It is only when we can show direct harm to rights, which will almost always mean when an attack is made against a specific individual or a small group of persons, that it is legitimate to impose a sanction. One response is to suggest that the harm principle can be defined in a less stringent manner than Mill 's formulation. This is a complicated issue that I cannot delve into here except to say that Mill does not seem to be significantly concerned with the potential dangers of psychological harm.
The extraordinary standard of Hadley v. Baxendale:-As customarily planned and connected, wanders from both the general guideline of desire harms and the general standards of harms outside the law of contract. If those rules are alluring than the exceptional rule of Hadley v. Baxendale must be undesirable unless it can uphold by some uncommon supports. 7. Eisenberg, Melvin Aron. "The Principle Of Hadley V. Baxendale".
Democracy lends scope for open discussion between competing views. Democracies are accountable to the media, legislature and citizens. Accountability implies that citizens need access to a range of information about actions of their representatives and a free press to assess governance. Legislation on civil liberties, human rights and the right to information are intended to protect such arrangements and strike a balance between competing interests. All liberal democracies zealously protect the rights of communication and participation.
Current measures have mainly been established using mainly ex-post regulation rather than ex-ante regulation. Deceptive commercial speech in the U.S is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. The U.S constitution’s first amendment includes the freedom of speech. This has made it difficult for lawmakers develop commercial speech regulation because they are in fear of breaching this constitutional right. However, if businesses believe they have been a victim of deceptive advertising they can bring an action under s.43(a) of the Lanham Act.
Idioms can be considered as puzzles because there are no studies that provide a comprehensive analysis of them. Also, it is due to the characteristics that will be described below. They are against the logical structure of the discourse in which “the meanings of the utterances depend on the meanings of their parts and on the syntactic relation among those parts” (Johnson-Laird 1993). This factor gives idioms a heterogeneous character, and describes them as very complex linguistic configurations. Since some expressions have both a literal and an idiomatic meaning, for instance, it's better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick, and others have only an idiomatic interpretation, such as pull the strings, idioms are transparent to native speakers
First Importance of Freedom of Speech and Expression is the protection of democratic government. This freedom is essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process. The freedom of speech and expression is regarded as the first condition of liberty. Second importance of free speech as a basic and valuable feature of society cannot be underestimated. Freedom of speech serves a number of functions.
The print and electronic media have gone into fierce and ruthless competition, as we call them ‘aggressive journalism’. The most reckoning research on the positive and negative aspects of media trial has been elaborated in 200th report of the Law Commission entitled Trial by Media: Free Speech vs. Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure (Amendments to the Contempt of Court Act, 1971) that has made recommendations to address the damaging effect of sensationalized news reports on the administration of justice. While the report has yet to be made public, news reports indicate that the Commission has recommended prohibiting publication of anything that is prejudicial towards the accused — a restriction that shall operate from the time of arrest. It also reportedly recommends that the High Court be empowered to direct postponement of publication or telecast in criminal cases. The report noted that at present, under Section 3 (2) of the Contempt of Court Act, such publications would be contempt only if a charge sheet had been filed in a criminal case.
Freedom of speech has been recognized as the most fundamental value to a democratic society. It serves the individual’s rights, to be an active player in the democracy, not just a passive spectator. Free speech expands an individual’s thinking, without the ability to express ideas, to be exposed to other’s ideas, people then cannot develop fully as individuals. However, our society is built on law and order, which, means that inevitably there will be restrictions placed upon free speech. Recent cases led us to question if there should be more limits placed upon free speech.
This adaptation causes the Thai legal system to have different defamation laws for ordinary people and for the head of the state, aka King Rama VI, the current king of Thailand. The first similarity is that both laws are existed to protect a person from defamation whether the accusation is true or false. According to Section 326 of the Thai Criminal Code, defamation is defined as “an act of imputing anything about the third party in a manner which is aimed to impair the person’s reputation or place the person in contempt or hatred by others.” The same goes to the Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, lese majeste, containing the clause “The king shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the king to any sort of accusation or action and whoever defames, insults or threatens the king, queen, heir-apparent, or regent shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.” Not only have it been used for protecting people’s reputations, but it also have
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.