FREE EXPRESSION OR EQUAL SPEECH?

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-169
Author(s):  
Teresa M. Bejan

AbstractThe classical liberal doctrine of free expression asserts the priority of speech as an extension of the freedom of thought. Yet its critics argue that freedom of expression, itself, demands the suppression of the so-called “silencing speech” of racists, sexists, and so on, as a threat to the equal expressive rights of others. This essay argues that the claim to free expression must be distinguished from claims to equal speech. The former asserts an equal right to express one’s thoughts without interference; the latter the right to address others, and to receive a hearing and consideration from them, in turn. I explore the theory of equal speech in light of the ancient Athenian practice of isegoria and argue that the equality demanded is not distributive but relational: an equal speaker’s voice should be counted as “on a par” with others. This ideal better captures critics’ concerns about silencing speech than do their appeals to free expression. Insofar as epistemic and status-harms provide grounds for the suppression and exclusion of some speech and speakers, the ideal of equal speech is more closely connected with the freedom of association than of thought. Noticing this draws attention to the continuing—and potentially problematic—importance of exclusion in constituting effective sites of equal speech today.

Author(s):  
Dominic McGoldrick

This chapter discusses the sources, scope, and limitations of the four fundamental freedoms: thought, expression, association, and assembly. Freedom of thought includes freedom of conscience, religion, and belief. Freedom of expression includes freedom of opinion and freedom of information. Freedom of association concerns the right to establish autonomous organizations through which individuals pursue common interests together. The right of assembly protects non-violent, organized, temporary gatherings in public and private, both indoors and outdoors.


Author(s):  
Corey Brettschneider

How should a liberal democracy respond to hate groups and others that oppose the ideal of free and equal citizenship? The democratic state faces the hard choice of either protecting the rights of hate groups and allowing their views to spread, or banning their views and violating citizens' rights to freedoms of expression, association, and religion. Avoiding the familiar yet problematic responses to these issues, this book proposes a new approach called value democracy. The theory of value democracy argues that the state should protect the right to express illiberal beliefs, but the state should also engage in democratic persuasion when it speaks through its various expressive capacities: publicly criticizing, and giving reasons to reject, hate-based or other discriminatory viewpoints. Distinguishing between two kinds of state action—expressive and coercive—the book contends that public criticism of viewpoints advocating discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation should be pursued through the state's expressive capacities as speaker, educator, and spender. When the state uses its expressive capacities to promote the values of free and equal citizenship, it engages in democratic persuasion. By using democratic persuasion, the state can both respect rights and counter hateful or discriminatory viewpoints. The book extends this analysis from freedom of expression to the freedoms of religion and association, and shows that value democracy can uphold the protection of these freedoms while promoting equality for all citizens.


2021 ◽  
pp. 191-262
Author(s):  
William A. Schabas

Fundamental freedoms is an allusion to Roosevelt’s ‘four freedoms’, although they now tend to be associated with those that fall under civil and political rights: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. They have a degree of relativity, being subject to restrictions or limitations dictated by certain criteria including public morals and the rights of others. They have important links to political democracy, the rights of labour and trade unions, and minority rights. Other rights that may be labelled ‘fundamental freedoms’ are the right to private and family life, the right to marry and to found a family, mobility rights, nationality and the right to property.


Author(s):  
Richard Clements

The Q&A series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each chapter includes typical questions; diagram problem and essay answer plans, suggested answers, notes of caution, tips on obtaining extra marks, the key debates on each topic and suggestions on further reading. This chapter moves on from the previous one to examine the freedom of expression. Under common law, freedom of speech is guaranteed unless the speaker breaks the law, but this is now reinforced by the right of free expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. The questions here deal with issues such as obscenity law and contempt of court; the Official Secrets Act; freedom of information; breach of confidence and whether there is a right of privacy in English law.


Author(s):  
Sjors Ligthart

Abstract Since advances in brain-reading technology are changing traditional epistemic boundaries of the mind, yielding information from the brain that enables to draw inferences about particular mental states of individuals, the sustainability of the present framework of European human rights has been called into question. More specifically, it has been argued that in order to provide adequate human rights protection from non-consensual brain-reading, the right to freedom of thought should be revised, making it ‘fit for the future’ again. From the perspective of criminal justice, the present paper examines whether such a revision is necessary within the European legal context. It argues that under its current understanding, the right to freedom of thought would probably not cover the employment of most brain-reading applications in criminal justice. By contrast, the right to freedom of (non-)expression will provide legal protection in this regard and, at the same time, will also allow for certain exceptions. Hence, instead of revising the absolute right to freedom of thought, a legal approach tailored to non-consensual brain-reading could be developed under the already existing right not to convey information, ideas, and opinions as guaranteed under the freedom of (non-)expression. This might need to re-interpret the right to freedom of expression, rather than the right to freedom of thought.


Legal Theory ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Ramsay

Freedom of expression is often treated as a right held by speakers, with hearers holding only a derivative right to receive expression. Roger Shiner in particular argues that we should recognize hearers’ rights only where our intuitions regarding infringements of free expression are not already accounted for by speakers’ rights. However, Larry Alexander argues that, if there is a moral right of freedom of expression, it is most plausibly a hearer's right to receive expression, not a speaker's right. I argue that hearers have a basic (or original) right to receive a speaker's expression, one that stands alongside a speaker's right to express herself. The hearer's right to receive is no less fundamental than the speaker's right to express and, contra Alexander, the hearer's right is not more fundamental than that of the speaker. As a consequence, both Shiner's case against freedom of commercial expression and Alexander's case against so-called Track Two freedom of expression jurisprudence are weakened.


Obiter ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
George Barrie

Hotz v University of Cape Town (2016 (4) All SA 723 (SCA)) presented the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) with an ideal set of circumstances to incisively deal with the precise meaning and parameters of section 16(1) of the Constitution, which mandates that everyone has the right to freedom of expression and section 16(2), which states that section 16(1) does not extend to advocacy of hatred that is based on race or ethnicity and that constitutes incitement to cause harm. It also afforded the SCA an opportunity to express itself on ancillary constitutional rights such as section 17 (the right to assemble and demonstrate); section 15 (the right of freedom of opinion); section 18 (the right to freedom of association) and section 19(1) (the right to campaign for a political cause).  The main focus of the judgment of the SCA (per Wallis JA), however, was on freedom of expression (s 16(1)) which will be the primary focus of this note.Vehement protests on the campus of the University of Cape Town (UCT) constituted the background to this matter being heard by the SCA as an appeal against a final interdict of the Western Cape High Court. The final interdict excluding appellants from the campus of UCT was granted by Allie J who granted leave to appeal. The appeal specifically concerned the granting of the final interdict and the factual allegations made by the university regarding the nature of the protests which led to the granting of the final interdict.


Author(s):  
Lisa P. Ramsey

Trademark laws currently allow companies to obtain trademark rights in product configurations, colors, scents, sounds, flavors, textures, and other “non-traditional” marks that identify and distinguish the source of goods or services. This chapter argues that non-traditional trademarks convey expression protected by the right to freedom of expression in constitutions, human rights treaties, and statutes. Not only do distinctive non-traditional marks communicate source-identifying information, but these product attributes may also intrinsically convey information, ideas, or other messages unrelated to the trademark owner. Therefore trademark laws regulating this expression must have a sufficient justification, and governments should repeal or revise laws protecting non-traditional marks when they do not directly further trademark law’s goals and harm free expression. Nations should refuse to register non-traditional marks that expressed inherently valuable messages unrelated to source-identification before they were adopted or used as marks, or only grant such marks narrow protection.


Author(s):  
Cameron Jamie ◽  
Rosiers Nathalie Des

Freedom of expression and freedom of association are guaranteed by section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These freedoms are closely related, conceptually and philosophically, but evolved in different directions under the Charter. Whereas section 2(b)’s guarantee of expressive freedom generated a rich jurisprudence across diverse issues, section 2(d)’s attention focused on associational freedom in the context of labour union activities. The authors draw on a pocket of section 2(b) case law on picketing and other labour-related expressive activities to bring these guarantees into comparison. In doing so, they comment on the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of each guarantee, including the constitutionalization of key aspects of labour relations under section 2(d). In addition, the authors critique the Court’s jurisprudence, emphasizing the central importance of protecting protest and dissent activities under both guarantees.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document