Decency or morality is a ground on which freedom of speech and expression may be reasonably restricted. Decency is the same as lack of obscenity. The right to freedom of speech cannot be permitted to deprave and corrupt the community, and therefore, the writings or other objects, if obscene, may be suppressed and punished because such action would be to promote public decency and morality. Thus, obscenity becomes a subject of constitutional interest since it illustrates well the clash between the right of the individual to freely express his opinions and the duty of the State to safeguard morals. Further the scope of obscenity under the existing law is illustrated in Sections 292 to 296 IPC.
Just like other intentional torts, intention is required in false imprisonment and is a very important element. Carelessness is not enough, the defendant may have acted with a purpose to cause the confinement, or with substantial certainty that his acts will cause it. Second, the defendant’s intention must cause confinement of the plaintiff. The essence of the tort is restraint of the plaintiff’s freedom of movement, so they must establish confinement. It must be noted that blocking the plaintiff’s way will not amount to false imprisonment, as long as a reasonable alternate route is available.
The novelty of claim may arise and Court may recognize a novel claim. Salmond’s critics believe tort law is a system based on the principle of protecting the legal rights vested in a person and the society (“right in rem” and right in persona” ) and the courts as the guardian of law have to be allowed the flexibility to interpret the
The author though seems to imply explicitly that there is no such thing as a universal view of human rights, and that is quite a strong argument in this context. Even he acknowledges that people who find themselves under oppressive regimes that restrict the enjoyment of their fundamental freedom would probably be enjoying those rights in an ideal situation. While this is a relativist take, it points to some equilibrium position or state in which all people would enjoy their freedoms without any constraints. The view that the author assumes is therefore not as clear as it probably should be. He needs to shed further light on whether or not it is possible to have a single set of rights that satisfies the needs of all people or it would take each group of individuals having their distinct set of freedoms to meet their unique needs.
SLO: 1 Civil Liberties vs Civil Rights Civil Liberties are individual rights that are acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. Civil Liberties place restraints on what the government can and can’t do.These individual rights cannot be taken away by law. These rights can be found in the Bill of Rights. 2 Some of these rights include: the right to free speech, the right to remain silent when being questioned by authorities, the right to privacy, the right to fair trial, the right to be free from unwarranted searches, etc. 1 Civil Rights are rights that the government guarantees equal treatment under the constitution.
A man turns into a detainee, where on earth he may be, by the basic word or touch of an appropriately approved officer coordinated to that end. Detainment does not definitely infer a position of restriction, with jolts and bars, yet may be practiced by any sort of utilization or show of power, legitimately or unlawfully, wherever showed, even in the open road. For the most part, in coomon man's dialect, detainment is thought to infer a real control in a correctional facility. A private individual, a constable or whatever other such government representative or any state power can wrongly detain somebody
Freedom of speech plays a crucial role in the formation of public opinion on social, political and economic matters. Freedom of speech and expression, just as equality clause and the guarantee of life and liberty have been very broadly construed by the Supreme Court right from the 1950s. It has been variously described as a “basic human right”, “a natural right”. The freedom of speech and expression includes liberty to propagate not one’s views only. It also includes the right publish the views of other people,7 otherwise this freedom would not include the freedom of the
Possession of knowledge means to gain control over the knowledge, in other words, to have knowledge as our property. Knowledge can also be justified as ultimate belief, we accepted the truth (information) to be one of our knowledge. We must also understand “carries an ethical responsibility” and how it’s connected with obtained knowledge. Ethics comes along with the knowledge, which is our duty to be responsible to know and situations that can happen because
INTRODUCTION The right against self incrimination is based on the maxim “nemo teneteur prodre accussare seipsum”, which means, “NO MAN IS BOUND TO ACCUSE HIMSELF.” The right gradually evolved in common law through protests against the unjust methods of interrogation of accused persons, back in the middles ages in England. This right became one of the fundamental canons of British System of criminal jurisprudence which the United States of America adopted from the British legal system and incorporated it in their Constitution as “no person shall be compelled in any case to be a witness against himself”. The Indian Constitution provides for protection to an accused against self incrimination under compulsion through Article 20(3) which reads, "No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself‟ Long before our Constitution came into existence, the rationale behind the judicial provision against testimonial compulsion was well recognized . The basis of the protection against self-incrimination is best explained by the Court in Saunders v. United Kingdom. This case explained that the right provides protection to the accused against the improper compulsion by the authorities, thereby contributing to the avoidance of the miscarriages of justice.
The Human Rights Act 1998 protected the fundamental rights and freedoms, including some rights which are absolute that cannot be interfered with by the state, as well as other rights which governments might derogate if necessary under Section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Genn 2014, p. 19). Absolute rights are where the government can never take away or withhold these rights. For example, the right to protection of life under Article 2, the right to freedom from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3, the right to freedom from slavery under Article 4, as well as the right to freedom from retrospective criminal liability under Article 7. Limited rights are where these rights might be limited under explicit and finite circumstances,