Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Civil Liberties Database
Civil Liberties Database
Civil Liberties Database
————————–
1. Free Speech
(a) Obscenity
I. United States
II. Canada
IV. ECHR
——————–
(b) Pornography
I. United States
(i) American Booksellers v. Hudnut (1985) [Wiki; Case]
II. Canada
IV. ECHR
——————–
I. United States
(i) Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) [Wiki; Case]: Hate speech understood as group
defamation/group libel.
II. Canada
place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead
Case]
IV. ECHR
V. United Kingdom
(i) King v. Osborne (1732) [Summary]: hate speech understood as group defamation.
(i) Denmark: Article 266(b), Penal Code: “publicly or with the intention of dissemination
(ii) Germany: s. 130, German Penal Code: “…incite hatred against segments of the
population or call for violent or arbitrary measures against them in a manner capable
Selected Scholarship:
(i) Stephanie Farrior, Molding the Matrix: The Historical and Theoretical Foundations of
————————-
I. United States
(i) Masses v. Patten (1917) [Wiki; Case]: While Brandenburg v. Ohio is taken to be the
action”, that test was foreshadowed fifty years before by Judge Learned Hand, writing
for the district court, in Masses v. Patten, written at the height of WWI
hysteria. Masses was immediately overruled by the Appeals Court, and although short,
(ii) Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) [Wiki; Case]: Cantwell, a Jehovah’s Witness, standing
recordings of a proselytizing nature, and was booked. The Court made it clear that there
was nothing in Cantwell’s conduct that amounted to traditional torts such as nuisance,
breach of peace, and so on – the only problem was that the effect of his communication
was to offend his hearers. The Court limited breach-of-peace grounded censorship to
“profane, indecent or abusive remarks directed to the person of the hearer“, but nothing
more.
(iii) Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) [Wiki; Case]: This case deals with the “hostile
audience” problem. What happens when a speaker says something that provokes his
audience to violent action? In Terminiello, the Supreme Court came down decisively on
the side of the speaker. Holding invalid the jury instruction to convict the speaker if his
speech “stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or
creates a disturbance“, the Court held that “the function of free speech is to invite
dispute… it best serves its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates
free speech does not permit “the State to make criminal a peaceful expression
of unpopular views.”
(v) Cox v. Louisiana (1965) [Wiki; Case]: Held, again, that as long as the demonstration
itself is peaceful, a violent reaction on part of the hostile audience is no ground for
prohibition.
Relevance to India: A lot of censorship in India takes place because certain groups
threaten violence if films/exhibitions “offensive” to them are put up, and the police
make it clear that if free speech is to mean anything at all, the “heckler’s veto” cannot
answer is to require the forces of law and order to perform their constitutional duty –
(vi) Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) [Wiki; Case]: definitively laid down the test of
action”, and likely to result in such lawless action. This case marked the end of the “clear
and present” danger test, that had been grossly abused during the 1950s witch-hunt of
suspected communists.
public order grounds. Previously, the test had been Justice Holmes’ “clear and present
danger” standard. However, during the McCarthy era in the 50s, this test had been
widely misused in cases such as Denis v. United States to suppress communist party
motivated persecutions of just this sort. Justice Douglas, in his concurrence, compared
the situation to shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre. In India, the public order standard
under 19(2) is extremely unclear. “Clear and present danger” has been cited in a
number of cases (e.g., K.A. Abbas), but so has the expression “spark in a powder keg”
been used, which seems closer to the Brandenburg formulation. In Lohia, direct
advocacy of lawbreaking was held protected under 19(1)(a), since it wasn’t delivered to
an enraged mob, and wasn’t advocating immediate violence. Lohia could thus square
with either “clear and present danger”, or “incitement to imminent lawless action”. In
either event, the law needs clarity, and the Brandenburg formulation would be a good
one to adopt.
(vii) Cohen v. California (1971) [Wiki; Case]: Protesting the Vietnam War, Cohen wore a
jacket with the blazon “Fuck the Draft” outside the courthouse. He was arrested under a
(viii) Texas v. Johnson (1989) [Wiki; Case]: The landmark case that upheld a free
speech right to desecrate (burn) the American flag. Responding to the State’s argument
that it had an interest in preventing breaches of peace that would follow from public
II. Canada
IV. ECHR
———————
I. United States
is higher than the ordinary defamation standard (where falsity is enough), essentially
provides the press with desperately-needed breathing space, and ensures that
journalism will not be chilled for fear of limitless libel lawsuits. Notably, after New York
Times, the American press has never lost a libel lawsuit. In India, with the press under
ceaseless libel attack from powerful figures, this rule (or something like it) is much
needed. It has often been cited by the Court, but never expressly incorporated into law.
(ii) Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) [Wiki; Case]: Effectively extended the
recklessness standard from NYT v. Sullivan from state officials to all “public figures”. In
“It is plain that, although they are not subject to the restraints of the political process,
“public figures,” like “public officials,” often play an influential role in ordering society.
And surely, as a class, these “public figures” have as ready access as “public officials” to
mass media of communication, both to influence policy and to counter criticism of their
views and activities. Our citizenry has a legitimate and substantial interest in the
conduct of such persons, and freedom of the press to engage in uninhibited debate
about their involvement in public issues and events is as crucial as it is in the case of
“public officials.” The fact that they are not amenable to the restraints of the political
process only underscores the legitimate and substantial nature of the interest, since it
means that public opinion may be the only instrument by which society can attempt to
I therefore adhere to the New York Times standard in the case of “public figures” as well
also balances to a proper degree the legitimate interests traditionally protected by the
law of defamation. Its definition of “actual malice” is not so restrictive that recovery is
limited to situations where there is “knowing falsehood” on the part of the publisher of
(iii) Gertz v. Robert Welch (1974) [Wiki; Case]: Held that, for those states where the
defamation standard was lower than the NYT v. Sullivan actual malice rule, only actual
damages could be awarded. The logic was that punitive damages could be used by juries
because many of the recent legal notices and lawsuits (e.g., Sahara, Reliance and the
rest) have involved astronomical punitive damages. Gertz’s logic is jury-specific, and
does not apply to judges, but the overall rationale – that punitive damages have a
II. Canada
IV. ECHR
V. United Kingdom
(i) Derbyshire CC v. Times Newspapers Ltd. (1992) [Case]: In this case, the House of
Lords adopted the NYT v. Sullivan test insofar as governing bodies are concerned; that
is, governing bodies could not sue for libel unless they proved actual malice/reckless
disregard. The Court didn’t extend it to personal claimants arguing damage to reputation
(ii) Defamation Act: In an attempt to find a balance between the absolutist position
in NYT v. Sullivan, and traditional libel law, the United Kingdom passed the Defamation
Act, which came into force on January 1, 2014. The Act is available here. Salient
features include:
————————
I. United States
(ii) Grayned v. Rockford (1972) (Summary; Case): holding that “vague laws may trap
the innocent by not providing fair warning… if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement
is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them… a
vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries
for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary
and discriminatory application… where a vague statute “abut[s] upon sensitive areas of
freedoms.” Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to “steer far wider of the
unlawful zone’ . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.”
Relevance for India: The over-breadth doctrine rests upon two simple premises: first,
that speech-restrictive statutes that are nor narrowly and specifically drawn will
necessarily chill legitimate speech, as people will err on the side of caution, and self-
censor to remain within the bounds of the statute. And secondly, it will prompt selective
particular strictness by Courts. Most of the speech-restrictive Indian laws are arguably
over-broad. Leading the way is, of course, S. 66A of the IT Act, but S. 153A and 295A
of the IPC, and various provisions of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) are
————————-
(g) Gag Orders, Prior Restraints on Publication and the Media
Milton’s Areopagitica remains one of the most powerful and eloquent statements against
prior restraint.
I. United States
(i) Near v. Minnesota ((1931) [Wiki; Case]: The landmark case that rejected prior
restraints altogether upon newspaper. Anthony Lewis called it the “first great press
(ii) New York Times v. US (“Pentagon Papers Case“) (1971) [Wiki; Case]
(iii) Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1972) [Wiki; Case]: holding that prior
restraint, or a gag order on the media, in reporting a case, could be justified only if no
other way existed in order to achieve a fair trial, and that the government hadn’t shown
this (in the context of a murder trial). Prior restraint, the Court held, bore a stringent
addition, “the damage can be particularly great when the prior restraint falls upon the
communication of news and commentary on current events”, for “the element of time is
not unimportant if press coverage is to fulfill its traditional function of bringing news to
the public promptly.” The Court held that the fair-trial justification would only be upheld
if the government could show the “requisite degree of certainty.” Writing the
concurrence, Justice Brennan wrote: “the press may be arrogant, tyrannical, abusive,
and sensationalist, just as it may be incisive, probing, and informative. But at least in
the context of prior restraints on publication, the decision of what, when, and how to
safeguards, including compulsory judicial scrutiny, before a State- run censor board
———————
I. USA
(i) Red Lion v. FCC (1968) [Summary; Case]: Red Lion explains – and upholds – the
“fairness doctrine“, which requires holders of Broadcast Licenses to present both sides of
controversial public issues (in the United States, it was formally revoked in 2011). Red
Lion is important because it framed the issue as a question of the rights of listeners to a
fair and balanced debate, one that would serve the democracy-sustaining values of free
speech.
(ii) Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974) [Wiki; Case]: Refused to extend the Red
(iii) Turner v. FCC (1994) [Wiki; Case]: The Court upheld the constitutionality of must-
carry rules – that is, rules requiring a cable provider to carry locally licensed television
channels. Doing so required it to follow Red Lion and distinguish Tornillo; it did so by
arguing that the monopoly enjoyed by cable providers was exclusionary, and therefore of
a different order than that enjoyed by big newspapers. In the interests of ensuring
opinion from a diverse variety of sources, the must-carry rules were constitutional under
Selected Scholarship:
I. United States
————————————————–
————————————————–
2. Anti-Discrimination
(a) Sex
I. United States
sex-equality jurisprudence (although Feeney goes the other way – but see the
Marshall/Brennan dissent; as does Nguyen – but see the O’Connor et al dissent). Facially
neutral statutes that have a disparate impact on women violate the Constitutional
guarantee of equal protection of laws if such laws are founded upon “stereotypes” about
the role of men and women in society, their capabilities and abilities etc, and thus deny
women legitimate choices and exercise of their autonomy. Notably, this highly
progressive vision of equality was expressly incorporated into Indian law in Anuj Garg. If
particularly regressive laws against women, such as the marital rape exception,
I. United States
(iv) Att-Gen Holder’s letter to Congress explaining the Obama administration’s legal
[Online copy]
(v) United States v. Windsor (2013) [Wiki; Case]: Windsor was about the
American federalism were directly at issue in this case, it is not of direct relevance;
nonetheless, the Court acknowledged that the impugned provision “wrote inequality into
the entire United States Code”, and that it “demeaned” same-sex couples.
(vi) Elane Photography v. Willock (2013) (New Mexico Supreme Court) [Summary;
Case]: In Elane Photography, the Supreme Court of New Mexico held that a photography
shop that denies its services to same-sex couples was in violation of the state anti-
discrimination law.
Relevance to India: This case is important, because it involves a particularly clear and
lucid discussion of the fallacy in differentiating between a person’s “status” and his/her
“conduct”, which was a central aspect of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Koushal v.
Naz. Elane Photography (following Lawrence v. Texas) clearly holds that “conduct… is
———————————————————–
———————————————————–
3. Freedom of Religion/Conscience
I. United States
I. United States