Freedom of Speech is among the most basic natural rights of an individual. It is through Speech that an individual is able to convey his emotions, his needs and his wants. The right to Free speech is one of the most basic essentials required to constitute a healthy Democracy. Recognizing the importance of this right, the framers of the Constitution of India have declared this right as a Fundamental Right under Part III. The Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a) guaranteed the Freedom of Speech and Expression to all its citizens. The Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression entitles every citizen to have an opinion and express it without the fear of repression by the Government. However, this right to Free Speech under Article 19(1)(a) …show more content…
However, in the author’s humble opinion, the framers of the Constitution have lacked in giving a more serious thought to the Defamation as a Crime and lacked in not questioning the provisions of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is repeatedly held to be a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It is considered as an essential attribute of a democracy. In a carton of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has highlighted the importance of this right in a Parliamentary democracy. In the very first judgment[ Romesh Thappar Vs. State of Madras (1950) SCR 594 ] that was delivered on the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, it was declared by a Constitution Bench that very narrow and stringent limits have been set to permissible legislative abridgment on the Right to free speech. It was explained that without free speech and free political discussion, no public education which is very essential for the proper functioning of the government, is possible. It was also explicitly mentioned in the judgment that a freedom of such amplitude might involve risks of abuse. In this context it would be pertinent to quote Salman Rushdie here, he has rightly said, ‘What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.’ It was further held in the case of Romesh Thappar, the framers of the Constitution have reflected with Madison, who was the leading spirit in the preparation of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution that "It is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruit”. Therefore, in the light
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...
Freedom of speech and thought is a fortunate privilege that Americans have, but it is denied in other countries. India and Iran are just a few of many countries that have a limited tolerance for free speech. Speaking out against one’s government can lead to jail, the Internet is not accessible to the community, certain books are banned, the media works for the state and is permitted to write only the positive news that the state allows. Societies practice uncontrolled
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.
The article ¨Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?” delineates when Salman Rushdie published his novel that consisted of many unfair statements about Muslims, there were many violent protests around the world as an outcome (1). Rushdie, the author of the very controversial novel, pleaded that the First Amendment protected his writings, but this is invalid. His writings caused riots that turned to be extremely violent where many people got hurt; furthermore, since his words caused this chaos, he is no longer protected. The Constitution does not provide any statements that prove that these people who start riots are to be protected under their rights. The American people must wake up and realize that their ignorant actions are not protected; moreover, their actions are their responsibility. They chose to speak their mind, so they must have to own up to the repercussions that follow. If a person is responsible for causing a riot that ends in many injuries, or even death, they should not be able to claim that the First Amendment protects their violations. The article continues with if a person were to stand up in front of a large or small crowd and purposely speak of topics that would begin a riot, they would not be protected under the First Amendment (1). Many individuals are unaware that as soon as they begin speaking of controversial topics, and purposely
The fundamental purpose of the first amendment was to guarantee the maintenance of an effective system of free speech and expression. This calls for an examination of the various elements which are necessary to support such a system in a modem democratic society. Some of these elements found early articulation in the classic theory of free expression, as it developed over the course of centuries; others are the outgrowth of contemporary conditions. More specifically, it is necessary to analyze what it is that the first amendment attempts to maintain: the function of freedom of expression in a democratic society; what the practical difficulties are in maintaining such a system: the dynamic forces at work in any governmental attempt to restrict or regulate expression; and the role of law and legal institutions in developing and supporting freedom of expression. These three elements are the basic components of any comprehensive theory of the first amendment viewed as a guarantee of a system of free expression.
The freedom of speech is one of the most essential human rights since its existence, 67 years ago, to this day. Free speech allows individuals the right to express their beliefs and debate amongst others. In John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, the underlying message of this essay is that no one (collected group, or individual) is allowed to completely suppress the speech of others, regardless of authority or belief. The theory of free speech will be proven by specific evidence in John Mill’s essay on rights and regulations, the management of free speech in todays society, and personal belief on this topic.
The right of freedom of speech in the first Amendment is really interesting because even that people who liberty to say anything what they want, but it is still in limitation; for example, they cannot use fighting words, and incitement to imminent violent action, such as threats to kill an
Traditional thinking about the recognition by civil authorities of the right to unrestricted freedom of speech can be seen as a hideous mistake in the domestic or even on the international level, favoring the spread of evil in society, even among liberals. “Regarding calls to violence or hatred, or threats, the same way, it's not really the opinions exposed that are the issue, but the speech's consequences, in that case hate, violence and fear.” According to the most wide spread
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter” (Martin Luther King, Jr.). This quote means that everyone should have freedom of speech. I agree with this statement. This is a constitutional principle that we need to change around the world in freedom of speech. Our constitution is based off of freedom of speech. If someone speaks out about something, the chances are that another person around the world feels the same way.
Freedom of speech is the very First Amendment in the Constitution. All people should have freedom of speech. No matter the person or the place they should have freedom of speech. Old or young, short or tall, everyone should have it. So, therefor schools should not have freedom of speech. The next few paragraphs will tell you why.
Freedom of speech is one of democracy’s pillars. Most democratic countries all over the world, also protect their citizens’ freedom of speech in their own ways. Should freedom of speech be restricted? Or does it only need to be protected? I personally believe that in a democratic country, freedom of speech should not be limited in any way. People should be free to express what they would like to express, if their freedom of speech has limitations, the power of the people might lose its power and the essence of democracy itself will vanish.
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...
"What is freedom of Speech? Without the opportunity to outrage, it stops to exist" said Salman Rushdie. This statement impeccably sums up the endless level-headed discussion about the right to speak freely and abhor discourse. Freedom of discourse and articulation has a place with the gathering of crucial human privileges of each individual on this planet. Nowadays we are seeing the rising worries about hate speech, like if it is secured by this fundamental human right or if the right to speak freely ought to have a few confinements. Given the way that each individual is permitted to express considerations and convictions, forbidding the negative remarks would, actually, deny his or her fundamental rights i.e. the right to speak freely.
The definition of Freedom of Speech needs to be redefined due its frequent misuse of the
The other defendants, Fan Yew Teng was charged with publishing the seditious words in the Rocket news magazine and while Kok San and Lee Teck Chee were charged with printing it. The court held that the speeches went beyond the limit of freedom of expression and it must noted that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute but must be within reason to maintain an effective balance.The speech also challenged the special position and privilege of the Malays (Muslims) under Article 152 and 153/181 thus it promote of ill will and hostility among the different races in Malaysia which expressive of a seditious