More handpicked essays just for you.
Limitation on freedom of speech
Limitation on freedom of speech
Freedom of speech and why it should be limited
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
During the history defamation has developed in two ways; slander and libel. The law leading slander focused on oral statements and libel on written ones. By the 1500 English printers had to be licensed and had to be linked to the government as by that time it was believed that written word had possibility to give a risk to political strength. However when the times passed the law progressed and these days freedom of expression is a foundation of democratic rights and freedoms therefore freedom of speech is necessary in making possible democracy to work and community involvement in decision-making.
When defamation comes to practice and people feels threatened with a defamation suit, the biggest focus is on whether or not there is something offensive. Although this is important there is an additional, more practical way to look at it. The important question is whether you have a right to say it. And if the right was present there are few possible defences. Firstly what was said is true, secondly there was a duty to provide information, and lastly it was an expression of an opinion.
The law of defamation theoretically should defend a good name of the people from unfair attack but practically that means that it has to hold back the freedom of speech to protect famous and powerful people from scrutiny. Here is another example where the inference between two essential rights: freedom of expression and protection of reputation. In Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd Lord Nicholls said:
“...a libellous statement of fact made in the course of political discussion is free from liability if published in good faith. Liability arises only if the writer knew the statement was not true or if he made the statement recklessly, not caring wheth...
... middle of paper ...
...ne-hacking-kelly-hoppen [accessed 18/01/12]
Ferdinand v MGN Ltd [2011] EWHC 2454 (QB)
Campbell v. MGN Limited [2004] UKHL 22
Hrea.org, Human Rights Education Associates, Freedom of Expression, http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=408 [accessed on 16/01/12]
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127, 203-204
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127, 203-204
Campbell v. MGN Limited [2004] UKHL 22
Data Protection Act 1998, Legislation.gov.uk, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents [accessed on 17/01/12]
Thomson Reuters, Defamation, Libel, and Slander: Background, Find Law, http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel-slander/defamation-libel-slander-background.html [accessed on 16/01/12]
Hrea.org, Human Rights Education Associates, Freedom of Expression, http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=408 [accessed on 16/01/12]
Defamation is a tort action that has been widely recognized, nonetheless, it has only been within recent years, that the concept has been increasingly utilized in the employment context (Mcconnell, 2000, p. 78) . However, it is useful to first lay out the elements of the defamation tort as they occur in the employment setting. First, there must be a false, and defamatory statement. A statement is defamatory if it harms the employee's reputation or discourages others; such as potential employers, from wanting to have any contact with the employee. Second, the statement, be it written or oral, must be "published," that is, transmitted to a third party. Next, the defendant/employer must be responsible for the publication of the false and defamatory statement. Last, defamation damage to the plaintiff must occur; caused either by the statement itself, or by its actionable
In contrast, some people say they that freedom of expression should not exist or be better controlled. Like everything else, freedom of expression often gets abused or taken advantage of. Some individuals do not know how to control what comes out of their mouths, so they will be ignorant or “jackasses, just because they can. By these people being ignorant, or “jackasses” if you will, it gives freedom of speech a bad reputation. Freedom of expression can
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
After the Revolutionary War in America, many states recommend that free speech be put in the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, freedom of speech was written into the Bill of Rights and was ratified in 1791. A few years after the First Amendment was ratified, the government passed the Sedition Act of 1798. This was to help prevent resistance or rebellion against the government. It also made it illegal to print, write or say “any false, scandalous and malicious” things against the government.
Due to a growing amount of media platforms that allows the public to exercise free speech, defamation about a public-figures and or corporate reputation can suffer damages. In the case Krinsky v. Doe, former president, chief operating officer and chairman of a Florida-based drug service company, Lisa Krinsky sues for defamation against ten anonymous individuals for posting “scathing verbal attacks” on a Yahoo’s message board. The dispute arose in 2005 when ten anonymous individuals posted the following comments on an internet blog: "a management consisting of boobs, loser(s) and crook(s)," "I will reciprocate felatoin [sic] with Lisa even though she has fat thighs, a fake medical degree, 'queefs' and has poor feminine hygiene." The comments
Stanley Fish states in his essay “The Free-Speech Follies”, “The modern American version of crying wolf is crying First Amendment” (496). The First Amendment is made up of five basic freedoms given to the United States citizens that consist of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to hold a peaceful protest, freedom of press, and the right to protest. Within the Constitution there are no words that state the rights include for society to speak rudely to, or about, others. The article “Freedom of Speech” explains, “Slander consists of orally making and libel consists of publishing false statements that are damaging to the reputation of another” (1). People are allowed to have their own beliefs and opinions; however, they should not
...of nations, countries, cities, towns, and individuals can be severely harmed and damaged if there is no control on the information being disbursed through the vast communication devices available. While everyone cites the right to freedom of speech, it is sometimes forgotten about the part that states as long as it doesn’t harm another person is often overlooked.
The certain freedom of speech incident must be examined to determine if it is deemed protected speech. If so, the speech and the individual is protected by the First Amendment. A few examples of protected speech are political, religious, and current topics in the world. Fighting words, true threats, obscenity, and defamation are not protected by the First Amendment (Fossey & Eckers,
Freedom of speech is archetypally recognised as a basic human right in free and democratic societies. When contending whether speech that may be deemed offensive should be safeguarded one may refer to the judgement of Redmond-Bate v. DPP:
Freedom of speech is the right of civilians to openly express their opinions without constant interference by the government. For the last few years, the limitations and regulations on freedom of speech have constantly increased. This right is limited by use of expression to provoke violence or illegal activities, libel and slander, obscene material, and proper setting. These limitations may appear to be justified, however who decides what is obscene and inappropriate or when it is the wrong time or place? To have so many limits and regulations on freedom of speech is somewhat unnecessary. It is understood that some things are not meant to be said in public due to terrorist attacks and other violent acts against our government, but everything should not be seen as a threat. Some people prefer to express themselves angrily or profanely, and as long as it causes no har...
The Defamation Act 2013 was passed to help regulation on defamation to deliver more effective protection for freedom of speech, while at the same time ensuring that people who have been defamed are able to protect their reputation. It is often difficult to know which personal remarks are proper and which run afoul of defamation law. Defamation is a broad word that covers every publication that damages someone's character. The basic essentials of a cause of act for defamation are: A untruthful and offensive statement regarding another; The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; If the offensive situation is of public concern, fault amounting at least to carelessness on the share of the publisher; and Injury to the plaintiff. Slander and libel are both kinds of defamation, which refers to statements that hurt another person's name. While there are connections, each concentrate on different forms of defamation approaches. Normally, this will include not only the use of certain words to harm a reputation, but also activities such as finger signals or facial expressions in order to emphasize the fabrication that is being dispersed. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel." Libel deals with printed matter, TV and radio broadcasts, movies and videotapes, social media sites, even blogs, emails, even drawings on a wall. An unpleasant statement is verbal; the statement is "slander." Slander explains defamation that you can overhear, not see. It is commonly spoken statements that distort someone's reputation. The government can't jail someone for making a defamatory statement since it does not break the law. Instead, defamation is considered to be an infringement of a person's ...
The Freedom of the Press, as granted by the First Amendment, allows the Press great privileges, only a few of which have been discussed in this paper. Regardless of the open scope of the topic, it is irrefutable that the Press enjoys a vast amount of power and freedom in what it can and cannot do, and what it does or doesn’t have a right to. The mere fact that the cases discussed above are 5 in favor of the press and 3 not in favor, whereas 3 of the 5 cases are defamation cases, reflects on the actual state of how free the press really is in the American society, and how important the First Amendment and its purpose is to the American way of life.
The First Amendment is known as the most protected civil liberty that protects our right to freedom of speech. There has been much controversy regarding hate speech and laws that prohibit it. These problems have risen from generation to generation and have been protested whether freedom of speech is guaranteed. According to our text book, By the People, hate speech is defined as “hostile statements based on someone’s personal characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.” Hate speech is a topic of issue for many people and their right’s, so the question is often proposed whether hate speech should be banned by government.
Laws against saying certain things don’t protect anyone, all they do is hide the true nature of people, until it is too late to do anything.
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...