Title: Free Speech Should Have Limitations Article - The College Study
Headings: Free Speech Should Have Limitations Article
Free Speech Should Have Limitations Article
Outlines
Introduction
What is the Logical Basis for Reasonable Limitations on Free Speech?
One man’s freedom ends where another’s begins
Free speech may be conflicting with the interests of the state
Free speech may affect national security
The undeniable importance of protection of the spirit of tolerance and coexistence among different communities and ethnicities
Free speech may cause erosion of religious harmony on massive scale
Unbridled free speech may give rise to rebellion or civil disobedience
Defamatory statements
Infringement of right of privacy
Contempt of court
Threat to objectivity in courts’ proceedings
Infringement of copyrights
A threat to moral values
Right of Free Speech in International Law
Article 19 of UNDHR
Article 19 of ICCPR
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion
Conclusion
Subscribe to Blog via Email
[ PDF Download]

Content: This is why free speech making fun of religion, and religious belief is outlawed in many countries. The Muslim countries enforce this restriction strictly. Although the importance of placing limitations on hate speeches aiming at defaming the religion is enormous, yet many countries especially the European ones are averse to the idea of placing any limitation on the subject. The recent tirade of many newspapers across the Europe against Islam and its Prophet (PBUH) as well as attack on the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo is a testimony to the fact that placing reasonable restrictions on free speech is exceedingly necessary to maintain peace in the social fabric. In the same way, unbridled free speech has big chance to stir rebellion or civil disobedience in a country. This logically explains the fact why the speech aimed at the stirring rebellion or civil disobedience is prohibited, in fact, a punishable offence ir many jurisdictions. In any democratic country, the right to criticize government for its flawed policies is considered as a basic political right. However, there is a difference between chastising a government and making seditious remarks against the state. The former is perfectly legal and, in fact, is encouraged in successful democracies to keep the government on track through public accountability. However, calling the state as oppressive and unjust and inciting people, to overthrow the government cannot be justified or allowed.