RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE LAW OF DEFAMATION IN BANGLADESH: FINDING A BALANCE

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdur Rahman Khan
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The Law

Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cécile Laborde ◽  
Aurélia Bardon
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Religious Symbols ◽  
Secular Education ◽  
The Law ◽  
Structural Architecture

There is already an important literature on religion and political philosophy, focusing especially on controversies about religious symbols, freedom of speech, or secular education. The introduction explains the distinctive approach of the volume. Instead of focusing on specific political controversies, the book explores the conceptual, structural architecture of liberal political philosophy itself. The authors distinguish four different themes: the special status of religion in the law; state sovereignty, non-establishment, and neutrality; accommodation and religious freedom; and toleration, conscience, and identity. The chapter explains the particular questions raised in each of these four themes, and briefly presents the twenty-two contributions gathered in the volume.

On the question about opposition to the information component aggression of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
pp. 59-63
Author(s):  
O. Vasylchenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
State Committee ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

Ukrainian law guarantees freedom of speech and expression. This is in line with international and regional instruments (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Declaration of Human Rights) to which Ukraine is a party. Unfortunately, Ukraine is no exception, due to the conflict with the Russian Federation. The Revolution of Dignity of 2014 and the subsequent illegal activities of the neighbouring state (annexation of Crimea, occupation of the territories in the South-East of Ukraine) affected the legislative and regulatory framework of Ukraine regarding freedom of speech and freedom of expression. In order to counter aggression, the state has adopted a number of laws aimed at counteracting foreign interference in broadcasting and ensuring Ukraine’s information sovereignty. The implementation of these laws has been criticized for being seen by NGOs as imposing restrictions on freedom of expression and expression. However, censorship and selfcensorship create another serious restriction on freedom of speech and the press. The Law on Transparency of Mass Media Ownership, adopted in 2015, provides for the disclosure of information on the owners of final beneficiaries (controllers), and in their absence – on all owners and members of a broadcasting organization or service provider. In 2019, Ukraine adopted a law on strengthening the role of the Ukrainian language as the state language, which provides for language quotas for the media. According to the Law on Language, only 10% of total film adaptations can be in a language other than Ukrainian. Ukraine has adopted several laws in the field of information management to counter foreign influence and propaganda. According to the report of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, for the period from January 1, 2017 to February 14, 2018, the State Committee banned 30 books published in the Russian Federation. Thus, for the first time faced with the need to wage an “invisible” war on the information front, Ukraine was forced to take seriously the regulation of the media and the market. By imposing a number of restrictions on a product that can shake sovereignty and increase the authority of the aggressor in the eyes of citizens, the legislator, guided by the needs of society, also contributes to the promotion of Ukrainian (for example, by introducing quotas).

Shielding Members of Parliament Against Court Summons

2021 ◽  
pp. 210-229
Author(s):  
Mark Asante ◽  
Thomas Prehi Botchway
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Modern Democracy ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
General Law ◽  
Legal Case ◽  
The Law

Immunities, though part of the law of the land, are to a certain extent an exemption from the general law. Certain rights and immunities such as freedom of speech belong primarily to individual members of parliament and exist because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members. Ostensibly, the degree to which members of parliament are immune from legal inquiry may presumably accord them greater probability to abuse their mandate. In general, a court summons is the beginning of a legal case. It signals the issue that needs to be adjudicated. However, the introduction of immunity invalidates some tenets of modern democracy such as a court summons. The authors seek to examine some of the uncertainties and ambiguities that might have arisen out of the court decision in the case Republic v Mahama Ayariga with much consideration of other cases. The chapter provides a thorough picture of the systems of parliamentary immunity and recommends ways of curbing observed challenges with the practice.

scholarly journals Celebrating the Secular

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 202-206
Author(s):  
Amanda Lohrey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Good Thing ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Moral Vision ◽  
Freedom Of Conscience ◽  
Thing In Itself ◽  
The Law

On 4 November 2004 I read a report in the Sydney Morning Herald that I found genuinely shocking, a statement by Cardinal George Pell, of the Catholic diocese of Sydney, on what’s wrong with democracy. This report was of a speech given to the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in the United States. In it, Dr Pell told his audience that liberal democracy is a world of ‘empty secularism’ that is over-focused on ‘individual autonomy’. The problem with democracy, said the Cardinal, quoting John Paul II, is that it is not a good thing in itself; its value depends on the moral vision that it serves, and a secular democracy is lacking in moral vision. If democracy is not a good thing in and of itself, then why have we sent troops to Iraq to enable it? And what about the principle of equality before the law? Freedom of conscience? Freedom of speech and of action? Responsibility for community? Sounds like a moral vision to me.

scholarly journals Na autorytarnym kursie

Politeja ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (6(75)) ◽  
pp. 199-217
Author(s):  
Konrad Kołodziejski
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Economic Situation ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Social Activities ◽  
Complete Elimination ◽  
Public Meetings ◽  
Civic Activity ◽  
Legal Restriction ◽  
The Law

An Authoritarian Course: The Restriction of Civil Rights in Russia after 2012 This article regards the issue of Russian civil rights legislation, which has become very repressive after 2012. It focuses on legal restriction of all political and social activities that are beyond the control of the authorities, in particular the freedom of public meetings. Another goal of the Kremlin's repressive policy is the Internet, which has become the only space for freedom of speech in Russia. The new legislation tries to prevent this by two mechanisms: censorship and self-censorship. The consistent restriction of freedom of speech in Russia proves the growing anxiety of the ruling group, which fears that in the conditions of the deteriorating economic situation, it may lose control over public mood. The analysis of the legislation against civil rights in Russia shows that in recent years the scope of these rights has been constantly reduced. This leads to the conclusion that the main goal of the discussed changes in the law is the complete elimination of independent civic activity perceived as one of the main threats to the authorities.

scholarly journals KEDUDUKAN DISSENTING OPINION DALAM PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-217
Author(s):  
Dewi Ratnasari Rustam
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Difference

Dissenting opinion is the difference of opinion between the Tribunal judges who handle certain a matter with other judges of the Tribunal dealing with certain cases. Dissenting opinion does not have the force of law because it cannot be the Foundation for the inception of the award. Dissenting opinion itself is an aspect of the law that need to be examined in order to prevent the formation of false opinion among the public. So, nowadays have started to formed the perception that dissenting opinion was an engineering law, instead of enforcing the rule of law but rather media that gave the opportunity for the defendant in corruption regardless of criminal trapping; but on the other hand is a form of difference of opinion and the independence of the judges as the metre is guaranteed by the provisions of the law; that the importance of dissenting opinion in the Court ruling was the judge's opinion be weighted, in an attempt of law appeal or cassation; as an indicator to determine the career judge, as an attempt to avoid the practice of corruption, Collusion and Nepotism (KKN) and the judicial mafia; as a real step towards the transparency of judicial democratization; the judiciary; and kemandiarian the judge require the freedom of speech.

scholarly journals Odpowiedzialność usługodawcy za udostępnianie w internetowych serwisach społecznościowych treści przestępnych związanych z publicznym propagowaniem faszystowskiego lub innego totalitarnego ustroju państwa według projektu ustawy o ochronie wolności słowa w

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-512
Author(s):  
Anastazja Kołodziej
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Service Provider ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Law

Having in mind the Law on the Provision of Electronic Services, the article presents selected issues in the field of strict liability of the service provider in the form of administrative penalties for publishing on social media criminal content or content that is related to it, in the form of praising or exhorting to commit the crime prohibited under Art. 256 of the Penal Code according to the Draft of the Law on the Protection of Freedom of Speech on Social Media. It presents selected issues concerning inaccuracies and imprecise definitions of the notions of service provider, user, and illegal content, especially in the context of content that does not exhaust the features of a prohibited act under Art. 256 of the Penal Code. It describes also the procedure to be followed in the event of the user’s complaint about blocking their content, profile or a complaint about disseminating illegal content. The author concludes that the assessment of illegal content that does not exhaust the features of a crime under Art. 256 of the Penal Code, but is related to it, in the form of praising or exhorting to commit it, will belong to the Freedom of Speech Committee. Additionally, the regulations of the Law on the Provision of Electronic Services and the Draft of the Law on the Protection of Freedom of Speech on Social Media are inconsistent because, on one hand, after the so-called flagging of the content on social media, the service provider is obliged to remove illegal content (Art. 14 of the Law on the Provision of Electronic Services), while, on the other hand, according to the commented draft of the law, he is exposed to proceedings before the Freedom of Speech Committee and its arbitrary classification of content as legal or illegal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document