HM-321-A

SOCIOLOGY

Should Freedom of Expression Have

Limitations, and What Can They Be?

Name: Hassan Arif Afridi

Reg No.: 2021393

Section: A
Introduction
Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, enshrined in various international legal
instruments, including Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United
Nations, 1948). It is the cornerstone of democratic societies, allowing for the exchange of
ideas, fostering dialogue, and contributing to social and political development. However, this
freedom is not absolute and can be subject to limitations. The critical question then arises:
should freedom of expression have limitations, and what can they be? This essay explores the
necessity of imposing restrictions on freedom of expression and discusses potential
limitations that could be considered legitimate under specific circumstances.

The Necessity of Limitations

Protection of Rights and Reputations

One of the primary reasons for limiting freedom of expression is to protect the rights and
reputations of others. Defamation laws, for instance, restrict speech to prevent harm to
individuals' reputations caused by false statements. The European Court of Human Rights has
consistently held that the right to freedom of expression does not extend to protect
defamatory statements (Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 1976). Thus, limitations are
necessary to balance the right to freedom of expression with the protection of individuals'
rights and reputations.

National Security

Another area where limitations on freedom of expression are deemed necessary is in the
interest of national security. Speech that incites violence, terrorism, or poses a significant
threat to the security of a state may be legitimately restricted. The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) acknowledges that freedom of expression may be subject
to certain restrictions, provided they are "necessary to protect national security or of public
order" (Article 19(3), ICCPR, 1966).

Hate Speech and Discrimination

Limitations on freedom of expression are also justified to prevent hate speech and
discrimination. Speech that incites hatred, discrimination, or violence against individuals
based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation undermines the principles of
equality and dignity. International human rights bodies, including the United Nations
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, have called for the prohibition of
hate speech (General Recommendation No. 35, 2013).

Potential Limitations
Clear and Present Danger Test

One potential limitation is the "clear and present danger" test, which permits restrictions on
speech if it is likely to result in immediate harm or illegal activities. This principle,
established in Schenck v. United States (1919), allows for a balancing act between freedom
of expression and public safety.

The Principle of Proportionality

The principle of proportionality is another potential limitation. It requires that restrictions on

freedom of expression must be appropriate, necessary, and the least restrictive means to
achieve a legitimate aim. This principle ensures that limitations do not unduly infringe upon
the right to free speech (Article 19, ICCPR, 1966).

Moral and Public Order Exceptions

Exceptions related to morality and public order may also be considered legitimate limitations.
However, these exceptions must be narrowly defined and applied in a manner that respects
the essence of the right to freedom of expression. They should not be used as a pretext for
suppressing dissent or unpopular views (Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 1976).

Conclusion
While freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and can be subject to
limitations. Limitations are necessary to protect the rights and reputations of others, ensure
national security, and prevent hate speech and discrimination. However, any restriction must
be provided by law, serve a legitimate aim, and be necessary in a democratic society. By
adhering to principles such as the "clear and present danger" test, proportionality, and
narrowly defined exceptions, societies can strike a balance between safeguarding freedom of
expression and protecting other vital interests.

References
 Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 5493/72 (European Court of Human Rights,
1976).
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (1966).
 Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
 United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). General
Assembly Resolution 217 A.
 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. (2013).
General Recommendation No. 35: Combating Racist Hate Speech.