A healthy democracy is sustained by informing and making aware the citizens of conflicting and differing points of view and any inroads into the freedom of speech and expression, and any rules made in the form of imposing curbs thereon would violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Such are not saved by Article 19(2)9 of the Constitution. Freedom of speech is an essential feature of any genuine Democracy. The right of freedom of expression is crucial in a democracy, information ideas help to inform political debate and are essential to public accountability and transparency in government, for a democratic system to function, people have to be able to form their own ideas. One must be able to receive many different ideas and information, reflecting many different perspectives, before being able to see the truth.
There are other instances when the harm principle has been invoked but where it is more difficult to demonstrate that rights have been violated.For example, hate speech. Most liberal democracies have limitations on hate speech, but it is debatable whether these can be justified by the harm principle as formulated by Mill. One would have to show that such speech violated rights, directly and in the first instance. (I am interested here in hate speech that does not advocate physical violence against a group or individual. If it does, it would, like the corn dealer example, be captured by Mill 's harm principle as speech that can be prohibited).
Recent cases led us to question if there should be more limits placed upon free speech. Many often abuse this right to provoke, offend, to spread lies and hate; some cases inspire violence such as the Charlie Hebdo incident. In other words, total freedom of speech can lead to breakdown in law and order. Therefore, I do not agree that freedom of speech should be protected at all costs. One argument against absolute freedom of speech is that it can be used to provoke and inspire violence.
Censorship by the government is unconstitutional. Censorship can have positive effects on society; however, it hinders freedom of speech, can insight dictatorship, and oppress individuals. The 1st Amendment protects public institutions from having to compromise the ideals of free speech by establishing framework that defines critical rights and responsibilities. American people resort to “more speech not enforced silence” in seeking to resolve our differences in values, sensibilities, and offenses. The effect has restricted newspapers, television, radio, etc.
Which means that freedom of speech is not always a sound or just public policy." ' Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy and should be a right that all are entitled to. In the United States the topic of free speech is more contentious as it is written into the constitutional rights, it is a worldwide issue and has come more into focus recently in Ireland. In a recent survey by Claire Byrne 65% of people believe that there should not be a restriction on free speech. Recently a controversial article was published by Nicholas Pell in The Irish Times regarding the alt-right movement, which included glossary of terms, which people found sexist and racist.
In the present day scenario the law of Sedition is extremely questionable in India as well as in every one of the democratic nations. Typically, sedition is viewed as a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.If we talk about sedition law in India, it is defined in section 124 of Indian Penal Code 1860 as it stands today, deals with Sedition and carries with it a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. The law has been modified and interpreted to incorporate safeguards so it may withstand constitutional scrutiny.
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
Belonging to a group, plus provide information about our identity, unlike us members of another group. Identifying the limits of what "one does not It is "or what" one unlike the others ", also supplies information and gives meaning to behaviors that place. By this process could explain certain nationalist attitudes and behaviors (Martinez,
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. It occupies a preferred position in the hierarchy of liberties giving support and protection to all other liberties. It has been truly said that it is the mother of all other liberties.6 In a democracy, freedom of speech and expression open up channels of free discussion of issues. Freedom of speech plays a crucial role in the formation of public opinion on social, political and economic matters.
Should there be limits on freedom of speech? What is meant by freedom of speech? It is the power or right of an individual or community to express one’s opinions and ideas without any fear of retaliation(revenge), censorship (control or suppressing the behavior of others, usually on moral grounds) or sanction (ban, restriction). The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously (closely associated), but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting (conveying) information or ideas regardless of the medium used. Right of free speech in international law: Freedom of speech is cherished (highly valued, honoured) as a fundamental right in modern world and this valuable right in modern world and this valuable right is universally acknowledged (recognized or accepted especially in legal form) and protected as well.