati ya faragha ya mtu binafsi na ulinzi wa serikali au udhibiti wa jamii. Uhuru wa Mawazo: Kuna mkazo mkubwa kati ya serikali na watu binafsi kuhusu uhuru wa kujieleza. Uhuru huo unatia ndani haki ya uhuru wa kusema na haki ya kujiamini. "Kifungu cha 19 cha UNCRPD kinasema: ""Kila mtu ana haki ya uhuru wa maoni na kujieleza, haki hii inajumuisha uhuru wa kuwa na maoni bila kuingiliwa na kutafuta, kupokea na kueneza habari na mawazo kupitia vyombo vyovyote vya habari na bila kujali mipaka."" (Kifungu cha 18) ""Kila mtu ana haki ya uhuru wa mawazo, dhamiri na dini, haki hii inajumuisha uhuru wa kubadilisha dini au imani yake, na uhuru, ama peke yake au kwa jamii na wengine, na kwa umma au binafsi, kuonyesha dini au imani yake katika mafundisho, mazoezi, ibada na utunzaji.""" Nchi wanachama zinakubali kufuatiliwa juu ya shughuli zao chini ya masharti ya mikataba, ambayo yanafanana na lugha ya UDHR, ingawa baadhi ya masharti ni mapya. "Katika kifungu cha 27 cha Mkataba wa Kimataifa wa Haki za Binadamu na Siasa za Kimataifa, nchi wanachama wa ""minorities za kikabila, kidini au lugha"" ni ""wenye haki ya kujihusisha na utamaduni wa nchi.""" . . "Hakuna mtu yeyote anayekataa haki ya kufurahia utamaduni wake mwenyewe, kuabudu dini yake mwenyewe, au kutumia lugha yake mwenyewe, pamoja na Mkataba wa Kimataifa wa Haki za Binadamu, Mkataba wa Kimataifa wa Haki za Binadamu na Mkataba wa Kimataifa wa Haki za Kiuchumi na Kiuchumi. "" - ICESCR, 2016." Hata katika nchi zilizo na ulinzi mkubwa wa usemi, aina fulani za usemi hazilindwi kamwe. Hizi ni pamoja na uchongezi, uchongezi, maneno ya aibu, maneno ya kupigana au vitisho, kuchochea mwenendo usio halali, ukiukaji wa usalama wa kitaifa au habari za siri, ufunuo ambao unaathiri haki ya faragha, na ushahidi wa uwongo. Mifano fulani ya hizo ilizungumziwa mapema katika sura hii. Katika demokrasia huria, serikali inakubali kuvumilia uhuru wa kujieleza, na vizuizi juu ya kujieleza ni kidogo; hata hivyo, nchi nyingi za nchi hizo huweka vizuizi juu ya kujieleza kwa mawazo maalum ambayo hayapatani na ubaguzi mdogo wa hotuba iliyohifadhiwa iliyoelezwa hapo juu. Jambo hilo huitwa paradoksi ya uvumilivu. Watu wanaoshikilia mawazo ya kutovumilia wanasema kwamba serikali na jamii hupendelea tu mawazo ambayo yanalingana na maoni yao wenyewe na kwamba kwa hivyo, serikali na jamii hazivumilii mawazo ya kibinafsi na haziheshimu kiwango hicho cha uhuru wa kibinafsi. "Watu wengi ambao wanasikia neno ""uhuru wa kiraia"" wanafikiria juu ya mipaka ya uingiliaji wa serikali katika maisha ya watu, na wanaweza kuona vitendo vya serikali vinavyozuia au kuelekeza tabia zao kama ukiukaji wa uhuru wao." Katika hali kama hizo, ni muhimu kukumbuka kwamba watu huishi katika jumuiya mbalimbali zilizofanyizwa na watu wengi ambao huenda wakawa na maoni, desturi, itikadi, na mahitaji tofauti. Matendo ya kila mtu yana uwezo wa kuathiri watu wengine katika jamii na jamii kwa ujumla. Kama ilivyozungumziwa katika sura hii, washiriki wa jumuiya wana majukumu kwa jumuiya hiyo. Kuelewa tofauti kati ya makundi ndani ya jamii mara nyingi huitwa uwezo wa kati ya tamaduni, na ni sehemu muhimu ya wajibu wa kijamii. Nchi tofauti-tofauti huchukua mikakati mbalimbali ili kukabiliana na mahitaji tofauti-tofauti ya vikundi tofauti-tofauti. "Wakati mwingine, ""jamii ya kijamii"" inahusika na masuala ya kijamii, kama vile haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu, haki za binadamu." "Kwa mfano, nchini Ujerumani, ni kinyume cha sheria kuunga mkono chama cha Nazi au kukataa Holocaust.Sehemu ya 130 ya sheria ya jinai ya Ujerumani ""inakataza kuchochea chuki na matusi ambayo yanashambulia heshima ya kibinadamu dhidi ya watu kulingana na rangi yao, taifa, dini au asili ya kikabila.""" "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika kifungu cha 14 cha Sheria ya Ujerumani, ambayo inakataza ""kuchafua kumbukumbu ya wafu,"" sheria hiyo inatoa haki ya kila mtu kuelezea na kueneza maoni yake kwa uhuru kwa maneno, maandishi na picha, na kujieleza bila vizuizi kutoka kwa vyanzo vinavyopatikana kwa ujumla." Uhuru wa vyombo vya habari na uhuru wa kuripoti kwa njia ya matangazo na filamu zinahakikishwa. "Hakuna censorship. ""Kwa hivyo, wengi wanasema kwamba vikwazo juu ya kuelezea maoni maalum huonyesha uvumilivu mdogo wa mawazo nchini Ujerumani, na paradoksi ya uvumilivu ipo. ""Katika Marekani, sheria za hotuba ya chuki hukutana na pingamizi sawa." Hata hivyo, katika Marekani, hotuba ina ulinzi mkubwa, na sheria za hotuba ya chuki ni mdogo kwa matukio ambapo hotuba inahusisha vurugu, vitisho, na vitisho vya moja kwa moja. Sheria ya Utekelezaji wa Mtandao ya Ujerumani inaruhusu watu kuripoti hotuba ya chuki ya uhalifu mtandaoni na inahitaji majukwaa kuondoa yaliyomo au kukabiliwa na faini nzito. Sera hiyo imezua maswali kuhusu ikiwa inahusika vibaya na dhamana za kikatiba za haki ya uhuru wa kujieleza. Ingawa katika Ujerumani maoni fulani kuhusu siasa yanadhibitiwa, katika nchi nyingine, upinzani wote kwa serikali unakandamizwa. Katika nchi ya Belarus, wapinzani wa kisiasa wamehukumiwa kifungo cha jela kwa kupinga serikali inayotawala.Nchi nyingine zinachukua hatua za kufungua kubadilishana kwa mawazo, hata yale ambayo yanapinga kanuni za kidini na kitamaduni za jadi. Kwa mfano, katika mkutano wa kimataifa wa hivi karibuni wa falsafa nchini Saudi Arabia, wasemaji na wasikilizaji walijadili waziwazi mawazo ambayo kwa kawaida ni kizuizi nchini. Maonyesho ya itikadi za kidini yamepokea uangalifu wa pekee katika historia yote. Uhuru wa dini unahusisha masuala mawili yanayohusiana: uhuru wa kufanya dini na kuanzishwa kwa dini na serikali. Ingawa haiwezekani kutenganisha hizo mbili kabisa, zinaweza kutofautishwa kwa madhumuni ya kujifunza. "Katika katiba ya Marekani kuna kanuni mbili za msingi kuhusu dini: ""Congress shall make no law respecting a establishment of religion"" (Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion) na ""The complicated relationship between religion and government in the United States is a subject worthy of study in itself"" (Uhusiano mgumu kati ya dini na serikali nchini Marekani ni somo linalofaa kufundishwa." Katika kesi ya Inverson v. Bodi ya Elimu, Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani iliona kwamba hakuna serikali inayopaswa kusaidia au kuzuia dini yoyote, na katika kesi ya Inverson, mahakama ilichunguza ikiwa mji ulioruhusu wanafunzi wote wa K-12 kuendesha mabasi ya usafiri wa umma bila malipo ilikuwa ni utamaduni wa dini usio na katiba kwa sababu baadhi ya wanafunzi waliopokea safari za bure walihudhuria shule za parokia. Walidai kwamba hilo lilimaanisha kuanzishwa kwa dini kwa sababu, pamoja na madarasa ya kawaida ya shule, wanafunzi hao walichukua madarasa ya dini na hivyo wakafundishwa itikadi fulani za kidini. Kulingana na hoja hii, serikali ilisaidia katika uingizaji wa kidini kwa kutoa usafiri wa bure, hivyo kuweka muhuri wa idhini kwenye mafundisho ya kidini. Mahakama hiyo ilisema kuwa safari za basi hazikukosa kifungu cha kuanzisha kwa sababu sheria ilikuwa ya upande wowote na yenye manufaa kwa wanafunzi wote wa K-12. Kama sheria hiyo ingekuwa imetoa tu safari za bure kwa wanafunzi wa shule za parokia, labda ingekuwa imepatikana kuvunja kifungu cha kuanzisha, kwani serikali ingekuwa ikitendea taasisi ya kidini tofauti na kwa upendeleo. Kwa upande mwingine, tuseme kwamba wanafunzi wa shule za parokia walikataliwa kusafiri bila malipo na walipewa tu wanafunzi waliohudhuria shule ambazo hazikufundisha dini. Katika kesi hiyo, hatua hiyo inaweza kutafsiriwa kama ukiukaji wa mazoezi huru ya dini na faragha ya wazazi katika elimu ya watoto. "Hii ingeingilia uhuru wa mazoezi kwa sababu ingekuwa wazi lengo na kuweka vikwazo juu ya shule kulingana na dini. """ Mfano huu unaonyesha kiwango cha utata katika eneo hili la sheria. Ni lazima mtu achunguze hatua maalum za serikali na kuuliza kama ni ya upande wowote na ya jumla au inasaidia waziwazi au huingilia dini. Si mazoea yote ya kidini yanayokubalika, hata katika serikali ya mtu mmoja-mmoja. Kwa mfano, nchini Marekani, mazoea ya kidini yanayoonwa kuwa ya unyanyasaji kwa watoto yanakatazwa.77 Wale wanaoshikilia maoni yanayopinga jamii, kama vile makanisa ya upendeleo wa wazungu, wanaruhusiwa kufanya kazi kwa muda mrefu kama wanaendelea kueleza maoni yao bila vurugu na ndani ya kanisa. "Ushindani hutokea wakati mtu anayeendesha biashara anakataa kufuata ombi la mteja kwa sababu linakiuka maoni yao ya kidini, na hivyo kuweka katika mgogoro wa moja kwa moja ulinzi wa kikatiba wa mazoezi huru ya dini na mahitaji ya kikatiba ya matibabu sawa ya watu wote. """ Sheria ya Haki za Kiraia ya Marekani ya 1964 inakataza biashara yoyote ambayo ni wazi kwa umma kutoka kushiriki katika ubaguzi kwa msingi wa jamii, jinsia, au dini. Sheria ya Haki za Kiraia ilianza kutumika, baadhi ya biashara za faida zilidai kwamba ilivunja kanuni zao za kibinafsi na za kidini za utawala wa wazungu kwa kuwazuia kuzuia wachache kutoka kwa biashara yao au kukataa kuajiri wafanyikazi kulingana na jamii yao. Katika miaka ya kwanza baada ya sheria hiyo kupitishwa, mahakama kote Marekani ziliunga mkono sheria hiyo dhidi ya hoja za kidini za utawala wa wazungu. Waligundua jamii kubwa zaidi nzuri katika kuunga mkono kutokuwa na ubaguzi kuliko katika mtazamo huu wa mazoezi huru ya dini. "Wenye biashara kadhaa wanalalamika kwamba kuwahudumia wateja wa LGBTQ+ ni ukiukaji wa imani zao za kidini na kwamba kuwaomba kuwahudumia wateja wa LGBTQ+ ni ukiukaji wa haki yao ya uhuru wa dini.""" Mjadala huu unaendelea nchini Marekani na duniani kote.78 Katika nchi za Ulaya Magharibi, masuala kama hayo yanatokea. Zote zina masharti ya kikatiba yanayofanana na vifungu vya kidini vya Katiba ya Marekani, lakini baadhi ya dini zimetambuliwa rasmi na serikali. Dini ya Anglikana, inayowakilishwa na Kanisa la Uingereza, ndiyo dini rasmi ya Uingereza. Hata hivyo, watu sasa wana uhuru wa kufanya dini yoyote wanayotaka, maadamu inapatana na sheria za Uingereza zinazotumika kwa ujumla. Vizuizi hivyo vinaweza kuwa na namna mbili: serikali inapendelea dini fulani na serikali inapunguza mazoea ya kidini. Nchi nyingi zenye Waislamu wengi hupunguza uhuru wa dini na kuhitaji wakazi kushikamana na dini iliyowekwa. Utafiti wa Pew Research ulibainisha hivi: <unk>Vizuizi vya serikali vimeongezeka kwa njia kadhaa tofauti. Sheria na sera zinazopunguza uhuru wa kidini (kama vile kudai kwamba makundi ya kidini yajiandikishe ili kufanya kazi) na upendeleo wa serikali kwa makundi ya kidini (kwa mfano, kupitia ufadhili wa elimu ya kidini, mali na makasisi) daima zimekuwa aina za vikwazo vya kawaida ulimwenguni na katika kila moja ya mikoa mitano iliyofuatwa katika utafiti: Amerika, Asia-Pacific, Ulaya, Mashariki ya Kati, Afrika Kaskazini na Afrika Kusini mwa Sahara. "Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, idadi ya wanawake wanaovaa hijab imepanda kwa asilimia 20 katika kipindi cha miaka ya 2007 hadi 2017 na asilimia 20 katika kipindi cha miaka ya 2017 hadi 2017 na asilimia 20 katika kipindi cha miaka ya 2017 hadi 2017. "" "" Iran's Dilemma: Should Women Wear a Hijab or Not?" Wanawake nchini Iran wanaotokea hadharani bila kuvaa hijab ya Kiislamu wanaweza kufungwa gerezani au kulipwa faini. Katika miaka ya hivi karibuni, baadhi ya Wairani wamepinga sera hii. Mwelekeo unaoongezeka kuelekea vizuizi vya serikali juu ya dini huenda ukawa katika mwelekeo kinyume. Sheria ya Ufaransa inakataza wanawake kuvaa mavazi ya kidini, lakini Qatar inakataza wanawake kuvaa mavazi ya kidini. "Katika nchi za Magharibi, China na Qatar, sheria za kuzuilia dini zisizo za Kiislamu zimepitishwa na vikosi vya kidini, na hata vikosi vya kidini vimefungwa katika kambi za magereza, kwa kuwa mazoea ya kidini yanachukuliwa kuwa yanaathiri malengo ya kikomunisti ya nchi hiyo. """""Kwa hivyo, katika kuharibu dini na kukuza dini iliyowekwa, nchi zingine zimechagua kufuata tafsiri za ndani za uhuru wa kiraia kuhusiana na dini."