Table of Contents

Chapter

1. THE PROBLEM

Background of the Study - Ariel

Statement of the Problem - Rocel

Hypothesis- Angge

Significance of the Study- Angge

Scope and Delimitation - Ariel

Definition of terms - Ariel

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Related Literature - Rocel

Related Studies - Rocel

Synthesis of the Reviewed Studies and Present Study- Angge

Theoretical Framework - Angge

Conceptual Framework - Ariel

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design - Ariel

Respondents and Locale of the Study - Rocel

The Research Instruments - Rocel

Data Gathering Procedure - Angge

Statistical Treatment of Data - Angge

 CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

Background of the Study

Expressing freely of your opinions has started when the Article 10 of the Human Rights Act:

Freedom of Expression approved. The law says “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.

This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas

without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”. Freedom of Expression is known

as Freedom of speech in Political ideology, it supports the freedom of an individual or a group of

people/ community to articulate their opinion without fear and retaliation and legal sanction.

All things had their limitations. The people clearly understood when and where to use their

freedom to express their opinions, however, due to over confidence some individual forgetting when

and where to use it, over stated and do not know their limitations in using their freedom of

expression/speech.
Statement of the Problem

Offensive language and free speech may cause misunderstood by others. They have
their right but they do not know the limitations of having this right. However, free speech consider as a
essential as an individual since its inclusion in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the right to freedom of opinion and expression has been protected in all of the relevant
international human rights treaties..

Is freedom of speech can spread false information?

The overmuch of misinformation online might cause trouble to the descendance of the false
information. Criminalizing the dissemination of “false news,” expanding existing penalties for
spreading misinformation, and increasing surveillance are among the actions some authorities have
taken. Human rights and media observers warn that such remedies are worse than the problem they
seek to lesson, and that freedom of expression, privacy and the right to protest are disintegrating
under the pretext of safeguarding public health.

Why children use inappropriate language?

We all know that swearing and using offensive language inside the classroom are
inappropriate especially in facilities that we use to learn good manners and right conduct besides
from our home. Inappropriate language must deal immediately because children might not aware of
what he/she is using language is offensive or inappropriate.

There are reasons why a child might use inappropriate language. Most of the time a child uses
a word by accident; she may be repeating what she has heard without knowing that the words are
inappropriate or what the words really mean; she may swear because she wants to imitate her friend
or family; she may use potty talk to get attention or a reaction; or she may use hurtful language when
upset.

Why freedom of speech can incite violence against to others?

As freedom of speech and expression approved as a Human Rights Act, unnecessarily events
have risen. Especially, information that is false that might cause violence against others. It will cost as
bullying, libel and other grave offenses to you as invoice to that information.

Speech as an action is altogether different. When speech takes the form of an action, it affects
others. An example for this when someone yelling to a crowd a “fire,” it could lead to a mass panic
and serious harm to everyone or worse it may cause death beacuse of the crowd and panicking.
Hypothesis

Significance of the Study

 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Related Literature
Does a proper commitment to freedom of expression demand the legal protection
of so-called hate speech?
This literature review will examine the historical and practical elements of free speech in
the world's democracies and they are fiercely disagree on the answer to this question.
Consider the United Kingdom, where it is a criminal offense to incite racial or religious hatred
(Brown 2016). It suggests that those who oppose bans on hate speech are the real defenders
of free expression, whereas those who support bans are hostile to free speech, or at the very
least comfortable with infringing it for the sake of other values. Yet the crucial debate is not
about whether we should infringe free speech in order to stamp out hateful attitudes and the
various evils they engender. Rather, it is about whether hate speech even constitutes the sort
of expression that the right to freedom of expression exists to protect, or whether it instead falls
outside that right's ambit of protection.
Free Speech is any invocation of the term free speech may be referring to any one of a
variety of meanings. One is the moral right to freedom of expression, a fundamental moral
requirement that agents be free to express themselves and communicate with others.1 This
right generates correlative negative duties on the part of other agents. It also generates
positive duties on the part of the state to protect those negative duties, e.g., by providing police
protection for threatened speakers (Scanlon 2011, p. 332).
Offensive language is the offence of using language in a way which could cause
offence to a reasonable person in, near, or within hearing or view of a public place or school.
This offence is a “contextual” offence and must be considered by the Court on a case-by-case
basis depending on the circumstances.
Current Debates on Hate and Offensive Speech
One of the most prominent recent contributions to the debate on hate speech, as we
have seen, is Waldron’s The Harm in Hate Speech (2012). Waldron argues that hate speech
undermines individuals’ assurance of their equal public standing and thereby injures their
dignity. This claim is the focus of Eric Barendt’s contribution to this special issue. Barendt
argues that it is unclear whether Waldron believes that hate speech causes harm or
constitutes harm. This matters because the arguments required to justify these two claims
have importantly different structures and implications. Careful analysis leads Barendt to
conclude that Waldron is best understood as making a ‘weak consequentialist’ argument – an
argument that hate speech tends to cause harm. The case for prohibition thus depends on the
empirical evidence for this causal claim, and would need to weigh this likelihood of harm
against the disvalue of restrictions on speech. The constitutive argument, on the other hand,
does not require this kind of empirical evidence, and it might imply that we should place hate
speech into the constitutional category of ‘conduct’, rather than the more protected category of
‘speech’. Barendt suggests that Waldron also makes this constitutive claim, but criticises this
 argument as unsupported by the Austinian speech-act theory on which it is meant to rely.
Waldron’s case for legal bans on hate speech thus depends on the force of his weak
consequentialist argument and is not strengthened by the constitutive argument.
Article III Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines specifies that no law
shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of expression. However, some laws limit
this freedom, for example:

 Certain sections of the Flag and Heraldic Code require particular expressions
and prohibit other expressions.
 Title thirteen of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines criminalizes libel and
slander by act or deed (slander by deed is defined as "any act ... which shall cast
dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person."), providing penalties of
fine or imprisonment. In 2012, acting on a complaint by an imprisoned
broadcaster who dramatised a newspaper account reporting that a particular
politician was seen running naked in a hotel when caught in bed by the husband
of the woman with whom he was said to have spent the night, the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights ruled that the criminalization of libel violates
freedom of expression and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, commenting that "Defamations laws
should not stifle freedom of expression" and that "Penal defamation laws should
include defense of truth.
 Blasphemy against decency and good customs is an offense which is punishable
by a prison term, a fine, or both. Other offenses against decency and good
customs include: public displays or exhibitions which glorify criminals or condone
crimes, serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or
pornography, offend any race or religion, tend to abet traffic in and use of
prohibited drugs, and are contrary to law, public order, morals, and good
customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts; publishing or
selling obscene literature; selling, giving away, or exhibiting films, prints,
engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals; publicly
expounding or proclaiming doctrines openly contrary to public morals; and highly
scandalous conduct not expressly falling within any other article of the code.

Related Studies
College Student Attitudes Towards Free Speech and Expression
David Oglethorpe
University of Central Florida

The dissertation of the study was conducted as a quantitative study guided by the
framework of Social Judgment Theory. The framework was selected to help distinguish
between students’ – general attitudes towards free speech and the perceived acceptability of-
specific examples of free speech. The research questions, population and sample, variables,
and study design were described in this chapter. The chapter also outlined the instrumentation
developed, the methodology behind the study, and the plan for data collection and analysis.
Ethical considerations, Institutional Research Board approval, and the dissertation’s originality
score were also discussed.
The purpose of the study is to help separate student attitudes towards the general
notion of free speech from attitudes towards the acceptability of specific types of speech. A
greater understanding of this separation will allow administrators to better understand why
there may be dissonance between the two concepts, providing an opportunity to create more
effective educational interventions. It will also allow administrators to better anticipate and
explain student reactions to specific types of speech events on campus. For students, it will
provide context as to why it can be so challenging to hold an attitude which supports free
speech, yet not necessarily all speech.