Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental human rights that is utmost for any democratic system to function in an acceptable extend. In Malaysia, freedom of expression is more often than not restricted through old-fashioned laws and in some cases restricted through the threat of violence. The laws restricting the Freedom of Expression includes but is not limited to few laws such as,
1. The Sedition Act 1948
2. The Communications and Multimedia Act 1998
3. Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984
4. State-based religious law governing Islamic publications
5. Film Censorship Act 2002
The Sedition Act and the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) remain the laws most frequently used against critical speech in Malaysia and they are used for the criminal laws to arrest, question, and prosecute individuals for peaceful speech.
…show more content…
Article 10 of the Malaysian Constitution, looking into the sensitiveness of these issues, specifies a list of restrictions, which limit the right of free speech on the grounds of securing political stability and racial harmony. Furthermore, freedom of political speech and the political rights of individuals are secondary to the goals of national prosperity and national development, and the government is given to enforce some form of political discipline in order to serve the greater social good. However, the Malaysian government has taken a step further to control not only hate and racial speech, but also any political speech that seriously challenges the government. In this regard, the Malaysian government can be blamed for being less democratic based for its confinement on political
Does the First Amendment, Free Expression Clause, apply to the New York State law against Criminal Anarchy, depriving Giltow of his liberty of expression under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Benjamin Gitlow, a member of the Socialist Party of America, advocated the overthrow of organized government by force, violence, and other unlawful means through his Left Wing Manifesto. He was arrested and charged with criminal Anarchy, “the policy that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence... or by any unlawful means. The advocacy of such doctrine either by word of mouth or writing is a felony”. Gitlow argued that the New York law was an unconstitutional limit forced by the state on the rights guaranteed
Mohammad Haneef & Erosion of Civil Liberties Weland La ‘Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties.’ Discuss this statement in light of the Haneef Case and one other issue (such as the right to silence, privacy, etc.), commenting on the extent to which the law balances the rights of the individual with the needs for community safety. In correlation with the Haneef Case, Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties as demonstrated by NSW’s introduction of the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013.
Censorship was also implemented against the press.
Introduction The People v. Larry Flynt ‘The People v. Larry Flynt’ is a docudrama that chronicles the life and exploits of Larry Flynt and his pornographic publication, ‘Hustler.’ Hustler originally began as a newsletter to attract patrons to Flynt’s Hustler Go-Go club with nude photos of the women who worked there. This newsletter evolves into Hustler Magazine, which over time gains a widespread distribution after acquiring and publishing nude photos of Jackie Kennedy Onassis, former First Lady. Flynt is sued for pandering obscenity and engaging in organised crime.
Censorship in America is often debated. Erin Manning, texas-based writer explains that the American Library Association chooses to censor certain books because of “inappropriate content” and “second rate writing”(Manning 1). Parents attempt to protect their children from the outside world, by limiting their exposure to age appropriate language. When parents do this, their children’s knowledge of the outside world may be limited to what parents let their child view. Although some parents may feel that their child needs filtered information and entertainment, others believe that children and teens need to be shown uncensored content.
Christopher McCall Laura Retersdorf English 1102 10/12/16 Annotated Bibliography Buchhandler-Raphael, Michal. " Overcriminalizing Speech. " Cardozo Law Review 36.5 (2015): 1667-1737.
Censorship in Todays America Censorship has been a topic of debate for decades. Despite the existence of the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, the United States has a long history of censoring literature. Most Americans believe that it is unethical to stifle freedom of expression, but often some of the First Amendment’s biggest supporters are its worst enemies. It shocks many to see how rampant it still is in the present day. This paper will show examples of how governments, religious institutions, and schools try to limit first amendment rights through censorship.
Freedom of expression is one of the laws the forefathers of America made to empower its citizens and also enables them to live in peace amongst themselves. In most countries around the world, freedom of expression does not exist, so there is always war in those countries. In the article “Why the First Amendment (and Journalism) Might Be in Trouble”, the authors, Ken Dautrich, chair of the Public Policy at the University of Connecticut and John Bare, who is the vice president for strategic planning and evaluation at the Arthur M. Blank Family foundation in Atlanta, conducted a research study on the importance of freedom of speech. They used their research findings to support freedom of expressions. They employed claim of policy, claim of fact and also appeal to pathos and logos in their argument of the importance of the freedom of speech.
Censorship While Americans are guaranteed free speech and free press in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, a history of censorship has nevertheless existed in this country. Censorship was at times allowed and even enforced by the United States government. In the early years of film making, censorship was allowed on the grounds that movies were entertainment and not an expression of free speech.
Censorship of The First Amendment This paper will discuss how censorship denies citizens of the United States our full rights as delineated in the First Amendment. It will outline how and why the first amendment was created and included in the Constitution of the United States of America. This paper will also define censorship, discuss a select few legal cases surrounding freedom of speech and censorship as well as provide national and local examples of censorship.
Censorship can be described as the act of cutting out certain material that can be considered obscene or inconvenient for the community. This material can be found in social media such as in the TV, radio, or the internet. Censorship can be challenged because of the first amendment: freedom of speech. Free expression is the right of expressing opinions and ideas without any fear of being restrained or censored. However, freedom of speech does not include the right to incite actions that would harm others or the distribution of obscene material (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2000).
Malaysian has the right to freedom of speech which is guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution of Malaysia. The Article 10 allows all citizens the absolute freedom as not restricted by the government. In Malaysia, Law such as Publications act and printing presses give the Malaysian authorities the control over all the media. Any act that against this law may lead to fines or in much extreme cases, prison sentence. Although Malaysia has the right to freedom of speech, the media are still being controlled by the government which restrict them to publish anything against the government.
What freedom of expression means is that everyone is allowed to express their opinions in whatever way they see fit without restraint, suppressions or penalty from the government. The people should freely be able to look at information and ideas. If a government manipulates opinions and ideas of the citizens by limiting their accessibility to information and using bias, it would be a violation of their right to freedom of
However, the same cannot be said for the past few decades. This is because of selfish politicians playing the controversial “race card” to gain support from a particular race. These selfish actions have worsened the relationships between races and affected the harmony that was once our nation’s pride and joy. Thus, it is our role as Malaysians to find new ways of promoting racial harmony, because honestly, who would want to live in a country where everyone hates each other?
As Malaysian citizens, besides having the right to say and express whatever we want, we also have the right to assemble peaceably and we also have the right to form associations however it also being stated in Article 10 (2) (a) (b) (c) that the parliament has the right to impose restrictions on these rights. It is true that Malaysians get to enjoy the freedom of speech and expression as stated in the Federal Constitution but this freedom is restricted and these restrictions are the exception, permitted only to protect: the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, public health and morals. This simply means that as Malaysian citizens, we do have the right to say and express whatever we want as long as it does not break the rules or regulations