Jump to content

Freedom of speech by country: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
added extra cat;Bangladesh fundamental rights.
Tags: Replaced Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Main article|Human rights in
{{about|freedom of speech in specific jurisdictions|the concept itself|Freedom of speech}}
Bangladesh}}
[[Freedom of speech]] is the concept of the inherent [[human rights|human right]] to voice one's opinion [[In public|publicly]] without fear of [[censorship]] or [[punishment]]. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the [[United Nations]] [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with relatively [[Authoritarianism|authoritarian]] forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms (see [[propaganda model]]) and there are different approaches to issues such as [[hate speech]], [[obscenity]], and [[defamation]] laws even in countries seen as [[liberal democracy|liberal democracies]].
{{see also|Laws in Bangladesh}}

Under chapter III of the [http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/sections_detail.php?id=367&sections_id=24587 Fundamental rights in Bangladesh]
{{TOC limit |limit=4}}
The [[Constitution of Bangladesh|Bangladesh constitution]] ostensibly guarantees

freedom of speech to every citizen.
==International law==
accroding to '''PART III''' of the [[Laws in Bangladesh]]<br>
{{Wikisource|Universal Declaration of Human Rights}}
Bangladesh constitution states that:
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides, in Article 19, that:
<blockquote>All the citizens shall have the following right
<blockquote>Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/217(III)&Lang=E|format=pdf|language=English, French|title=Universal Declaration of Human Rights|author=General Assembly of the United Nations|pages=4–5|accessdate=2007-05-06|date=1948-12-10}}</ref></blockquote>
*39. (1) Freedom of thought and conscience

is guaranteed.
Technically, as a resolution of the [[United Nations General Assembly]] rather than a treaty, it is not legally binding in its entirety on members of the UN. Furthermore, whilst some of its provisions are considered to form part of [[customary international law]], there is dispute as to which. Freedom of speech is granted unambiguous protection in international law by the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] which is binding on around 150 nations.
*(2) Subject to any reasonable restrictions

imposed by law in the interests of the
In adopting the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Australia and the Netherlands insisted on reservations to Article 19 insofar as it might be held to affect their systems of regulating and licensing broadcasting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/4_1.htm |title=List of Declarations and Reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights |author=Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights |accessdate=2007-05-06 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070122093223/http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/4_1.htm |archivedate=2007-01-22 |deadurl=yes |df= }}</ref>
security of the State, friendly relations with

foreign states, public order, decency or
==Africa==
morality, or in relation to contempt of court,
[[File:Vigil Zimbabwe Embassy London 20050604.jpg|thumb|right|Protesters use freedom of speech to hold a vigil in front of the Zimbabwean Embassy in London, 2005.]]
defamation or incitement to an offence–
The majority of African constitutions provide legal protection for freedom of speech. However, these rights are exercised inconsistently in practice. The replacement of authoritarian regimes in Kenya and Ghana has substantially improved the situation in those countries. On the other hand, Eritrea allows no independent media and uses draft evasion as a pretext to crack down on any dissent, spoken or otherwise. One of the poorest and smallest nations in Africa, Eritrea is now the largest prison for journalists; since 2001, fourteen journalists have been imprisoned in unknown places without a trial. Sudan, Libya, and Equatorial Guinea also have repressive laws and practices. In addition, many state radio stations (which are the primary source of news for illiterate people) are under tight control and programs, especially talk shows providing a forum to complain about the government, are often censored.
*(a) the right of every citizen to freedom of
Also countries like Somalia and Egypt provide legal protection for freedom of speech but it is not used publicly.
speech and expression; and

*(b) freedom of the press, are guaranteed.
See also: [[Censorship in Algeria]], [[Censorship in Tunisia]].
'''''These rights are not to affect:'''''

# Laws inconsistent with fundamental
===South Africa===
rights to be void (Article-26)
In light of South Africa's racial and discriminatory history, particularly the [[Apartheid]] era, the [[Constitution of the Republic of South Africa]] of 1996 precludes expression that is tantamount to the advocacy of hatred based on some listed grounds.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/downloads/Freedom%20of%20Expression.doc|format=doc|accessdate=2007-05-06|title=Freedom of Expression|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20070614102820/http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/downloads/Freedom%20of%20Expression.doc|archivedate = 2007-06-14}}</ref> Freedom of speech and expression are both protected and limited by a section in the [[South African Bill of Rights]], chapter 2 of the Constitution. Section 16 makes the following provisions:
# Equality before law (Article-27)

# Discrimination on grounds of religion,
16. Freedom of expression
etc. (Article-28)

# Equality of opportunity in public
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
employment (Article-29)

#Prohibition of foreign titles, etc. (Article-30)
:a. freedom of the press and other media;
# Right to protection of law (Article-31)

# Protection of right to life and personal
:b. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
liberty (Article-32)

# Safeguards as to arrest and detention
:c. freedom of artistic creativity; and
(Article-33)

# Prohibition of forced labour (Article-34)
:d. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
# Protection in respect of trial and

punishment (Article-35)
2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to
# Freedom of movement (Article-36)

# Freedom of assembly (Article-37)
:a. propaganda for war;
# Freedom of association (Article-38)

# Freedom of thought and conscience ,
:b. incitement of imminent violence; or
and of speech (Article-39)

#Freedom of profession or occupation (Article-40)
:c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
# Freedom of religion (Article-41)

# Rights of property (Article-42)
In 2005, the [[South African Constitutional Court]] set an international precedent in the case of ''Laugh It Off Promotions CC v South African Breweries International'' when it found that the small [[culture jamming]] company Laugh-it-Off's right to freedom of expression outweighs the protection of trademark of the world's second largest brewery.<ref>''Laugh It Off Promotions CC v South African Breweries International (Finance) BV t/a SabMark International (Freedom of Expression Institute as Amicus Curiae)'' 2006 (1) SA 144 (CC)s http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2005/7.html</ref>
# Protection of home and correspondence (Article-43)

# Enforcement of fundamental rights (Article-44)
=== Sudan ===
# Modification of rights in respect of
[[Blasphemy]] against religion is illegal in Sudan under [[Blasphemy laws]].<ref>{{cite news |author=Terri Judy|title=Teacher held for teddy bear 'blasphemy'|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/teacher-held-for-teddy-bear-blasphemy-760590.html|publisher=[[The Independent]]|location=London|date=2007-11-27}}</ref>
disciplinary law (Article-45)

# Power to provide indemnity (Article-46)
===Tunisia===
# Saving for certain laws (Article-47)
Despite the Tunisian revolution that led the Arab Spring, freedom of speech is still a controversial issue and a subject of uncertainty. Artists, journalists, and citizens still face many kinds of harassment when they try to express their ideas freely. Making things more complicated is a lack of experience and traditions in the field of free speech on the part of Tunisian justice and judges.{{citation needed|date=June 2013}}
# Inapplicability of certain articles (Article-47A)

On 13 June 2013 Tunisian Rapper, [[Alaa Yacoubi]] (aka "Weld El 15"), was imprisoned and given a two-year jail sentence because his song "El boulisia Kleb" ("Cops Are Dogs") was considered an incitement to violence and hatred. The court judgement was the subject of an appeal and the decision was announced for 2 July 2013, while Alaa Yaacoubi remains in prison.<ref>[http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/afrique/tunisie-le-verdict-du-proces-en-appel-du-rappeur-weld-el-15-reporte-au-2-juillet_1260923.html "Tunisie: le verdict du procès en appel du rappeur Weld El 15 reporté au 2 juillet"] ([https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lexpress.fr%2Factualite%2Fmonde%2Fafrique%2Ftunisie-le-verdict-du-proces-en-appel-du-rappeur-weld-el-15-reporte-au-2-juillet_1260923.html "Tunisia: the verdict on the appeal of rapper Weld El 15 postponed to July 2"]), Fethi Belaid, ''L'Express'' (AFP), 25 June 2013</ref>

==Asia==
Several Asian countries provide formal legal guarantees of freedom of speech to their citizens. These are not, however, implemented in practice in some countries. Barriers to freedom of speech are common and vary drastically between [[ASEAN]] countries. They include the use of brutal force in cracking down on bloggers in [[Burma]], [[Vietnam]] and [[Cambodia]], Les Majeste in [[Thailand]], the use of libel and internal security laws in [[Singapore]] and [[Malaysia]], and the killing of journalists in the [[Philippines]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Freedom of expression in Asean |author=Harry Roque Jr. |date=7 November 2013 |url=http://manilastandardtoday.com/2013/11/07/freedom-of-expression-in-asean/ |accessdate=8 November 2013 |publisher=Manila Standard Today }}</ref> Freedom of expression is significantly limited in China and North Korea.<ref>[http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/asia-and-the-pacific "Asia and the Pacific Human Rights"], Amnesty International. Retrieved 8 November 2013.</ref> Freedom of speech has improved in Myanmar in recent years, but significant challenges remain.<ref>[http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/07/burma-freedom-of-expression-media/ "Burma: Freedom of expression in transition"], Mike Harris, Index on Censorship, July 2013. Retrieved 8 November 2013.</ref> There is no clear correlation between legal and constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and actual practices among Asian nations.

===Hong Kong===
Under "Chapter III: Fundamental Rights and Duties of the Residents" ({{lang|zh-hk|第三章: 居民的基本權利和義務}}) of the [[Hong Kong Basic Law]]:<ref>{{cite web |title=Chapter III : Fundamental Rights and Duties of the Residents |url=http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/text/en/basiclawtext/chapter_3.html |work=The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China |date=July 13, 2012 |accessdate=September 26, 2014 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Chapter III : Fundamental Rights and Duties of the Residents |url=http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/text/tc/basiclawtext/chapter_3.html }}</ref>
: Article 27: Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.
: {{lang|zh-hk|第二十七條: 香港居民享有言論、新聞、出版的自由，結社、集會、遊行、示威的自由，組織和參加工會、罷工的權利和自由。}}

: Article 30: The freedom and privacy of communication of Hong Kong residents shall be protected by law. No department or individual may, on any grounds, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of communication of residents except that the relevant authorities may inspect communication in accordance with legal procedures to meet the needs of public security or of investigation into criminal offences.
: {{lang|zh-hk|第三十條: 香港居民的通訊自由和通訊秘密受法律的保護。除因公共安全和追查刑事犯罪的需要，由有關機關依照法律程序對通訊進行檢查外，任何部門或個人不得以任何理由侵犯居民的通訊自由和通訊秘密。}}

===India===
{{Main article|Freedom of press in India}}
{{See also|Censorship in India}}
The [[Indian Constitution]] ostensibly guarantees freedom of speech to every citizen, but itself allows significant restrictions. In India, citizens are free to criticize government, politics, politicians, bureaucracy and policies. However, speech can be restricted on grounds of security, morality, and incitement. There have been landmark cases in the [[Indian Supreme Court]] that have affirmed the nation's policy of allowing free press and freedom of expression to every citizen, with other cases in which the Court has upheld restrictions on freedom of speech and of the press. Article 19 of the [[Constitution of India|Indian constitution]] states that:

<blockquote>All citizens shall have the right —
# to freedom of speech and expression;
# to assemble peaceably and without arms;
# to form associations or unions;
# to move freely throughout the territory of India;
# to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
# to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.<ref name=Title19>{{cite web |url=http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/Art1-242%20(1-88).doc |title=19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. |work=The Constitution of India|date=1949-11-26|pages=8|format=doc|accessdate=2007-05-06}}</ref>

These rights are limited so as not to affect:
:*The integrity of India
:*The security of the State
:*Friendly relations with foreign States
:*Public order
:*Decency or morality
:*Contempt of court
:*Defamation or incitement to an offence<ref name=Title19 />
</blockquote>

Freedom of speech is restricted by the [[National Security Act (India)|National Security Act of 1980]] and in the past, by the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) of 2001, the [[Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act]] (TADA) from 1985 to 1995, and similar measures. Freedom of speech is also restricted by Section 124A of the [[Indian Penal Code|Indian Penal Code, 1860]] which deals with [[sedition]] and makes any speech or expression which brings contempt towards government punishable by imprisonment extending from three years to life.<ref>[http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianpenalcode/S124A.htm "Section 124A - Sedition"], Indian Penal Code, 1860, VakilNo1.com</ref> In 1962 the Supreme Court of India held this section to be constitutionally valid in the case ''Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar''.<ref>[http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/111867/ ''Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar on 20 January, 1962''], 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769, indiankanoon.org</ref>

===Bangladesh===
===Indonesia===
[[Blasphemy law in Indonesia|Blasphemy against religion is illegal in Indonesia]] under blasphemy laws.<ref name="US2009">{{cite web | title = Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom May 2009 | work = Indonesia | publisher = [[United States Commission on International Religious Freedom]] | date = May 2009 | url = http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/indonesia.pdf | accessdate = 2009-06-24 | deadurl = yes | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090508193759/http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/indonesia.pdf | archivedate = 2009-05-08 | df = }}</ref>

In some cases in Indonesia to criticize the government by mentioning a name of government administration is still considered wrong.{{Citation needed|date=May 2017}}

=== Iran ===
{{main article|Freedom of speech in Iran}}
Blasphemy against Islam is illegal in Iran.<ref>{{cite web|title=Iran Report |work=Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2009 |date=May 2009 |url=http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/iran.pdf |accessdate=6 July 2009 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090508182312/http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/iran.pdf |archivedate=8 May 2009 |df= }}</ref>

According to the Press Freedom Index for 2007, Iran ranked 166th out of 169 nations. Only three other countries – [[Eritrea]], [[North Korea]], and [[Turkmenistan]] - had more restrictions on news media freedom than Iran.<ref name=RWB_2007index>{{cite web |url=http://en.rsf.org/eritrea-ranked-last-for-first-time-16-10-2007,24025 |title=Eritrea ranked last for first time while G8 members, except Russia, recover lost ground |work=Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2007 |publisher=Reporters Without Borders |date=19 October 2007}}</ref> The government of [[Ali Khamenei]] and the [[Supreme National Security Council]] imprisoned 50 journalists in 2007 and all but eliminated press freedom.<ref>{{cite web |work=World Press Freedom Review 2007 |title=Overview of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA): Repression Revisited |first=Catherine |last=Power |publisher=[[International Press Institute]] |url=http://service.cms.apa.at/cms/ipi/freedom_detail.html?ctxid=CH0056&docid=CMS1210003883133 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130605110550/http://service.cms.apa.at/cms/ipi/freedom_detail.html?ctxid=CH0056&docid=CMS1210003883133 |archive-date=5 June 2013|access-date=28 January 2016|quote=nine journalists remain in prison at year's end and the opposition press has all but been quashed through successive closure orders}}</ref> Reporters Without Borders (RWB) has dubbed Iran the "Middle East's biggest prison for journalists."<ref name=RWB_Iran>{{cite web |url=http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,RSF,ANNUALREPORT,IRN,,47b418d6c,0.html |title=Iran Report|work=Annual report 2008 |publisher=Reporters Without Borders |date=13 February 2008}}</ref>

===Israel===
{{see also|Freedom of speech in Israel}}
On 11 July 2011, the [[Knesset]] passed a law making it a civil offence to publicly [[:wikt:call for|call for]] a [[Boycotts of Israel|boycott against Israel]],<ref name="lis2011">{{cite news|first=Jonathan|last=Lis|title=Israel passes law banning calls for boycott|publisher=[[Haaretz]]|date=11 July 2011|url=http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-passes-law-banning-calls-for-boycott-1.372711}}</ref> defined as "deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with another person or another factor only because of his ties with the State of Israel, one of its institutions or an area under its control, in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic damage".<ref>{{cite news|title=Stephen Hawking joins academic boycott of Israel|first1=Harriet|last1=Sherwood|first2=Matthew|last2=Kalman|date=8 May 2013|work=[[The Guardian]]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/08/stephen-hawking-israel-academic-boycott}}</ref> According to the law anyone calling for a boycott can be sued and forced to pay compensation, regardless of actual damages.<ref name="lis2011"/> At the discretion of a government minister, they may also be prevented from bidding in government tenders.<ref name="lis2011"/>
In a survey of Israelis conducted in 2014, the Israeli Democracy Institute found that 46% of Israelis believe that "harsh, public criticism" of Israel should be outlawed.<ref>[http://en.idi.org.il/events/democracy-index/presentation-of-the-2014-israeli-democracy-index/] "Israeli Democracy Institute (January 2015)"</ref>

===Japan===
{{see also|Human rights in Japan#Freedom of speech and press}}
Freedom of speech is guaranteed by Chapter III, Article 21 of the Japanese constitution.<ref name=kantei>[http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html "The Constitution of Japan"], Cabinet Secretariat, Cabinet Public Relations Office, 3 November 1946, retrieved 16 March 2013</ref> There are few exemptions to this right and a very broad spectrum of opinion is tolerated by the media and authorities.{{citation needed|date=September 2014}}

Article 21:<ref name=kantei/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/etc/j01.html |title=Constitution of Japan |trans-title=日本国憲法 |language=Japanese |access-date=September 27, 2014 |work=National Diet Library }}</ref>
<blockquote>{{nihongo|Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed.|集会、結社及び言論、出版その他一切の表現の自由は、これを保障する。}}<br />{{nihongo|No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated.|検閲は、これをしてはならない。通信の秘密は、これを侵してはならない。}}</blockquote>

===Malaysia===
{{See also|Censorship in Malaysia}}
In May 2008, the Prime Minister of Malaysia Datuk Seri [[Abdullah Ahmad Badawi]] put forward a headline "Media should practice voluntary self-censorship",<ref>[http://thestaronline.tv/default.aspx?vid=1417 TheStarOnline.tv] {{Dead link|date=January 2018}}</ref> saying there is no such thing as unlimited freedom and the media should not be abashed of "voluntary self-censorship" to respect cultural norms, different societies hold different values and while it might be acceptable in secular countries to depict a caricature of Muhammad, it was clearly not the case here. "It is not a moral or media sin to respect prophets". He said the government also wanted the media not to undermine racial and religious harmony to the extent that it could threaten national security and public order. "I do not see these laws as curbs on freedom. Rather, they are essential for a healthy society."<ref>[http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/27/nation/20080527164857&sec=nation Thestar.com.my] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080715071609/http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2008%2F5%2F27%2Fnation%2F20080527164857&sec=nation |date=2008-07-15 }}</ref>

===Pakistan===
Articles 19 of the [[Constitution of Pakistan]] guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of the press with certain restrictions.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part2.ch1.html|title=The Constitution of Pakistan|publisher=pakistani.org}}</ref> Blasphemy against Islam is illegal in Pakistan. Military establishment is even more powerful when it comes to censorship in Pakistan, since all the state machinery is under its control.<ref name="Pak2009">{{cite web|title=Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom May 2009 |work=Pakistan |publisher=[[United States Commission on International Religious Freedom]] |date=May 2009 |url=http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/pakistan.pdf |accessdate=2009-06-24 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090508182340/http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/pakistan.pdf |archivedate=2009-05-08 |df= }}</ref><ref>The relevant articles of Pakistan penal code against "Blasphemy 1) Religion 2) Quran 3) Prophets of Allah" are 295 (a), (b) and (c).</ref>{{Contradiction inline|date=July 2015}}

===People's Republic of China (mainland)===
{{See also|Censorship in the People's Republic of China}}

Article 35 of the [[Constitution of the People's Republic of China]] claims that:

<blockquote>English:- Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://english.people.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html |title=Chapter II. The Fundamental Rights and duties of Citizens |work=Constitution of the People's Republic of China |accessdate=2007-05-12 |date=1982-12-04}}</ref><br />Chinese: {{lang|zh-hans|中华人民共和国公民有言论、出版、集会、结社、示威的自由。}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2004/content_62714.htm |script-title=zh:中华人民共和国宪法 |trans-title=Constitution of the People's Republic of China |language=Chinese |accessdate=September 26, 2014 |work=The Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China }}</ref></blockquote>

There is heavy government involvement in the media, with many of the largest media organizations being run by the Communist-Party-led government. References to [[democracy]], the free Tibet movement, [[Taiwan]] as an independent country, the [[Tiananmen Square Massacre]], the [[2014 Hong Kong protests]], the [[Arab Spring]], certain religious organizations and anything questioning the legitimacy of the [[Communist Party of China]] are banned from use in public and blocked on the [[Internet]].
Web portals including [[Microsoft]]'s [[MSN]] have come under criticism for aiding in these practices, including banning the word "democracy" from its chat-rooms in China.

Social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat are banned as a whole and books and foreign films are subject to active censorship.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Riley|first1=Charles|title=Banned! 8 things you won't find in China|url=http://money.cnn.com/gallery/technology/2014/12/30/banned-china-8/7.html|website=CNN Money|accessdate=3 April 2015}}</ref> The biggest search engine, Google however, was unbanned on the 25th anniversary of the massacre of Tiananmen Square. However, usage is still limited. Beijing has also lifted bans on foreign websites within the Shanghai free trade zone. Its censorship tactics vary from relatively moderate way of using monitoring systems and firewalls to an extreme end of jailing journalists, bloggers, and activists, as we can see from the recent example of the jailed Chinese activist [[Liu Xiaobo]].<ref>{{cite web|last1=Xu|first1=Beina|title=Media Censorship in China|url=http://www.cfr.org/china/media-censorship-china/p11515|website=Council on Foreign Relations|accessdate=3 April 2015}}</ref> Although China’s constitution deals with citizens’ freedom of speech, the language has been vague, thus giving more space for the government’s arbitrary and unilateral judgements. For example, according to the Article 5 of the “Computer Information Network and Internet Security, Protection and Management Regulations,” issued by the Ministry of Public Safety in 1997, it states:<ref>{{cite web|title=Freedom of Expression and the Internet in China|url=https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/asia/china-bck-0701.htm|website=A Human Rights Watch Backgrounder}}</ref>
<blockquote>No unit or individual may use the Internet to create, replicate, retrieve, or transmit the following kinds of information:
# Inciting to resist or violate the Constitution or laws or the implementation of administrative regulations;
# Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system;
# Inciting division of the country, harming national unification;
# Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalists or harming the unity of the nationalities;
# Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, spreading rumours, destroying the order of society;
# Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material, gambling, violence, murder;
# Engaging in terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people;
# Injuring the reputation of state organs;
# Other activities against the Constitution, laws or administrative regulations.</blockquote>

In January 2013, hundreds of protesters gathered in front of the headquarters of ''Southern Weekly'' after Guangdong's propaganda chief, Tuo Zhen, allegedly rewrote the newspaper's New Year's editorial entitled "China's Dream/ The Dream of Constitution(中国梦，宪政梦)," which called for constitutional reform to better guarantee individual citizens' rights.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Chao|first1=Steve|title=China's 'Freedom of Speech' Standoff|url=http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/asia/chinas-freedom-speech-standoff|accessdate=3 April 2015|publisher=Al Jazeera|date=7 January 2013}}</ref> This is seen, though small, as a victory for press freedom in China; it was the largest and most open protest for free speech in China in decades and the result itself favoured the press, the Guangdong propaganda ministry agreeing not to directly intervene in editorial decisions.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Stokols|first1=Andrew|title=China Free Speech: Protests in Guangzhou Are a Small Win for Press Freedom|url=http://mic.com/articles/22670/china-free-speech-protests-in-guangzhou-are-a-small-win-for-press-freedom|website=Policy.Mic|accessdate=4 April 2015}}</ref>

=== Philippines ===

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.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20071205235342/http://www.gov.ph/aboutphil/RA8491.asp Republic Act No. 8491: An Act Prescribing the Code of the National Flag, Anthem, Motto, Coat-of-Arms and Other Heraldic Items and Devices of the Philippines], approved February 12, 1998, Government of the Republic of the Philippines.</ref>
* 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."<ref name="UNRightsPanel-Jan2012">[https://archive.is/20120804073520/http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/top-stories/16100-libel-law-violates-freedom-of-expression--un-rights-panel Libel law violates freedom of expression – UN rights panel], Frank Lloyd Tiongson, ''The Manila Times'', 30 January 2012.</ref><ref>[http://www.interaksyon.com/article/23051/unhrc-philippine-criminal-libel-law-violates-freedom-of-expression "UNHRC: Philippine criminal libel law violates freedom of expression"], InterAksyon (TV5, Manila), 28 January 2012.</ref>
* Blasphemy against decency and good customs is an offense which is punishable by a prison term, a fine, or both.<ref>[http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/229410/news/nation/blasphemy-a-un-guaranteed-human-right-phl-group-says "Blasphemy a UN-guaranteed human right, PHL group says"], Paterno Esmaquel II, ''GMA News'', 14 August 14, 2011</ref> 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.<ref>[https://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/PHL_revised_penal_code.pdf "Articles 200 and 201, Chapter Two of Title Six: Offenses Against Decency and Good Customs"], ''The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines'', Government of the Philippines</ref>

=== Saudi Arabia ===
Blasphemy against Islam is illegal in Saudi Arabia, under punishment of death.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.uscirf.gov/countries-and-issues/middle-east/saudi-arabia|title=Saudi Arabia|date=6 February 2008|website=United States Commission on International Religious Freedom|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref>

===South Korea===
{{further information|Censorship in South Korea}}
The South Korean constitution guarantees freedom of speech, press, petition and assembly for its nationals. However, behaviors or speeches in favor of the North Korean regime or communism can be punished by the [[National Security Act (South Korea)|National Security Law]], though in recent years prosecutions under this law have been rare.

There is a strict election law that takes effect a few months before elections which prohibits most speech that either supports or criticizes a particular candidate or party. One can be prosecuted for political parodies and even for wearing a particular color (usually the color of a party).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://freeinternet.or.kr/maybbs/showview.php?db=freeinternet&code=decla&n=32&page=&hl=ko&ie=UTF8&sl=ko&tl=en|title=Google 번역|website=translate.Google.com|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref>

The UN Human Rights Commission expressed concerns about South Korea's deterioration of online free speech.<ref>{{cite news | first = Nan-yeong (난영) | last = Ryu (류) | script-title=ko:유엔 인권이사회 "한국, 인터넷상 표현의 자유 훼손 심각" | date = 2011-05-31 | url = http://www.newsis.com/ar_detail/view.html?ar_id=NISX20110531_0008339498&cID=10101&pID=10100 | work = Newsis | accessdate = 2011-06-29 | language = Korean}}</ref>

Some activists send [[Balloon campaigns in Korea|leaflets by balloons]] to North Korea. The police has intervened and stopped some of the balloon releases in fear that North Korea may retaliate violently. This has resulted in critical discussion on freedom of expression and its limits due to safety concerns. Officially, the South Korean government insists on activists' right to freedom of expression.<ref name="Guardian2015">{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/apr/08/balloon-activist-sends-thousands-of-copies-of-the-interview-to-north-korea |title=Balloon activist sends 'thousands of copies' of The Interview to North Korea |date=8 April 2015 |website=[[The Guardian]] |publisher= |access-date=28 June 2015}}</ref><ref name="Won-je2015">{{cite web |url=http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/674603.html |title=N. Korean refugee group holds surprise launch of propaganda leaflets |author=Son Won-je |date=21 January 2015 |website=[[The Hankyoreh]] |publisher= |access-date=30 June 2015}}</ref>

===Thailand===
{{See also |Censorship in Thailand |Internet censorship in Thailand}}

While the [[Constitution of Thailand|Thai constitution]] provides for freedom of expression, by law the government may restrict freedom of expression to preserve national security, maintain public order, preserve the rights of others, protect public morals, and prevent insults to Buddhism. The [[lese-majeste]] law makes it a crime, punishable by up to 15 years' imprisonment for each offense, to criticize, insult, or threaten the king, queen, royal heir apparent, or regent. Defamation is a criminal offense and parties that criticize the government or related businesses may be sued, setting the stage for self-censorship.<ref name=ThaiHRR>[https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?dlid=186310 "Thailand"], ''Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011'', Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State</ref>

Censorship expanded considerably starting in 2003 during the [[Thaksin Shinawatra]] administration and after the [[2006 Thai coup d'état|2006 military coup]]. Prosecutions for lese-majeste offenses increased significantly starting in 2006. Journalists are generally free to comment on government activities and institutions without fear of official reprisal, but they occasionally practice self-censorship, particularly with regard to the monarchy and national security. Broadcast media are subject to government censorship, both directly and indirectly, and self-censorship is evident. Under the Emergency Decree in the three southernmost provinces, the government may restrict print and broadcast media, online news, and social media networks there.<ref name=ThaiHRR/> The Computer Crime Act of 2007 allows for computer crime punishments that have committed far fewer offences, potentially giving the Government even more control over free speech. However, this amended act is currently awaiting the approval of His Majesty King Maha Vajiralongkorn Bodindradebayavarangkun<ref>{{cite web|url=http://reliefweb.int/report/thailand/thailand-computer-crime-act-legal-analysis-january-2017|title=Thailand: Computer Crime Act - Legal Analysis, January 2017|website=ReliefWeb.int|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref>

Thailand practices selective Internet filtering in the political, social, and Internet tools areas, with no evidence of filtering in the conflict/security area in 2011.<ref>[http://access.opennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/accesscontested-thailand.pdf "Thailand Country Profile"], ''Access Contested: Security, Identity, and Resistance in Asian Cyberspace'', Ronald J. Deibert, John G. Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, MIT Press and the OpenNet Initiative, November 2011, {{ISBN|978-0-262-01678-0}}</ref><ref name="ONISS-Nov2011">OpenNet Initiative, [http://opennet.net/research/data "Summarized global Internet filtering data spreadsheet"], 8 November 2011 and [http://opennet.net/research/profiles "Country Profiles"], the OpenNet Initiative is a collaborative partnership of the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto; the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University; and the SecDev Group, Ottawa</ref><ref name=ONIChildPornLegal>Due to legal concerns the [[OpenNet Initiative]] does not check for filtering of [[child pornography]] and because their classifications focus on technical filtering, they do not include other types of censorship.</ref> Thailand is on [[Reporters Without Borders]] list of countries ''under surveillance'' in 2011<ref name=RWBEnemies>[http://march12.rsf.org/i/Report_EnemiesoftheInternet_2012.pdf ''Internet Enemies''], Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 12&nbsp;March 2012</ref> and is listed as "Not Free" in the ''Freedom on the Net 2011'' report by [[Freedom House]], which cites substantial political censorship and the arrest of bloggers and other online users.<ref>[http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/FotN/Thailand2011.pdf "Country Report: Thailand"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111218031902/http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/FotN/Thailand2011.pdf |date=2011-12-18 }}, ''Freedom on the Net 2011'', Freedom House, 18 April 2011</ref>

===United Arab Emirates===
In the [[United Arab Emirates]] (UAE), it is a crime to use a computer network to "damage the national unity or social peace".<ref>{{cite news|title=UAE Professor Challenges Cybercrime Law on Twitter|first=Matt J.|last=Duffy|date=27 August 2013|work=[[Al-Monitor]]|url=http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/08/twitter-uae-cybercrime-law-challenge.html}}</ref> The law has been used to convict people for criticising state security investigations on [[Twitter]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Emiratis jailed for 'insulting' state security on Twitter|date=11 March 2014|publisher=[[Emirates Centre for Human Rights]]|url=http://www.echr.org.uk/?p=1210}}</ref>

==Australia==
{{See also|Censorship in Australia}}
Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights, with the exception of political speech which is protected from criminal prosecution at [[common law]] per ''[[Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth]]''. There is however an implied freedom of speech that was recognised in ''[[Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]''.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/1997/91.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(lange%20and%20australian%20) | title = Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation}}</ref>

In 1992 the [[High Court of Australia]] judged in the case of ''Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth'' that the [[Australian Constitution]], by providing for a system of representative and responsible government, implied the protection of political communication as an essential element of that system. This freedom of political communication is not a broad freedom of speech as in other countries, but rather a freedom whose purpose is only to protect political free speech. This freedom of political free speech is a shield against government prosecution, not a shield against private prosecution ([[civil law (common law)|civil law]]). It is also less a causal mechanism in itself, rather than simply a boundary which can be adjudged to be breached. Despite the court's ruling, however, not all political speech appears to be protected in Australia and several laws criminalise forms of speech that would be protected in republic countries such as the United States{{Citation needed|date=November 2012}}.

In 1996, [[Albert Langer]] was imprisoned for advocating that voters fill out their ballot papers in a way that was invalid.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/events/election_04/albertlanger.htm | title = The story of Albert Langer | accessdate = 2007-05-05 | author = Triple J | publisher = Australian Broadcasting Corporation | date = 2004-06-30 }}</ref> [[Amnesty International]] declared Langer to be a [[prisoner of conscience]].<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA12/005/1996/en | title = Australia: Political activist becomes first prisoner of conscience for over 20 years (Albert Langer) – Amnesty International | accessdate = 2007-05-05 | author = Amnesty International | date = 1996-02-23 }}</ref> The section which outlawed Langer from encouraging people to vote this way has since been repealed and the law now says only that it is an offence to print or publish material which may deceive or mislead a voter.

The [[Howard Government]] expanded [[Australian sedition law|sedition law]] as part of the war on terror. ''[[Media Watch (TV program)|Media Watch]]'' ran a series on the amendments on [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation|ABC television]].<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1489465.htm | title = Seditious opinion? Lock 'em up | accessdate = 2007-05-05 | author = Media Watch (TV program) | date = 2005-09-24 | publisher = Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Australian)}}</ref>

In 2003,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/scientists-bitter-over-interference/2006/02/12/1139679479548.html|title=Scientists bitter over interference - National - theage.com.au|website=www.TheAge.com.au|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref> [[CSIRO]] senior scientist [[Graeme Pearman]] was reprimanded and encouraged to resign after he spoke out on [[climate change|global warming]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/scientists-bitter-over-interference/2006/02/12/1139679479548.html | location=Melbourne | work=The Age | first=Jo | last=Chandler | title=Scientists bitter over interference | date=2006-02-13}}</ref> The Howard Government was accused of limiting the speech of Pearman and other scientists.

In 2010, journalist [[Andrew Bolt]] was sued in the Federal Court over two posts on his ''Herald Sun'' blog in 2009. Bolt was found guilty of breaching the racial discrimination act in 2011 following comments regarded to be representative of a "eugenic" approach to aboriginal identity.<ref>{{cite news |last=BODEY |first=MICHAEL |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bolt-found-guilty-of-breaching-discrimination-act/3025918 |title=Bolt breached discrimination act, judge rules |work=THE AUSTRALIAN |date= 2011-09-29 |accessdate=2014-07-30 }}</ref> This prompted the federal government to propose changes to the Racial Discrimination Act but has met with stiff resistance.<ref>{{cite news |last=Massola |first=James |last2=Kenny |first2=Mark |url=http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/george-brandis-forced-to-rethink-discrimination-act-changes-20140527-392gn.html |title=George Brandis forced to rethink discrimination act changes |work=Sydney Morning Herald |date=2014-05-28 |accessdate=2014-07-30 }}</ref>

In 2014 the Australian High Court issued a blanket media gag order on the reporting of a high-profile international corruption case.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/ |title=Australia bans reporting of multi-nation corruption case involving Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam |work= WikiLeaks |date=2014-07-29 |accessdate=2014-07-30 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Dorling |first=Philip |url=http://www.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-publishes-unprecedented-secret-australian-court-suppression-order-20140730-zyc6m.html |title=WikiLeaks publishes 'unprecedented' secret Australian court suppression order |work=Sydney Morning Herald |publisher=Sydney Morning Herald |date=2014-07-30 |accessdate=2014-07-30 }}</ref> The gag order prevents the publishing of articles regarding bribes presented to high-ranking officials of Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam by senior executives of the [[Reserve Bank of Australia]] in order to secure the adoption of the Australian invented and produced [[polymer banknote]] technology.

== New Zealand ==
The right to [[freedom of speech]] is not explicitly protected by [[common law]] in New Zealand, but is encompassed in a wide range of doctrines aimed at protecting free speech.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: a commentary|last=Butler|first=Andrew|last2=Butler|first2=Petra|publisher=|year=2005|isbn=978 0408716390|location=|pages=305|quote=|via=}}</ref> An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combine to ensure freedom of speech and of the press.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41654.htm|title=New Zealand|newspaper=U.S. Department of State|access-date=2016-10-28}}</ref> In particular, freedom of expression is preserved in section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) which states that:<blockquote>"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225513.html|title=New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act 14 Freedom of expression – New Zealand Legislation|website=www.legislation.govt.nz|access-date=2016-10-28}}</ref></blockquote>This provision reflects the more detailed one in Article 19 of the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]]. The significance of this right and its importance to democracy has been emphasised by the New Zealand courts. It has been described as the primary right without which the [[rule of law]] cannot effectively operate.<ref>R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 at p125</ref> The right is not only the cornerstone of democracy; it also guarantees the self-fulfilment of its members by advancing knowledge and revealing truth.<ref>A Bill of Rights for New Zealand: A White Paper (New Zealand Parliament House of Representatives) 1985. AJHR. 6, p 79.</ref> As such, the right has been given a wide interpretation. The [[Court of Appeal of New Zealand|Court of Appeal]] has said that section 14 is “as wide as human thought and imagination”.<ref>Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2000] 2 NZLR 9 para 15</ref> Freedom of expression embraces free speech, a free press, transmission and receipt of ideas and information, freedom of expression in art, and the [[right to silence]]. The right to freedom of expression also extends to the right to seek access to official records. This is provided for in the [[Official Information Act 1982]].

==Europe==

===Council of Europe===
[[File:Christian Aid campaigners with Hilary Benn and Andrew Smith 20050127.jpg|thumb|right|[[Charitable organization]]s can use the freedom of speech to campaign and [[Lobbying|lobby]] [[government minister]]s.]]
[[File:Sheffield town hall occupation.jpg|thumb|right|Local issues are often the subject of free speech.]]
{{Wikisource|European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms}}
The [[European Convention on Human Rights]] (ECHR), signed on 4 November 1950, guarantees a broad range of human rights to inhabitants of member countries of the [[Council of Europe]], which includes almost all European nations. These rights include Article 10, which entitles all citizens to free expression. Echoing the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights this provides that:

: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. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

The Convention established the [[European Court of Human Rights]] (ECtHR). Any person who feels his or her rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can take a case to the Court. Judgements finding violations are binding on the States concerned and they are obliged to execute them. The [[Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe]] monitors the execution of judgements, particularly to ensure payment of the amounts awarded by the Court to the applicants in compensation for the damage they have sustained.

The Convention also includes some other restrictions:

:The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

For example, the Council of Europe ''Explanatory Report'' of the [[Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime]] states the "European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that the denial or revision of 'clearly established [[Fact#Fact in history|historical fact]]s – such as the [[Holocaust]] – [...] would be removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17' of the ECHR" in the ''[[Lehideux and Isorni v. France]]'' judgment of 23 September 1998.<ref name="conventions.coe.int">{{cite web|url=http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/Html/189.htm|title=Full list|website=Treaty Office|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref>

Each party to the Convention must alter its laws and policies to conform with the Convention. Some, such as Ireland or the United Kingdom, have expressly incorporated the Convention into their domestic laws. The guardian of the Convention is the European Court of Human Rights. This court has heard many cases relating to freedom of speech, including cases that have tested the professional obligations of confidentiality of journalists and lawyers, and the application of defamation law, a recent example being the so-called "[[McLibel case]]".

===European Union===
{{Wikisource|Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union}}
Citizens of the European Union enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration. Currently, all members of the [[European Union]] are signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights in addition to having various constitutional and legal rights to freedom of expression at the national level. The [[Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union]] has been legally binding since December 1, 2009 when the Treaty of Lisbon became fully ratified and effective. Article 11 of the Charter, in part mirroring the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, provides that

:1. 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.
:2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

The [[European Court of Justice]] takes into account both the Charter and the Convention when making its rulings. According to the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union accedes to the European Convention as an entity in its own right, making the Convention binding not only on the governments of the member states but also on the supranational institutions of the EU.

====Czech Republic====
[[File:Libor Halík na Obilním trhu.JPG|thumb|right|Orthodox priest [[Libor Halík]] with a group of followers. Halík has been chanting daily for over five years against abortion via megaphone in front of a maternity hospital in [[Brno]], [[Moravia]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://brnensky.denik.cz/rozhovor/halik-stat-s-krizem-pred-porodnici-prace-20090321.html|title=Halík: Stát s křížem před porodnicí je moje práce|first=Jiří|last=Špičák|date=22 March 2009|publisher=|access-date=28 January 2018|via=Brnensky.Denik.cz}}</ref>]]
[[File:Visaci3.jpg|thumb|right|[[Punk rock|Punk]] band [[Visací zámek]] which composed a popular song "''The President Is a [[Faggot (slang)|Faggot]]''" about [[Václav Klaus]], 2003-2013 Czech President.<ref>{{cite journal | last = Kolář | first = Petr | title = Prezident je buzna! Visací zámek oživil legendární píseň novým klipem [The President is a Faggot! Visací Zámek revived legendary song with a new music video] | journal = reflex | date = 11 January 2013 | url = http://www.reflex.cz/clanek/lajk/49130/prezident-je-buzna-visaci-zamek-ozivil-legendarni-pisen-novym-klipem.html | access-date = 11 January 2013}}</ref>]]
Freedom of speech in the Czech Republic is guaranteed by the Czech [[Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms]], which has the same legal standing as the [[Constitution of the Czech Republic|Czech Constitution]]. It is the first freedom of the charter's second division - political rights. It reads as follows:<ref>{{cite journal | author = Czech National Council | title = Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms the Czech Republic | journal = Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic | volume = 2 | issue = 1993 | location = Prague | date = 16 December 1992 | url = http://www.usoud.cz/view/czech_charter | accessdate = December 29, 2012 | deadurl = yes | archiveurl = https://archive.is/20130111123024/http://www.usoud.cz/view/czech_charter | archivedate = 11 January 2013 | df = }}</ref>
:'''Article 17'''
::(1) The freedom of expression and the right to information are guaranteed.
::(2) Everyone has the right to express their opinion in speech, in writing, in the press, in pictures, or in any other form, as well as freely to seek, receive, and disseminate ideas and information irrespective of the frontiers of the State.
::(3) Censorship is not permitted.
::(4) The freedom of expression and the right to seek and disseminate information ''may be limited by law in the case of measures necessary in a democratic society for protecting the rights and freedoms of others, the security of the State, public security, public health, and morals.''
::(5) State bodies and territorial self-governing bodies are obliged, in an appropriate manner, to provide information on their activities. Conditions therefore and the implementation thereof shall be provided for by law.

Specific limitations of the freedom of speech within the meaning of Article 17(4) may be found in the Criminal Code as well in other enactments. These include the prohibition of:
* unauthorized handling of personal information (Article 180 of the Criminal Code),<ref>{{cite journal | title = Criminal Code of the Czech Republic, §180 | journal = Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic | volume = 40 | issue = 2009 | location = Prague | language = Czech | url = http://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/zakonPar.jsp?page=1&idBiblio=68040&recShow=181&fulltext=trestn~C3~AD~20z~C3~A1kon~C3~ADk&nr=40~2F2009&part=&name=&rpp=100#parCnt | accessdate = December 30, 2012}}</ref> which protects the right to privacy,
* defamation (Article 184 of the Criminal Code),<ref>{{cite journal | title = Criminal Code of the Czech Republic, §184 | journal = Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic | volume = 40 | issue = 2009 | location = Prague | language = Czech | url = http://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/zakonPar.jsp?page=1&idBiblio=68040&recShow=185&fulltext=trestn~C3~AD~20z~C3~A1kon~C3~ADk&nr=40~2F2009&part=&name=&rpp=100#parCnt | accessdate = December 30, 2012}}</ref>
* dissemination of pornography depicting disrespect to a human, abuse of an animal, or dissemination of any pornography to children (Article 191 of the Criminal Code),<ref>{{cite journal | title = Criminal Code of the Czech Republic, §191 | journal = Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic | volume = 40 | issue = 2009 | location = Prague | language = Czech | url = http://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/zakonPar.jsp?page=1&idBiblio=68040&recShow=192&fulltext=trestn~C3~AD~20z~C3~A1kon~C3~ADk&nr=40~2F2009&part=&name=&rpp=100#parCnt | accessdate = December 30, 2012}}</ref>
* seducing to use or propagation of use of addictive substances other than alcohol (Article 287 of the Criminal Code),<ref>{{cite journal | title = Criminal Code of the Czech Republic, §287 | journal = Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic | volume = 40 | issue = 2009 | location = Prague | language = Czech | url = http://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/zakonPar.jsp?page=2&idBiblio=68040&recShow=290&fulltext=trestn~C3~AD~20z~C3~A1kon~C3~ADk&nr=40~2F2009&part=&name=&rpp=100#parCnt | accessdate = December 30, 2012}}</ref> which protects public health,
* denigration of a nation, race, ethnic or other group of people (Article 355 of the Criminal Code),<ref>{{cite journal | title = Criminal Code of the Czech Republic, §355 | journal = Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic | volume = 40 | issue = 2009 | location = Prague | language = Czech | url = http://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/zakonPar.jsp?page=3&idBiblio=68040&recShow=360&fulltext=trestn~C3~AD~20z~C3~A1kon~C3~ADk&nr=40~2F2009&part=&name=&rpp=100#parCnt | accessdate = December 30, 2012}}</ref> i.e. hate speech,
* inciting of hatred towards a group of people or inciting limitation of their civil rights (Article 356 of the Criminal Code),<ref>{{cite journal | title = Criminal Code of the Czech Republic, §356 | journal = Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic | volume = 40 | issue = 2009 | location = Prague | language = Czech | url = http://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/zakonPar.jsp?page=3&idBiblio=68040&recShow=361&fulltext=trestn~C3~AD~20z~C3~A1kon~C3~ADk&nr=40~2F2009&part=&name=&rpp=100#parCnt | accessdate = December 30, 2012}}</ref>
* spreading of scaremongering information (Article 357 of the Criminal Code),<ref>{{cite journal | title = Criminal Code of the Czech Republic, §356 | journal = Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic | volume = 40 | issue = 2009 | location = Prague | language = Czech | url = http://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/zakonPar.jsp?page=3&idBiblio=68040&recShow=362&fulltext=trestn~C3~AD~20z~C3~A1kon~C3~ADk&nr=40~2F2009&part=&name=&rpp=100#parCnt | accessdate = December 30, 2012}}</ref> e.g. fake bomb alerts,
* public incitement of perpetration of a crime (Article 364 of the Criminal Code),<ref>{{cite journal | title = Criminal Code of the Czech Republic, §364 | journal = Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic | volume = 40 | issue = 2009 | location = Prague | language = Czech | url = http://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/zakonPar.jsp?page=3&idBiblio=68040&recShow=369&fulltext=trestn~C3~AD~20z~C3~A1kon~C3~ADk&nr=40~2F2009&part=&name=&rpp=100#parCnt | accessdate = December 30, 2012}}</ref>
* public approval of a felony crime (Article 365 of the Criminal Code),<ref>{{cite journal | title = Criminal Code of the Czech Republic, §365 | journal = Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic | volume = 40 | issue = 2009 | location = Prague | language = Czech | url = http://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/zakonPar.jsp?page=3&idBiblio=68040&recShow=370&fulltext=trestn~C3~AD~20z~C3~A1kon~C3~ADk&nr=40~2F2009&part=&name=&rpp=100#parCnt | accessdate = December 30, 2012}}</ref>
* public display of sympathy towards a movement oriented at curbing rights of the people (Article 404 of the Criminal Code),<ref>{{cite journal | title = Criminal Code of the Czech Republic, §404 | journal = Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic | volume = 40 | issue = 2009 | location = Prague | language = Czech | url = http://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/zakonPar.jsp?page=4&idBiblio=68040&recShow=409&fulltext=trestn~C3~AD~20z~C3~A1kon~C3~ADk&nr=40~2F2009&part=&name=&rpp=100#parCnt | accessdate = December 30, 2012}}</ref> e.g. propagation of hate-groups,
* public denial, questioning, endorsement or vindication of genocide (Article 405 of the Criminal Code),<ref>{{cite journal | title = Criminal Code of the Czech Republic, §405 | journal = Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic | volume = 40 | issue = 2009 | location = Prague | language = Czech | url = http://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/zakonPar.jsp?page=4&idBiblio=68040&recShow=410&fulltext=trestn~C3~AD~20z~C3~A1kon~C3~ADk&nr=40~2F2009&part=&name=&rpp=100#parCnt | accessdate = December 30, 2012}}</ref> e.g. [[Auschwitz lie]],
* incitement of an offensive war (Article 407 of the Criminal Code).<ref>{{cite journal | title = Criminal Code of the Czech Republic, §407 | journal = Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic | volume = 40 | issue = 2009 | location = Prague | language = Czech | url = http://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/zakonPar.jsp?page=4&idBiblio=68040&recShow=412&fulltext=trestn~C3~AD~20z~C3~A1kon~C3~ADk&nr=40~2F2009&part=&name=&rpp=100#parCnt | accessdate = December 30, 2012}}</ref>

Most of the limitations of the free speech in the Czech Republic aim at protection of rights of individuals or minority groups. Unlike in some other European countries there are no limits on speech criticizing or denigrating government, public officials or state symbols.

====Denmark====
{{See also|Censorship in Denmark}}
Freedom of speech in Denmark is granted by [[Constitution of Denmark|Grundloven]]:<ref>[http://legislationline.org/download/action/download/id/1587/file/c57ee1ef8edd6198a252e187fdf2.htm/preview Constitution of Denmark] {{webarchive|url=https://archive.is/20120712164946/http://legislationline.org/download/action/download/id/1587/file/c57ee1ef8edd6198a252e187fdf2.htm/preview |date=2012-07-12 }} (English translation).</ref>
:§ 77 Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.

Hate speech is illegal according to the [[Danish penalty law|Danish Penal Code]] § 266(b):<ref name="extreme_masses">{{cite book | title= Extreme Speech and Democracy | chapter= Extreme Speech, Public Order, and Democracy: Lessons from ''The Masses'' | first= James | last= Weinstein | editor1-first= Ivan | editor1-last= Hare | editor2-first= James | editor2-last= Weinstein | page= 58 | year= 2011 | publisher= [[Oxford University Press]] | isbn= 978-0-19-954878-1 | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=F6d08lrIYNQC&pg=PA58}}</ref><ref>[https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/r0710.aspx?id=138671 Danish Penal Code] (In Danish)</ref>

:Any person who, publicly or with the intention of disseminating ... makes a statement ... threatening (''{{lang|da|trues}}''), insulting (''{{lang|da|forhånes}}''), or degrading (''{{lang|da|nedværdiges}}'') a group of persons on account of their race, national or ethnic origin or belief shall be liable to a fine or to simple detention or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

The 1991 Media Liability Act (''{{lang|da|Medieansvarsloven}}'') creates criminal and civil mandates that mass media content and conduct must be consistent with [[journalism ethics and standards|journalism ethics]] and the [[right of reply]], and also created the Press Council of Denmark (''{{lang|da|Pressenævnet}}'') which can impose fines and imprisonment up to 4 months.<ref>[http://www.pressenaevnet.dk/Love-og-regler/Medieansvarsloven.aspx Media Liability Act] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111124224339/http://www.pressenaevnet.dk/Love-og-regler/Medieansvarsloven.aspx |date=2011-11-24 }} (In Danish)</ref>

====Finland====

Finland has been ranked in the [[Press Freedom Index]] as the country with the best press freedom in 2002–2006, 2009–2010, and 2012–2014. According to the Constitution, everyone has freedom of expression, entailing the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone.<ref>[http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf "Section 12 - Freedom of expression and right of access to information"], ''The Constitution of Finland'', Ministry of Justice, Finland.</ref> The Finnish mass-media has [[Council for Mass Media in Finland|a own self-regulatory organ]] which regulates the ethics of the press.

A demonstration or other public assembly requires no permission from the police or other authorities. If a public meeting is held outdoors, the police must be notified of the event no later than six hours before the assembly is scheduled to begin, but the police have no authority to prohibit the event.<ref>[https://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/home.nsf/pages/E9087B4D786F5A8DC2256C290030F7E0?opendocument "Notification of a public meeting"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140723002300/https://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/home.nsf/pages/E9087B4D786F5A8DC2256C290030F7E0?opendocument |date=2014-07-23 }}, Police of Finland. Retrieved 5 September 2014.</ref>

[[Defamation]] is a crime only if the target is a private person. Defamation of corporations is never a crime unless it's covered by competition regulations or similar legislation. Sentences have never been given for publishing pro-drug propaganda.

There are no restrictions regarding [[obscenity]]. It's illegal to display obscene visual material in a public place in a manner that is likely to cause public offense.<ref name="Bestiality and violence"/> In practice this means that obscene photos and videos may be shown only in places where they are expected to be seen, while there are no restrictions on obscene literature. Drawings and animations showing [[child pornography]] are legal. While [[bestiality]] is legal as such, videos and photographs showing sex with animals are banned.<ref name="Bestiality and violence"/> Motion pictures showing "brutal" violence may not be kept accessible to the public or distributed if the display of violence is not deemed necessary for informative or artistic purposes, possession of such audiovisual recordings being still legal.<ref name="Bestiality and violence"/> A Finn was sentenced in 2009 to 40 days of probation after keeping [[Islamic extremist]] execution videos on his website.<ref>[http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/Teloitusvideoista+ehdollista+vankeutta+helsinkil%C3%A4ismiehelle/1135251523933 "Telotusvideoista ehdollista vankeutta helsinkiläismiehelle"] ["Helsinkian man punished with probation for execution videos"] {{fi icon}}, ''[[Helsingin Sanomat]]'', 16 December 2009.</ref> Finland had a film censorship board until 2001 when the scope of the board was limited to giving age ratings to movies. After the abolition of film censorship there are no restrictions on sex shown in movies regardless of the venue of display, violent pornography being the only exception to the rule.<ref name="Bestiality and violence">[http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039.pdf "Ch. 17: § 17: Distribution of depictions of violence / § 18: Distribution of a sexually offensive picture / § 20: Unlawful marketing of obscene material"], ''Criminal Code of Finland'', Ministry of Justice, Finland.</ref> After the abolishment of film censorship, banning movies that contain brutal violence has been extremely rare.

Disparagement of the [[flag of Finland]] is an offense that can be punished with a fine. The ban specifically includes using a flag with unauthorized addenda.<ref>[http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1978/19780380 "Laki Suomen lipusta"] ["The Flag of Finland Act"] {{fi icon}}, 26.5.1978 / 380, Finlex.</ref> This is the only law restricting disparagement of the state and its symbols and institutions.

[[Blasphemy]] and [[hate speech]] are forbidden. The blasphemy law applies to all religions. The hate speech law protects people of different sexual orientations, races, skin colors, places of birth, national or ethnic origins, religions or beliefs and disabled people.<ref>[http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039.pdf "Ethnic agitation: Ch. 11 § 10 / Breach of sanctity of religion: Ch. 17 § 10"], ''Criminal Code of Finland'', Ministry of Justice, Finland.</ref> The sentence for committing these crimes could theoretically be imprisonment, but during the modern juridical history the sentence has always been a fine.

The hate speech law is relatively lax. It prohibits only threatening, insulting and defaming the aforementioned groups, while criticism and expression of opinions against these groups of people are not per se forbidden. For instance, unlike in 16 other European countries and Canada, [[holocaust denial|denying the Holocaust]] is legal. During the years 2000–2013 there were 21 successful court cases regarding hate speech. The expressions ruled illegal include stating that some groups are trash, a group is a racial monster that needs to be destroyed, and comparing [[Refugee#Asylum seekers|asylum seekers]] to animals and saying that violence against foreigners is acceptable.<ref>[http://yle.fi/uutiset/rasisteja_vai_sananvapauden_marttyyreja__nain_kiihotuspykala_toimii/6923984 "Rasisteja vai sananvapauden marttyyreja?"] ["Racists or the martyrs of freedom of speech?"] {{fi icon}}, ''Yle News'', 23 December 2013.</ref>

A Finnish member of [[EU parliament]] [[Jussi Halla-aho]] was sentenced for both [[blasphemy]] and [[hate speech]] in 2012 by the [[Supreme Court of Finland|Supreme Court]] after saying that "[[Islam]] is a [[paedophilia]] religion" and "it's a national and possibly even genetic special characteristic of the [[Somali people]] to rob passers-by and to be parasites living on the tax-payers' money".<ref>[http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Supreme+Court+finds+Finns+Party+MP+Jussi+Halla-aho+guilty+of+incitement+against+an+ethnic+group/1329104281809 "Supreme Court finds Finns Party MP Jussi Halla-aho guilty of incitement against an ethnic group"], ''Helsingin Sanomat'', 8 June 2012.</ref> According to Jussi Halla-aho himself, the latter was meant to criticize the fact that saying that Finns drink a lot and then kill people due to possibly genetic reasons was held to be in accordance of the ethics of the press by the self-regulatory organ of the mass-media.<ref>[http://www.halla-aho.com/scripta/muutama_taky_illmanin_mikalle.html "Muutama täky Illmanin Mikalle"] ["A few bait Mika Illman"] {{fi icon}}, Scripta, 3 June 2008.</ref> Fines are income-based in Finland. Halla-aho was sentenced to 50 [[day-fine]]s and had to pay €550 based on his income.

====France====
{{See also|Censorship in France|Hate speech laws in France}}
{{refimprove section|date=May 2007}}
[[File:Declaration of Human Rights.jpg|thumb|[[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]]]]

The ''[[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]]'', of constitutional value, states, in its article 11:

:The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, save [if it is necessary] to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law.

In addition, France adheres to the European Convention on Human Rights and accepts the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

The [[Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881|Press Law of 1881]], as amended, guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several exceptions. The Pleven Act of 1972 (after [[Ministry of Justice (France)|Justice Minister]] [[René Pleven]]) prohibits incitement to hatred, discrimination, slander and racial insults.<ref>''{{lang|fr|Loi n° 72-546 du 1 juillet 1972 relative à la lutte contre le racisme}}'', ''[[Journal Officiel de la République Française|Journal Officiel]]'' of {{date|2 July 1972}}, [http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jopdf/common/jo_pdf.jsp?numJO=0&dateJO=19720702&pageDebut=06803 6803].</ref><ref name="marginalised">{{cite book | title= The European Court of Human Rights and the Rights of Marginalised Individuals and Minorities in National Context | chapter= Protecting Individuals from Minorities and Vulnerable Groups in the European Court of Human Rights: Litigation and Jurisprudence in France | page= 77 | first1= Emmanuelle | last1= Bribosia | first2= Isabelle | last2= Rorive | first3= Amaya Úbeda | last3= de Torres | editor1-first= Dia | editor1-last= Anagnostou | editor2-first= Evangelia | editor2-last= Psychogiopoulou | year= 2009 | publisher= [[Brill Publishers|Koninklijke Brill]] | isbn= 978-9004-17326-2 | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=RltWpF-C0gsC&pg=PA77}}</ref> The [[Gayssot Act]] of 1990 prohibits any racist, [[antisemitism|anti-Semite]], or xenophobic activities, including [[Holocaust denial]].<ref name="marginalised"/> The Law of {{date|30 December 2004}} prohibits hatred against people because of their gender, [[sexual orientation]], or disability.<ref>{{cite book | title= Extreme Speech and Democracy | chapter= Hate Speech, Extreme Speech, and Collective Defamation in French Law | first= Pascal | last= Mbongo | editor1-first= Ivan | editor1-last= Hare | editor2-first= James | editor2-last= Weinstein | page= 229 | year= 2011 | publisher= [[Oxford University Press]] | isbn= 978-0-19-954878-1 | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=FKCD4SgeIicC&pg=PA229}}</ref>

An addition to the Public Health Code was passed on 31 December 1970, which punishes the "positive presentation of drugs" and the "incitement to their consumption" with up to five years in prison and fines up to €76,000. Newspapers such as ''[[Libération]]'', [[Charlie Hebdo]] and associations, political parties, and various publications criticizing the current drug laws and advocating drug reform in France have been repeatedly hit with heavy fines based on this law.

France does not implement any preliminary government censorship for written publications. Any violation of law must be processed through the courts.

The government has a commission recommending [[movie classification]]s, the decisions of which can be appealed before the courts. Another commission oversees publications for the youth. The Minister of the Interior can prohibit the sale of [[pornography|pornographic]] publications to minors, and can also prevent such publications from being publicly displayed or advertised; such decisions can be challenged before administrative courts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000878175|title=Loi n° 49-956 du 16 juillet 1949 sur les publications destinées à la jeunesse|website=legifrance.gouv.fr|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref>

The government restricts the right of broadcasting to authorized radio and television channels; the authorizations are granted by an independent administrative authority; this authority has recently removed the broadcasting authorizations of some foreign channels because of their antisemitic content.

As part of "internal security" enactments passed in 2003, it is an offense to insult the national flag or anthem, with a penalty of a maximum 9,000 euro fine or up to six months' imprisonment.{{Citation needed|date=May 2007}} Restrictions on "offending the dignity of the republic", on the other hand, include "insulting" anyone who serves the public (potentially magistrates, police, firefighters, teachers and even bus conductors).{{Citation needed|date=May 2007}} The legislation reflects the debate that raged after incidents such as the booing of the "[[La Marseillaise]]" at a France vs. Algeria football match in 2002.

====Germany====
{{See also|Censorship in Germany}}
<!-- Deleted image removed: [[File:Grundgesetz cover.jpg|frame|Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany]] -->
{{Wikisource|Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany}}
Freedom of expression is granted by Article 5 of the [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany]], which also states that there is no censorship and that freedom of expression may be limited by law.

The press is regulated by the [[law of Germany]] as well as all 16 [[States of Germany]].<ref>{{cite book | title= Handbook of Election Coverage Around the World | chapter= Characteristics and Dynamics of Election News Coverage in Germany | pages= 291–292 | first1= Frank | last1= Esser | first2= Katharina | last2= Hemmer | editor1-first= Jesper | editor1-last= Strömbäck | editor2-first= Lynda Lee | editor2-last= Kaid | isbn= 978-0-8058-6037-5 | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=gv0sxHwhLHAC&pg=PA291| year= 2008 }}</ref> The most important and sometimes controversial regulations limiting speech and the press can be found in the [[Strafgesetzbuch|Criminal code]]:
* ''[[Insult]]'' is punishable under Section 185. [[Satire]] and similar forms of art enjoy more freedom but have to respect [[human dignity]] (Article 1 of the Basic law).
* ''[[Gossip|Malicious Gossip]]'' and ''Defamation'' (Section 186 and 187). Utterances about facts (opposed to personal judgement) are allowed if they are true and can be proven. Yet journalists are free to investigate without evidence because they are justified by ''Safeguarding Legitimate Interests'' (Section 193).
* ''[[Hate speech]]'' may be punishable if against ''segments of the population'' and ''in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace'' (Section 130 ''[Agitation of the People]''), including racist agitation and antisemitism.
* ''[[Holocaust denial]]'' is punishable according to Section 130 subsection 3.
* ''Membership in or support of banned political parties'' (Section 86). Currently banned parties include the [[Socialist Reich Party|SRP]] and the [[KPD]], but historically all non-Nazi parties have been banned (1933–1945).
* ''Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations'' (Section 86).
* ''Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations'' ([[Strafgesetzbuch section 86a|Section 86a]]). Items such as the [[Swastika]] or clothing of the FDJ is banned.
* ''Disparagement of''
** ''the Federal President'' (Section 90).
** ''the State and its Symbols'' (Section 90a).
* ''Insult to Organs and Representatives of Foreign States'' (Section 103). (will no longer be valid as of 2018)
* ''Rewarding and Approving Crimes'' (Section 140).
* ''Casting False Suspicion'' (Section 164).
* ''Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life if they could disturb public peace'' (Section 166).
* ''Dissemination of Pornographic Writings'' (Section 184).

Outdoor assemblies must be registered beforehand.<ref>{{harvnb|FRA|2008|p=24}}</ref> Assemblies at memorial sites are banned.<ref name="fra23">{{harvnb|FRA|2008|p=23}}</ref> Individuals and groups may be banned from assembling, especially those whose fundamental rights have been revoked and banned political parties.<ref name="fra23"/> The ''[[Love Parade]]'' decision (1 BvQ 28/01 and 1 BvQ 30/01 of 12 July 2001) determined that for an assembly to be protected it must comply with the concept of a [[constituent assembly]], or the so-called narrow concept of assembly whereby the participants in the assembly must pursue a common purpose that is in the common interest.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Legal Study on Homophobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation – Germany|date= February 2008|page=23|publisher=European Union [[Fundamental Rights Agency]]|url=http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/FRA-hdgso-NR_DE.pdf|ref={{harvid|FRA|2008}}}}</ref>

====Greece====
The 14th article of the [[Constitution of Greece|Greek Constitution]] guarantees the freedom of speech, of expression and of the [[News media|press]] for all but with certain restrictions or exceptions; for example although it generally forbids any preemptive or after the fact censorship, it allows public prosecutors ({{lang-el|εισαγγελείς}}) to order a confiscation of press (or other) publications (after having been published, not before) when the latter:<ref>{{cite web|script-title=el:'Αρθρο 14: (Ελευθερία του Τύπου)|url=http://www.hellenicparliament.gr/Vouli-ton-Ellinon/To-Politevma/Syntagma/article-14/|website=Hellenic Parliament|language=Greek}}</ref><ref>According to said article (paragraph 14.4), within twenty four hours of such a confiscation, the public prosecutor is obliged to present the case to the ''Judicial Council'' (Greek: {{lang|el|δικαστικό συμβούλιο}}); the latter has then twenty four more hours to decide whether to allow it to continue or to have it stopped. Otherwise said confiscation is lifted automatically, ''[[ipso jure]]'' (Greek: {{lang|el|αυτοδικαίως}}).</ref>
*14.3.a: insult Christianity or any other ''known'' (Greek: {{lang|el|γνωστή}}) religion,
*14.3.b: insult the [[President of Greece]],
*14.3.c: disclose information related to the [[Greek Armed Forces]] or to various aspects of Greek National Security,
**have as a purpose the ''forceful overturning of the'' Greek ''System of Government'' (Greek: {{lang|el|βίαιη ανατροπή του πολιτεύματος}}),
*14.3.d: ''clearly'' (Greek: {{lang|el|ολοφάνερα}}) offend public decency, ''in the cases defined by'' Greek ''Law'' (Greek: {{lang|el|στις περιπτώσεις που ορίζει ο νόμος}}).

====Hungary====
Articles VII, VIII, IX, and X of the [[Constitution of Hungary|Fundamental Law of Hungary]] establishes the rights of freedom of expression, speech, press, thought, conscience, religion, artistic creation, scientific research, and assembly.<ref>[http://www.kormany.hu/download/4/c3/30000/THE%20FUNDAMENTAL%20LAW%20OF%20HUNGARY.pdf ''The Fundamental Law of Hungary''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130102160605/http://www.kormany.hu/download/4/c3/30000/THE%20FUNDAMENTAL%20LAW%20OF%20HUNGARY.pdf |date=2013-01-02 }}, 25 April 2011</ref> Some of these rights are limited by the penal code:<ref name=PenalCode/>
:Section 269 - Incitement against a community
:A person who incites to hatred before the general public against
::a) the Hungarian nation,
::b) any national, ethnic, racial group or certain groups of the population,
:shall be punishable for a felony offense with imprisonment up to three years.

This list has been updated to include: "people with disabilities, various sexual identity and sexual orientation", effective from July 2013.{{citation needed|date=November 2012}}

It is also illegal under Section 269/C of the penal code and punishable with three years of imprisonment, to publicly "deny, question, mark as insignificant, attempt to justify the genocides carried out by the [[Holocaust denial|National Socialist]] and Communist regimes, as well as the facts of other crimes against humanity."<ref name=PenalCode>{{hu icon}} [http://net.jogtar.hu/jr/gen/hjegy_doc.cgi?docid=97800004.TV 1978. évi IV. törvény a Büntető Törvénykönyvről] (1978th Act IV. The Criminal Code) as amended, accessed 13 November 2012</ref>

====Ireland====
{{See also|Censorship in the Republic of Ireland}}
Freedom of speech is protected by Article 40.6.1 of the [[Constitution of Ireland|Irish constitution]]. However the article qualifies this right, providing that it may not be used to undermine "public order or morality or the authority of the State". Furthermore, the constitution explicitly requires that the publication of "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" be a criminal offence, leading the government to pass a new blasphemy law on 8 July 2009.

The scope of the protection afforded by this Article has been interpreted restrictively by the judiciary, largely as a result of the wording of the Article, which qualifies the right before articulating it. Indeed, until an authoritative pronouncement on the issue by the Supreme Court, many believed that the protection was restricted to "convictions and opinions" and, as a result, a separate right to communicate was, by necessity, implied into Article 40.3.2. This judicial conservatism is at variance with the concept of speech as a democratic imperative. This, albeit trite, justification for free speech has underpinned the liberal, progressive interpretation of the First Amendment by the United States Supreme Court.

Under the [[European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003]], all of the rights afforded by the European Convention serve as a guideline for the judiciary to act upon. The act is subordinate to the constitution.

==== Italy ====
{{See also|Censorship in Italy}}
In [[Italy]] the [[Constitution of Italy|Constitution]] guarantees freedom of speech, as stated in Article 21, Paragraph 1:<ref>{{cite web|title=The Italian Constitution |url=http://www.quirinale.it/qrnw/costituzione/pdf/costituzione_inglese.pdf |publisher=The official website of the Presidency of the Italian Republic |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20161127152449/http://www.quirinale.it/qrnw/costituzione/pdf/costituzione_inglese.pdf |archivedate=2016-11-27 |df= }}</ref>

:Anyone has the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication.

The Article also gives restrictions against those acts considered offensive by [[public morality]], as stated in Paragraph 6:

:Publications, performances, and other exhibits offensive to public morality shall be prohibited. Measures of preventive and repressive measure against such violations shall be established by law.

Such restrictions are enforced through the Italian [[Penal Code]] which, for example, includes articles that prohibit:
* [[Sovereign immunity|insults against the honor and prestige]] of the [[President of Italy|President]] (Art. 278),
* [[vilification]] of a persons's [[Vilification of religion|religion]] (Art. 403),
* [[insults]] against the [[honor]] and [[decorum]] of others (Art. 594), and
* [[defamation]] of another person (Art. 595).

Commercial advertising of artwork owned by the government, such as [[David (Michelangelo)|Michelangelo's David]] (created in the 16th century), require an assessment of the adequacy of the image, which must respect cultural dignity.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Il David testimonial di un fucile, il fotomontaggio scatena la polemica|date=7 March 2014|work=[[la Repubblica]]|language=Italian|url=http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2014/03/07/news/il_david_testimonial_di_un_fucile_fotomontaggio_scatena_la_polemica-80475411/}}</ref>

==== Malta ====
Blasphemy against the [[Roman Catholic]] church was illegal in Malta.<ref>Matthew Vella. http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/03/08/t13.html ''Maltatoday on Sunday'', 8 March 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-15.</ref>

However the law was repealed in 2016.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160712/local/bill-decriminalising-vilification-of-religion-approved-a-sad-day-for.618649 |title=Bill decriminalising vilification of religion approved: 'A sad day for Malta' - Archbishop|website=timesofmalta.com|date=12 July 2016|accessdate=24 October 2017}}</ref>

====The Netherlands====
[[File:De schreeuw - oosterpark.jpg|thumb|''[[De Schreeuw]]'' (The Scream) is a memorial commemorating [[Theo van Gogh (film director)|Theo van Gogh]] and a symbol of the freedom of speech.]]

Article 7 of the Dutch [[Constitution of the Netherlands|Grondwet]] in its first paragraph grants everybody the right to make public ideas and feelings by printing them without prior censorship, but not exonerating the author from his liabilities under the law. The second paragraph says that radio and television will be regulated by law but that there will be no prior censorship dealing with the content of broadcasts. The third paragraph grants a similar freedom of speech as in the first for other means of making ideas and feelings public but allowing censorship for reasons of decency when the public that has access may be younger than sixteen years of age. The fourth and last paragraph exempts commercial advertising from the freedoms granted in the first three paragraphs.<ref>{{cite web |title=De Grondwet|publisher=www.overheid.nl|date=2011-04-29|url=http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840#Hoofdstuk1/Artikel7}}</ref>

The penal code does have laws sanctioning certain types of expression. Such laws and freedom of speech were at the centre of a public debate in The Netherlands after the arrest on 16 May 2008 of cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot. On 1 February 2014, Dutch Parliament abolished the law penalizing blasphemy. Laws that punish discriminatory speech however still exist and are occasionally used to prosecute.

The Dutch Criminal Code § 137(c) criminalizes:<ref name="extreme_masses"/>

:… deliberately giv[ing] public expression to views insulting to a group of persons on account of their race, religion, or conviction or sexual preference.

====Poland====
Historically, "Statutes of Wiślica" introduced in 1347 by [[Casimir III of Poland]] codified freedom of speech in medieval Poland e.g. book publishers were not to be persecuted. The Constitution of the Republic of Poland (1997), specifically forbids the existence of "''political parties and other organizations whose programmes are based upon totalitarian methods and the modes of activity of nazism, fascism, and communism, as well as those whose programmes or activities sanction racial or national hatred, the application of violence for the purpose of obtaining power or to influence the State policy, or provide for the secrecy of their own structure or membership''". On 18 July 2003, about 30 human rights activists were temporarily detained by the police, allegedly for insulting [[Vladimir Putin]], a visiting head of state. The activists were released after about 30 hours and only one was actually charged with insulting a foreign head of state.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/112837.shtml |title=28 Detained for insulting Putin? |accessdate=2007-05-07 |publisher=Independent Media Center }} {{cite web|url=http://pl.indymedia.org/pl/2005/01/11431.shtml|accessdate=2007-05-07|publisher=centrum niezalez'nych medio'w Polska (Independent Media Center, Poland)|title=Relacja z demostracji w Krakowie|language=Polish|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://archive.is/20120714063007/http://pl.indymedia.org/pl/2005/01/11431.shtml|archivedate=2012-07-14|df=}}</ref>

A law forbidding anyone from blaming Poland or Poles for Holocaust atrocities during World War II was voted by lawmakers on January 26, 2018.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/27/it-could-soon-be-a-crime-to-blame-poland-for-nazi-atrocities-and-israel-is-appalled/|title=It could soon be a crime to blame Poland for Nazi atrocities, and Israel is appalled|first1=Ruth|last1=Eglash|first2=Avi|last2=Selk|date=28 January 2018|publisher=|access-date=28 January 2018|via=www.WashingtonPost.com}}</ref>

====Portugal====
After Salazar's dictatorship was overthrown in 1974, Article 37 of the Portuguese Constitution prohibits censorship of opinion and information.

====Spain====
Article 578 of the Penal Code of Spain prohibits the "[[wikt:enaltecimiento|Glorification]] or [[wikt:justificación|justification]], by any means of public [[wikt:expresión|expression]] or [[wikt:difusión|dissemination]], of the crimes included in Articles 571-577 of this Code or of those who participated in its execution, or performance of acts involving disrepute, contempt or humiliation of the victims of terrorist offenses or their families[...]".<ref>{{citation|title=Ley Orgánica 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal|work=[[Boletín Oficial del Estado]]|date=24 November 1995|url=https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1995-25444}}</ref> In January 2014, a judge of the ''{{lang|es|[[Audiencia Nacional (Spain)|Audiencia Nacional]]}}'' banned a planned march in [[Bilbao]] in support of jailed members of the Basque separatist group [[ETA (separatist group)|ETA]] that was organized by the group {{lang|eu|Tantaz Tanta}} ("Drop for drop" in [[Basque language|Basque]]) on the basis that he considered the group to be the successor to Herrira, whose activities had been banned because of its suspected links to jailed ETA militants.<ref>{{cite news|title=Spain judge bans demo for ETA prisoners|agency=[[Agence France-Presse]]|work=[[GlobalPost]]|date=1 January 2014|accessdate=12 January 2014|url=http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140110/spain-judge-bans-demo-eta-prisoners-0}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=PNV and Sortu back new rally for ETA inmates after court bans march|first=Fernando J.|last=Pérez|work=[[El País]]|date=10 January 2014|access-date=12 January 2014|url=http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/01/10/inenglish/1389370624_744201.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Velasco prohíbe la marcha a favor de los presos de ETA por convocarla la sucesora de Herrira|date=10 January 2014|work=[[RTVE]]|language=Spanish|access-date=12 January 2014|url=http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20140110/juez-ruz-autoriza-marcha-favor-presos-eta-este-sabado-bilbao/844580.shtml}}</ref> In February 2014, a [[Twitter]] user was convicted for expressing praise for the separatist group [[First of October Anti-Fascist Resistance Groups|GRAPO]] inactive since 90s but not yet formally self-dissolved.<ref>{{cite news|title=One-year prison sentence for 21-year-old Twitter user who glorified terrorists|work=[[El País]]|date=4 February 2014|accessdate=4 February 2014|url=http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/02/04/inenglish/1391513715_931671.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=In a First for Spain, a Woman Is Convicted of Inciting Terror Over Twitter|first=Raphael|last=Minder|date=22 February 2014|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/world/europe/in-a-first-for-spain-a-woman-is-convicted-of-inciting-terror-over-twitter.html}}</ref>

====Sweden====
{{See also|Censorship in Sweden}}

Freedom of speech is regulated in three parts of the [[Constitution of Sweden]]:
* ''{{lang|sv|Regeringsformen}}'', Chapter 2 (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) protects personal freedom of expression "whether orally, pictorially, in writing, or in any other way".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6319.aspx|title=Chapter 2. Fundamental rights and freedoms|accessdate=2007-05-07|work=The Instrument of Government|year=1974|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070516084414/http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6319.aspx|archivedate=2007-05-16|df=}}</ref>
* ''{{lang|sv|Tryckfrihetsförordningen}}'' (Freedom of the Press Act) protects the freedom of printed press, as well as the principle of free access to public records (Principle of Public Access) and the right to [[whistleblower|communicate information to the press anonymously]]. For a newspaper to be covered by this law, it must be registered and have a "legally responsible publisher", a Swedish legal term meaning a person who is ultimately accountable for the printed material.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____8908.aspx|title=Summary of The Freedom of the Press Act |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930182530/http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____8908.aspx |archive-date=2007-09-30 |publisher=[[Swedish Riksdag]]|website=Riksdagen.se|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref><ref>[http://www.dagspress.se/in-english Dagspress.se In English], [[TU/Tidningsutgivarna, Swedish Media Publishers' Association]]</ref>
* ''{{lang|sv|Yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen}}'' (Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression) extends protections similar to those of ''{{lang|sv|Tryckfrihetsförordningen}}'' to other media, including television, radio and web sites.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____8909.aspx|title=Summary of The Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930213121/http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____8909.aspx |archive-date=2007-09-30 |publisher=[[Swedish Riksdag]]|website=Riksdagen.se|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref>

Hate speech laws prohibit threats or expressions of [[:wiktionary:contempt|contempt]] based on race, skin colour, nationality or ethnic origin, religious belief or sexual orientation.<ref>{{cite book | title= Freedom in the World 2009: The Annual Survey of Political Rights & Civil Liberties | first= Aili | last= Piano | year= 2009 | page= 689 | isbn= 978-1-4422-0122-4 | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=hZVhuV7h5hwC&pg=PA689}}</ref>

In the weeks preceding the [[Swedish Election 2010|election of 2010]], the privately owned TV channel [[TV4 (Sweden)|TV4]] refused to show an advertisement of the [[Sweden Democrats]] party, fearing that it could be prosecuted for publishing hate speech.<ref>[http://www.mediekompass.se/arkiv/lektionstips/58-vardegrund/2045-sds-valreklam-och-tv-4-en-vaerderingsoevning "SD:s valreklam och TV 4 - en värderingsövning"] ["SD's election advertising and TV 4 - a valuation exercise"] {{sv icon}}, Mediekompass. Retrieved 4 September 2014.</ref> The ad displayed women in traditional Islamistic [[burkha]]s reaching for an emergency brake labelled with the text "Pensions", and an elderly woman reaching for an emergency brake labelled with the text "Immigration", thus implying that there is a fiscal conflict between pension payments and allowing immigration. The law regulating TV and radio broadcasts had previously expressly prohibited discrimination against advertisers, granting a rejected advertiser the right to complain to a national board. However, the ban was lifted just two months before the election, thus making it possible for TV and radio broadcasters to opt out on some parties while showing the commercials of other parties.<ref name="TV4 får rata">[http://www.svd.se/kultur/tv4-far-rata-politisk-annons_5256753.svd "TV4 får rata politisk annons"] ["TV4 may level political ad"] {{sv icon}}, Johan Hellekant, Swedish Dagbladet (SvD), 5 September 2010.</ref> This was the first election when the [[Sweden Democrats]] gained seats in the [[Swedish Parliament]]. Some Danish ministers criticized the TV4 decision as democratically unacceptable.<ref name="TV4 får rata"/>

Prior to the [[Swedish general election, 2014|election of 2014]], the General Secretary for the Swedish Red Cross and former discrimination ombudsman Peter Nobel demanded that the Nazistic [[Swedes Party]] be banned.<ref name="SvP Aftonbladet"/><ref>[http://www.svd.se/nyheter/valet2014/svenskarnas-parti_3847588.svd?sidan=1 "Tumultet kring Svenskarnas parti"], ["Tumult about Swedes Party"] {{sv icon}}, Swedish Dagbladet (SvD), 23 August 2014.</ref><ref>[http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/svenskarnas-parti-far-massivt-polisbeskydd/ "Svenskarnas parti får massivt polisbeskydd"] ["Swedes party gets massive police protection"] {{sv icon}}, Lars-Olof Strömberg, Kvällsposten (KVP), 23 August 2014.</ref><ref name="SvP DN">[http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/jurister-inget-hinder-for-att-forbjuda-nazistorganisationer "Jurister: Inget hinder för att förbjuda nazistorganisationer"] ["Lawyers: No obstacles to ban Nazi organizations"] {{sv icon}}, Ossi Carp and Erik de la Reguera, ''Daily News'' (DN.se), 31 August 2014.</ref> A former police intendent, Erik Rönnegård, stated in the juridical newspaper, ''Dagens Juridik'', that not banning the party showed incompetence of both the police and the judiciary.<ref name="SvP DN"/> A large newspaper, ''[[Aftonbladet]]'', interviewed "many lawyers" who said that the party must be banned and not banning the party is not in accordance with the [[United Nations]] convention on [[racism]].<ref name="SvP Aftonbladet">[http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article19452946.ab "Tung kritik mot svensk hållning kring nazidemonstrationer"] ["Heavy criticism of the Swedish attitude about Nazi demonstrations"] {{sv icon}}, John Granlund and Pär Karlsson, ''Aftonbladet'', 31 August 2014.</ref> According to the largest Swedish newspaper ''[[Dagens Nyheter]]'' the governmental decision not to ban the party has been criticized "by many".<ref name="SvP DN"/> Both the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice said that freedom of speech must be respected and no parties should be banned.<ref name="SvP Aftonbladet"/> Holding a demonstration requires permission from the Swedish police. The police have so far granted demonstration permissions to the Swedes Party, but [[Swedish Left Party]] leader Jonas Sjöstedt has criticized the police for issuing permissions "so generously".<ref>[http://www.expressen.se/ledare/sakine-madon/madon-nazisternas-nyttiga-idioter "Nazisternas nyttiga idioter"] ["The Nazis' useful idiots"] {{sv icon}}, Sakine Madon, Expressen, Kvällsposten (KVP), 29 August 2014.</ref> The Swedes Party was disbanded on 10 May 2015.

====United Kingdom====
{{See also|Censorship in the United Kingdom}}
[[File:English Bill of Rights of 1689 (middle).jpg|thumb|right|The [[Bill of Rights 1689]] grants the [[parliamentary privilege]] for freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]] and is still in effect.]]

[[British nationality law|United Kingdom citizens]] have a [[negative and positive rights|negative right]] to freedom of expression under the [[common law]].<ref>{{cite book |title=The Three Pillars of Liberty: Political Rights and Freedoms in the United Kingdom|last=Klug|first=Francesca|year=1996|publisher=[[Routledge]]|page=165|editor1-last=Starmer|editor1-first=Keir|editor2-last=Weir|editor2-first=Stuart|series=The Democratic Audit of the United Kingdom|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=G0UMoZMrQh0C&pg=PA165|isbn=978-041509642-3|ref=harv}}</ref> In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the [[European Convention (1999–2000)|European Convention]], and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the [[Human Rights Act 1998|Human Rights Act]]. However, there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause [[harassment, alarm or distress]] or cause a [[breach of the peace]] (which has been used to prohibit [[racism|racist]] speech targeted at individuals),<ref>{{cite book |title=The Boundaries of Freedom of Expression & Order in American Democracy|last=Hensley|first=Thomas R.|year=2001|page=153|publisher=Kent State University Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a1V53azMBlwC&pg=PA153|isbn=9780873386920}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Klug|1996|pp=175–179}}</ref><ref>[[Public Order Act 1986]]</ref> sending any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature),<ref>{{cite news|title=Kent man arrested after picture of burning poppy posted on internet|first=Ben|last=Quinn|date=11 November 2012|work=[[The Guardian]]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/12/kent-man-arrested-burning-poppy}}</ref><ref>Section 1 of the [[Malicious Communications Act 1988]]</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Woolwich attack: Man held in malicious Facebook comments probe after soldier murder|first=Paul|last=Cockerton|work=[[Daily Mirror|Mirror Online]]|date=25 May 2013|url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woolwich-attack-lincoln-man-benjamin-1909780}}</ref> [[incitement]],<ref name="joint2005p114">{{cite book |title=Counter-Terrorism Policy And Human Rights: Terrorism Bill and related matters: Oral and Written Evidence|series=Counter-Terrorism Policy And Human Rights: Terrorism Bill and related matters|volume=2|year=2005|publisher=[[The Stationery Office]]|page=114|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2CRQ6hNzHuAC&pg=PA114|ref={{harvid|Joint Committee|2005}}|author1=Joint Committee on Human Rights|author2=Parliament of the United Kingdom|authorlink1=Joint Committee on Human Rights|authorlink2=Parliament of the United Kingdom}}</ref> [[incitement to racial hatred]],<ref>{{cite book |title=Freedom of Speech and Its Limits|last=Sadurski|first=Wojciech|series=Law and Philosophy Library|volume=38|year=2001|page=179|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4Ldb0cIbS7kC&pg=PA179|isbn=9781402002816}}</ref> incitement to religious hatred, incitement to [[terrorism]] including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,<ref name="joint2005p114"/><ref>{{cite book |title=Human Rights in the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism|last=Conte|first=Alex|year=2010|page=643|publisher=Springer|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pJsqayP3OD8C&pg=PA643|isbn=9783642116087}}</ref><ref>[[Terrorism Act 2006]]</ref> glorifying terrorism,<ref>{{cite book |title=Comparative Media Law and Ethics|last=Crook|first=Tim|year=2010|page=397|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Egsj58tyvdkC&pg=PA397|ref=harv|isbn=9780203865965}}</ref><ref name="joint2005p116">{{harvnb|Joint Committee|2005|p=116}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Sinn Fein theory on memorials break law by glorification of terrorism|date=21 June 2013|work=[[Tyrone Times]]|url=http://www.tyronetimes.co.uk/news/local/tyrone-news/sinn-fein-theory-on-memorials-break-law-by-glorification-of-terrorism-1-5213572}}</ref> collection or [[Possession (law)|possession]] of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist,<ref name="bbc01aug11">{{cite news |title=Blogger who encouraged murder of MPs jailed|date=29 July 2011|publisher=[[BBC News]]|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-14344199|accessdate=1 August 2011}}</ref><ref name="po29jul11">Possession of ''[[Inspire (magazine)|Inspire]]'' has been successfully prosecuted under Section 58 of the [[Terrorism Act 2000]]. {{cite press release|title=Online extremist sentenced to 12 years for soliciting murder of MPs|date=29 July 2011|publisher=[[West Midlands Police]]|url=http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/np/wolverhampton/news/newsitem.asp?id=4066|quote=In addition, Ahmad admitted three counts of collecting information likely to be of use to a terrorist, including the al-Qaeda publication Inspire. This is the first successful prosecution for possessing the online jihadist magazine.}}</ref> [[high treason in the United Kingdom|treason]] including advocating for the [[Republicanism in the United Kingdom|abolition of the monarchy]] (which cannot be successfully prosecuted) or [[compass (law)|compassing]] or imagining the death of the [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom|monarch]],<ref>[[Treason Felony Act 1848]]</ref><ref name="klug1996p177">{{harvnb|Klug|1996|p=177}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Treason by Words: Literature, Law, and Rebellion in Shakespeare's England|first=Rebecca|last=Lemon|publisher=[[Cornell University Press]]|year=2008|pages=5–10|isbn=9780801474491|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6xuK4L98f_MC&pg=PA5}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Human Rights and Criminal Justice|edition=3rd|page=200|first1=Ben|last1=Emmerson|authorlink1=Ben Emmerson|first2=Andrew|last2=Ashworth|authorlink2=Andrew Ashworth|first3=Alison|last3=Macdonald|publisher=[[Sweet & Maxwell]]|year=2012|isbn=978-1-847-03911-8|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AWJI6OwYY3MC&pg=PA200}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Guardian vindicated in treason case|first=Clare|last=Dyer|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=27 June 2003|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jun/27/theguardian.pressandpublishing|quote=Advocating the abolition of the monarchy in print is lawful and no one can be prosecuted for it, despite a 19th-century act still on the statute book that bans it…}}</ref> [[sedition]] (no longer illegal, sedition and seditious libel (as [[common law offence]]s) were abolished by section 73 of the [[Coroners and Justice Act 2009]] (with effect on 12 January 2010)),<ref name="klug1996p177"/> [[obscenity]],<ref name="klug1996p172">{{harvnb|Klug|1996|p=172}}</ref> indecency including corruption of [[public morality|public morals]] and [[outraging public decency]],<ref name="klug1996p173">{{harvnb|Klug|1996|p=173}}</ref> defamation,<ref>{{harvnb|Klug|1996|pp=169–170}}</ref> [[prior restraint]], restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,<ref>{{harvnb|Klug|1996|pp=156–160}}</ref><ref name="helsinki1991p53">{{cite book |title=Restricted Subjects: Freedom of Expression in the United Kingdom|author1=Helsinki Watch|author2=Fund for Free Expression|year=1991|page=53|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sjvb0Y-iwqQC&pg=PA53|ref=harv|authorlink1=Helsinki Watch|isbn=9780300056242}}</ref> prohibition of post-trial interviews with [[jury|jurors]],<ref name="helsinki1991p53"/> scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,<ref name="helsinki1991p53"/><ref>{{cite news | title= 'Scandalising court' under review | work= [[BBC News]] | date= 9 August 2012 | url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19204860}}</ref> time, manner, and place restrictions,<ref name="bbcbrown">{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6266420.stm|title=Brown 'to change' protests laws|date=3 July 2007|work=BBC News|accessdate=20 June 2010|quote=A 2005 law created an "exclusion zone" inside which all protests required police permission. ... The requirement for police permission was introduced in the [[Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005]].}}</ref> harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

UK laws on [[defamation]] are among the strictest in the western world, imposing a high [[burden of proof (law)|burden of proof]] on the defendant. However, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 guarantees freedom of speech (within institutions of further education and institutions of higher education) as long as it is within the law (see section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986).<ref>[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/61 Education (No. 2) Act 1986]</ref> UK defamation law may have experienced a considerable liberalising effect as a result of the ruling in ''Jameel v [[Wall Street Journal]]'' in October 2006. A ruling of the [[House of Lords]]—the then highest court of appeal—revived the so-called [[Reynolds v Times Newspapers|''Reynolds'' Defence]], in which journalism undertaken in the public interest shall enjoy a complete defence against a libel suit. Conditions for the defence include the right of reply for potential claimants, and that the balance of the piece was fair in view of what the writer knew at the time. The ruling removed the awkward—and hitherto binding—conditions of being able to describe the publisher as being under a duty to publish the material and the public as having a definite interest in receiving it. The original House of Lords judgment in Reynolds was unclear and held 3–2; whereas Jameel was unanimous and resounding. [[Lord Hoffman]]'s words, in particular, for how the judge at first instance had applied Reynolds so narrowly, were very harsh. Hoffman LJ made seven references to [[Eady J]], none of them favorable. He twice described his thinking as unrealistic and compared his language to "the jargon of the old Soviet Union." The [[Defamation Act 2013]] reformed English defamation law on issues of the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation, and abolished the Reynolds Defence, [[Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd]], also replacing the common law defences of justification and fair comment.

The [[Video Recordings Act 2010]] requires most video recordings and some [[video games]] offered for sale in the United Kingdom to display a classification supplied by the [[BBFC]]. There are no set regulations as to what cannot be depicted in order to gain a classification as each scene is considered in the context of the wider intentions of the work; however images that could aid, encourage, or are a result of the committing of a crime, along with sustained and graphic images of torture or sexual abuse are the most likely to be refused. The objectionable material may be cut by the distributor in order to receive a classification, but with some works it may be deemed that no amount of cuts would be able to make the work suitable for classification, effectively banning that title from sale in the country. Cinemas by convention use BBFC classifications, but recordings refused a classification by the BBFC may still be shown in [[cinemas]] providing the local authority, from which a cinema must have a licence to operate, will permit them.

===Norway===

Article 100 of the Norwegian [[Constitution of Norway|Constitution]] has granted freedom of speech since 1814 and is mostly unchanged since then. Article 142 of the penal code is a law against blasphemy, but no one has been charged since 1933, though it was upheld as late as 2004. Article 135a of the penal code is a law against hate speech, which is debated and not widely used.

Article 100 in the Constitution states:
* There shall be freedom of expression.
* No person may be held liable in law for having imparted or received information, ideas or messages unless this can be justified in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression, which are the seeking of truth, the promotion of democracy and the individual's freedom to form opinions. Such legal liability shall be prescribed by law.
* Everyone shall be free to speak his mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever. Clearly defined limitations to this right may only be imposed when particularly weighty considerations so justify in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression.
* Prior censorship and other preventive measures may not be applied unless so required in order to protect children and young persons from the harmful influence of moving pictures. Censorship of letters may only be imposed in institutions.
* Everyone has a right of access to documents of the State and municipal administration and a right to follow the proceedings of the courts and democratically elected bodies. Limitations to this right may be prescribed by law to protect the privacy of the individual or for other weighty reasons.
* It is the responsibility of the authorities of the State to create conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse.
Norway has however several laws that ban the right to impart information, such as laws against alcohol and tobacco-advertisement in TV, radio, newspapers and on the internet.

===Russia===
{{Main article|Freedom of the press in Russia}}
{{See also|Freedom of assembly in Russia|Freedom of religion in Russia}}

Various aspects of the contemporary press freedom situation are criticized by multiple international organizations.<ref name="IPIRussia">[http://www.freemedia.at/publications/world-press-freedom-review/europe/singleview/russia/704e9b4ec9/ International Press Institute: Russia] {{Dead link |date=September 2013}}</ref><ref name="Human-Rights-2013">[https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2013/eur/220324.htm Human Rights Reports: Russia]; US BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR; 2013</ref><ref>[http://en.rsf.org/europe-ex-ussr-europe-no-longer-so-exemplary-20-10-2009,34783 Reporters Without Borders: Europe no longer so exemplary, Russian tragedy deepens] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150214233241/http://en.rsf.org/europe-ex-ussr-europe-no-longer-so-exemplary-20-10-2009%2C34783 |date=2015-02-14 }}</ref><ref>[http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/intro_regional_ru.pdf Reporters Without Borders: Indeks svabody pressy 2009 god] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091104035133/http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/intro_regional_ru.pdf |date=2009-11-04 }}, {{ru icon}}.</ref><ref name="hrw2009">{{cite web|url=https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2009_web.pdf|title=Human Rights Watch: World Report, Russia p. 393|website=hrw.org|accessdate=28 January 2018}}</ref><ref>[http://report2009.amnesty.org/sites/report2009.amnesty.org/files/documents/air09-en.pdf Amnesty International: Amnesty International Report 2009 - Russia] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090805050859/http://report2009.amnesty.org/sites/report2009.amnesty.org/files/documents/air09-en.pdf |date=2009-08-05 }}</ref><ref name=amnesty2>{{cite web|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/search/?contentType=2561|title=Turkmenistan|website=amnesty.org|accessdate=28 January 2018}}</ref><ref name=unhcr1>{{cite web|url=http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/co/CCPR.C.RUS.CO.6.doc|title=The October 2009 Concluding Observations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee|website=ohchr.org|accessdate=28 January 2018}}</ref> Russian constitution provides for freedom of speech and press, however, government application of [[law]], bureaucratic [[regulation]], and politically motivated [[criminal investigation]]s have forced the press to exercise [[self-censorship]] constraining its coverage of certain controversial issues, resulting in infringements of these rights.<ref name="IPIRussia" /><ref name="Human-Rights-2013"/><ref>[http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html Index of Reporters without Borders] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091106042411/http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html |date=November 6, 2009 }}, 2009</ref> According to [[Human Rights Watch]], the Russian government exerts control over civil society through selective implementation of the law, restriction and censure.<ref name="hrw2009" />

The 2002 Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity codifies a definition of "extremism", prohibits advocacy of extreme political positions, imposes liability on organizations that do not disavow the "extremist" statements of their members, and allows government authorities to suspend, without court order, social and religious organizations and political parties.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Russia's War on Political and Religious Extremism: An Appraisal of the Law "On Counteracting Extremist Activity"|first=J. Brian|last=Gross|year=2003|journal=[[BYU Law Review]]|issue=2|pages=717–760|url=http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2003/iss2/12/}}</ref> In 2014, Russia strengthened criminal responsibility for crimes under Art. 280 ("public calls for extremist activity"), Art. 282 ("inciting hatred or hostility, and humiliation of human dignity"), Art. 282 Part 1 ("the organization of an extremist community") and Art. 282 Part 2 ("the organization of an extremist organization") of the Criminal Code.<ref>{{Cite news|script-title=ru:Депутаты ужесточили наказание за экстремизм|trans-title=MPs toughen penalties for extremism|first=Владислав|last=Крупа|date=22 January 2014|language=Russian|work=Утро.ru|url=http://www.utro.ru/articles/2014/01/22/1170321.shtml}}</ref> Under the strengthened laws, those convicted of "extremist activity" face up to six years in prison.<ref>{{Cite news|title=A bit of satire in Russia earns a big backlash|first=Fred|last=Weir|date=1 April 2014|work=[[The Christian Science Monitor]]|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0401/A-bit-of-satire-in-Russia-earns-a-big-backlash}}</ref>

===Switzerland===
The [[Swiss constitutional referendum, 1848|Swiss Constitution]] also guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of information for every citizen (Article 16).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/101/a16.html|title=SR 101 Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft vom 18. April 1999|first=Bundeskanzlei -|last=P|website=www.Admin.ch|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref> But still the country makes some controversial decisions, which both human right organizations and other states criticize. The Swiss animal rights organization ''Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz'' took the country to the European Court of Human Rights twice for censoring a TV ad of the organization, in which the livestock farming of pigs is shown. The organization won both lawsuits, and the Swiss state was convicted to pay compensations.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.3sat.de/3sat.php?http://www.3sat.de/kulturzeit/news/113962/index.html|title=Sehr geehrte Zuschauerin,sehr geehrter Zuschauer -|first=|last=3sat.online|website=www.3sat.de|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref> Another very controversial[citation needed] law of Switzerland is that persons who refuse to recognize the [[Armenian Genocide]] of 1915 have to face trial. The Turkish politician [[Doğu Perinçek]] was fined CHF 12,000 for denying the genocide in 2007. Switzerland was criticized by Turkish media and Turkish politicians for acting against the freedom of opinion. Perinçek's application for a revision was rejected by the court.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Turkish_politician_fined_over_genocide_denial.html?siteSect=105&sid=7603245|title=Turkish politician fined over genocide denial|website=Swissinfo.org|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref> Holocaust denial is also illegal.

==North America==

===Canada===
{{Further information|History of free speech in Canada|Censorship in Canada}}

====Constitutional guarantees====
Freedom of expression in Canada is guaranteed by [[Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 2(b)]] of the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]:

:2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

::...
::(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication

[[Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 1]] of the Charter, the so-called limitations clause,{{By whom|date=July 2017}} establishes that the guarantee of freedom of expression and other rights under the Charter are not absolute and can be limited under certain situations:

:1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it ''subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society''. (emphasis added)

This section is double-edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted, if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated, if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.

Other laws that protect freedom of speech in Canada, and did so, to a limited extent, before the Charter was enacted in 1982, include the [[Implied Bill of Rights]], the ''[[Canadian Bill of Rights]]'' and the [[Saskatchewan Bill of Rights]].

====Supreme Court decisions====
''[[R v Keegstra]]'', decided in 1990, is one of the major Supreme Court decision relating to freedom of expression. Section 318 of the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]] makes it a criminal offence to promote genocide against members of an identifiable group, based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or gender expression or identity.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-318.html|title=Consolidated federal laws of canada, Criminal Code|first=Legislative Services|last=Branch|website=laws-lois.justice.gc.ca|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref> Section 319 of the Code makes it an offence to publicly incite hatred against people based on the same list of personal characteristics from s. 318, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-319.html|title=Consolidated federal laws of canada, Criminal Code|first=Legislative Services|last=Branch|website=laws-lois.justice.gc.ca|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref> In ''Keegstra'', the Supreme Court by a 4-3 decision upheld the offence of publicly inciting hatred, finding that while it infringes the guarantee of freedom of expression, it is a reasonable limit and justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/695/index.do|title=R. v. Keegstra - SCC Cases (Lexum)|website=scc-csc.lexum.com|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref>

When originally enacted, the list of protected personal grounds in s. 318 did not include sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Sexual orientation was added to the list in 2004, when Parliament passed [[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda)]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/2004_14.pdf|title=''An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda)'', SC 2004, c. 14.|website=justice.gc.ca|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref> In 2017, Parliament added gender identity and gender expression to the list of protected personal grounds in s. 318 by ''[[An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/2017_13.pdf|title=''An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code'', SC 2017, c. 13.|website=justice.gc.ca|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref>

Two years after the ''Keegstra'' decision, the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] in 1992 decided the case of ''[[R v Zundel]]''. The Court struck down a provision in the Criminal Code that prohibited publication of false information or news, stating that it violated section 2(b) of the Charter and could not be justified under s. 1.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/904/index.do|title=R. v. Zundel - SCC Cases (Lexum)|website=scc-csc.lexum.com|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-181.html|title=Consolidated federal laws of canada, Criminal Code|first=Legislative Services|last=Branch|website=laws-lois.justice.gc.ca|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref>

====Prosecutions involving expression====
* In 2007, a Montreal [[Neo-Nazism in Canada|neo-Nazi]], Jean-Sebastien Presseault, pled guilty to a charge of willfully promoting hatred toward blacks and Jews on his website, contrary to s. 319 of the Criminal Code. Quebec Court Judge Martin Vauclair sentenced him to six months in jail, as opposed to a sentence to be served in the community, as the defence had hoped. The judge called Presseault's remarks "despicable, evil, and nauseating". The judge also referred to Pressault's more than twenty tattoos, including several [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[Nazi symbolism|Nazi symbols]] covering the defendant's torso, in his decision to give jail time: "The harm that he has done to his own body to leave a lasting impression of his beliefs clearly shows that he has unresolved issues and is filled with racist feelings and hate," Vauclair said. The judge also cited Presseault's criminal record for violent offences in concluding that the safety of the public would be jeopardized by allowing him to serve his sentence in the community.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccq/doc/2007/2007qccq384/2007qccq384.html?autocompleteStr=Presseault&autocompletePos=1|title=''R c Presseault'', 2007 QCCQ 384 (CanLII) (Court of Quebec), paras. 51, 52, 53, 56.|website=CanLII.org|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref><ref>[http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=a4be478b-81fd-47fc-9f7b-1289a514435f&k=47888 "Montreal man jailed for racist website"], ''Montreal Gazette'', 24 January 2007. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150724200929/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=a4be478b-81fd-47fc-9f7b-1289a514435f&k=47888 |date=24 July 2015 }}</ref>

* In August 2015, Robert Wells in Edmonton, Canada, displayed a sign in the back window of his car saying "FUCK HARPER" and drove it on a public highway. [[Stephen Harper]] was then the [[Prime Minister of Canada]], and a [[Canadian federal election, 2015|federal general election]] was in progress. A police officer gave Wells a ticket for the offence of stunting under the provincial Traffic Safety Act.<ref>{{cite news| title ='F*CK HARPER' Sign Leads To $543 Fine For Edmonton Man| newspaper =huffingtonpost| url =http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/18/fuck-harper-sign-alberta_n_8005684.html }}</ref> When the matter went to trial, Wells argued that the charge infringed his freedom of expression under the Charter. The Provincial Court judge agreed with him that the sign in itself, posted in his car window, was political expression, protected by the Charter, and that no charge could lie for simple display of the sign. However, the judge found that the way Wells was driving on a public highway to draw attention to the sign interfered with the public's use of the highway: "Wells was driving at an uncharacteristically slow speed, he is said to have passed vehicles and then slowed down in front of them and, at least on one occasion, he conducted a hazardous lane change, cutting off the Sleeman vehicle and forcing it to 'slam' on the brakes." The judge went on to say: "This latter 'method' of expression would run contrary to the values protected by the Charter, s. 2(b). Freedom of expression does not protect one’s opportunity to impede or otherwise create a hazard for traffic on a public highway. Nor does the Charter, s. 2(b) protect a motorist’s hazardous driving behaviour ''even when the intent behind that driving is to facilitate viewing of the expressive conduct''." The judge ultimately concluded that Wells' manner of driving was "other activity that was likely to distract, startle or interfere with other users of the highway", and therefore convicted him of the offence of stunting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/07/21/fuck-harper_n_11112204.html|title='F*CK HARPER' Sign: Driver Loses Challenge For Ticket|date=21 July 2016|website=HuffingtonPost.ca|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2016/2016abpc171/2016abpc171.html|title=''R v Wells'', 2016 ABPC 171 (CanLII), paras. 66, 67, 68, 103 (emphasis in judge's ruling).|website=CanLII.org|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref>

====Human rights complaints====
Canada has had a string of high-profile court cases in which writers and publishers have been the targets of human rights complaints for their writings, in both magazines and web postings. The human rights process in Canada is civil in nature, not criminal.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/697/index.do|title=Canada (human Rights Commission) v. Taylor - SCC Cases (Lexum)|website=scc-csc.lexum.com|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref> Most of those complaints were withdrawn or dismissed.

*In 2002 Darren Lund, a professor at the University of Calgary, filed a complaint against [[Lund v Boissoin|Reverend Stephen Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition]] with the [[Alberta Human Rights Commission]], alleging that Boisson's letter to the ''[[Red Deer Advocate]]'' was "likely to expose homosexuals to hatred and/or contempt." The Alberta Human Rights Panel found that Boissoin and the Coalition had infringed the hate publication provision of the ''Alberta Human Rights Act''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abhrc/doc/2007/2007ahrc11/2007ahrc11.html?resultIndex=2|title=''Lund v. Boissoin'', 2007 AHRC 11, para. 333.|website=CanLII.org|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref> The Panel ordered Boissoin and the Coalition to cease publishing disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals; to apologize to Lund; to pay $5,000 in damages to Lund; and to pay costs, up to $2,000.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abhrc/doc/2008/2008ahrc6/2008ahrc6.html?resultIndex=5|title=''Lund v. Boissoin'', 2008 AHRC 6, para. 14.|website=CanLII.org|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref> The decision was overturned in 2009 when the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that the contents of the letter did not violate the hate publication provision of the Alberta Human Rights Act; that there was no evidence to support a finding against the Coalition; and that the remedies which had been imposed were either unlawful or unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2009/2009abqb592/2009abqb592.html?resultIndex=6|title=''Boissoin v. Lund'', 2009 ABQB 592 (CanLII), para. 8.|website=CanLII.org|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref> The court's decision was upheld by the Alberta Court of Appeal in 2012.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2012/2012abca300/2012abca300.html?resultIndex=8|title=''Lund v. Boissoin'', 2012 ABCA 300 (CanLII).|website=CanLII.org|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref>
* In February 2006, Calgary Sufi Muslim leader [[Syed Soharwardy]] filed a human rights complaint against ''[[Western Standard]]'' publisher [[Ezra Levant]]. Levant was compelled to appear before the Alberta Human Rights Commission to discuss his intention in publishing the [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy|Muhammad cartoons]]. Levant posted a video of the hearing on [[YouTube]]. Levant questioned the competence of the Commission to take up the issue, and challenged it to convict him, "and sentence me to the apology", stating that he would then take "this junk into the real courts, where eight hundred years of common law" would come to his aid. In February 2008, Soharwardy dropped the complaint noting that "most Canadians see this as an issue of freedom of speech, that that principle is sacred and holy in our society."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=7e0d6665-0c5d-41b8-a706-d95f3b0329be |title=Imam drops rights dispute |date=13 February 2008 |publisher=Calgary Herald |access-date=17 November 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20121104043307/http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=7e0d6665-0c5d-41b8-a706-d95f3b0329be |archivedate=4 November 2012 |df= }}</ref><ref>[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=303895 "Muslim leader drops Ezra Levant cartoon complaint", ''National Post'', February 12, 2008.]</ref>

* In May 2006, the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities filed another human rights complaint against the ''Western Standard'' over the publishing of the cartoons. In August 2008, the Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint, stating that, "given the full context of the republication of the cartoons, the very strong language defining hatred and contempt in the case law as well as consideration of the importance of freedom of speech and the 'admonition to balance,' the southern director concludes that there is no reasonable basis in the information for this complaint to proceed to a panel hearing."<ref name=complaintdismissal>[http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15181&Itemid=86 Human rights complaint dismissal spurs more debate] by Paul Lungen, ''Canadian Jewish News'', 21 August 2008. Retrieved 21 October 2008.{{dead link|date=July 2017}}</ref>
* In 2007, the [[Canadian Islamic Congress]] filed complaints filed with the [[Canadian Human Rights Commission]], the [[Ontario Human Rights Commission]] and the [[British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal]], all related to an article "The Future Belongs to Islam", written by [[Mark Steyn]], published in ''[[Maclean's]]'' magazine.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/human-rights-complaints-launched-against-macleans-magazine-534883261.html|title=Human Rights Complaints Launched Against Maclean's Magazine|website=www.Newswire.ca|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref> The complainants alleged that the article violated their human rights by exposing them to hatred, as did the refusal by ''Maclean's'' to provide space for a rebuttal. The complainants also claimed that the article was one of twenty-two ''Maclean's'' articles, many written by Steyn, about Muslims. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission all dismissed the complaints in spring 2008.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/commission-statement-concerning-issues-raised-complaints-against-macleans-magazine|title=Commission statement concerning issues raised by complaints against Maclean&amp;#039;s Magazine|website=Ontario Human Rights Commission|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2008/2008bchrt378/2008bchrt378.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAQaXNsYW1pYyBjb25ncmVzcwAAAAAB&resultIndex=1|title=''Elmasry and Habib v. Roger’s Publishing and MacQueen (No. 4)'', 2008 BCHRT 378 (CanLII).|website=CanLII.org|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/human-rights-complaint-against-maclean-s-dismissed-1.305350|title=Human rights complaint against Maclean's dismissed|date=28 June 2008|website=CTVNews.ca|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/human-rights-complaint-against-macleans-dismissed/article18452636/|title=Human rights complaint against Maclean's dismissed|publisher=|access-date=28 January 2018|via=The Globe and Mail}}</ref>
* In Saskatchewan, human rights complaints were filed against [[Bill Whatcott]] alleging that four pamphlets he distributed in Regina and Saskatoon in 2002 promoted hatred against individuals based on their sexual orientation. The complaints were upheld in 2005 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal, which ordered Whatcott to pay damages to each of the four complainants, totalling $17,500, and also ordered him not to publish similar pamphlets.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skhrt/doc/2005/2005canlii80912/2005canlii80912.html?resultIndex=1|title=''Wallace v. Whatcott'', 2005 CanLII 80912 (SK HRT).|website=CanLII.org|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref> Whatcott appealed to the [[Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan|Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench]], which dismissed the appeal in 2007.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/2007/2007skqb450/2007skqb450.html?resultIndex=6|title=''Whatcott v. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Tribunal)'', 2007 SKQB 450 (CanLII).|website=CanLII.org|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref> However, in February 2010, Whatcott succeeded in his appeal to the [[Saskatchewan Court of Appeal]], which found that the pamphlets did not infringe the hate publication provision of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. Part of the judgment allowing his appeal commented that the pamphlets related to "... the manner in which children in the public school system are to be exposed to messages about different forms of sexuality and sexual identity." The judgment went to say: "This is beyond question an important matter of public policy and it is inherently controversial. It must always be open to public debate. That debate will sometimes be polemical and impolite."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skca/doc/2010/2010skca26/2010skca26.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAAAAAAEAFjIwMDcgU0tRQiA0NTAgKENhbkxJSSkAAAABAAwvMjAwN3NrcWI0NTAB&resultIndex=2|title=''Whatcott v. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Tribunal)'', 2010 SKCA 26 (CanLII), para. 135.|website=CanLII.org|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref><ref>Politicians allow hurt feelings to trump basic rights: {{cite web |url=http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/article.php/188 |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2013-05-03 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120501083853/http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/article.php/188 |archivedate=2012-05-01 |df= }}</ref> The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission then appealed to the [[Supreme Court of Canada]].<ref>[https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2010/10/28/supreme_court_to_hear_appeal_over_antigay_leaflets.html "Supreme Court to hear appeal over anti-gay leaflets," ''Toronto Star'', October 28, 2010.]</ref> In February 2013, the Court allowed the Commission's appeal in ''[[Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v Whatcott]]'' and held that, although Bible passages, biblical beliefs and the principles derived from those beliefs can be legally and reasonably advanced in public discourse, extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words "detestation" and "vilification" cannot be.<ref>{{cite news| last =Murphy| first =Jessica| title =Anti-gay crusader can't distribute flyers: top court| newspaper =Ottawa Sun| date =27 February 2013| url =http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/02/27/anti-gay-crusader-cant-distribute-flyers-top-court| access-date =3 May 2013 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do|title=Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott - SCC Cases (Lexum)|website=scc-csc.lexum.com|access-date=28 January 2018}}</ref>

===Cuba===
{{Main article|Censorship in Cuba}}

Books, newspapers, radio channels, television channels, movies and music are censored. Cuba is one of the world's worst offenders of free speech according to the [[Press Freedom Index]] 2008.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/cl_en_2008.pdf|format=PDF|title=Press Freedom Index 2008|publisher=Reporters Without Borders|year=2008|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090303221403/http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/cl_en_2008.pdf|archivedate=2009-03-03|df=}}</ref> RWB states that Cuba is "the second biggest prison in the world for journalists" after the People's Republic of China.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=367 |title=Updated information on imprisoned Cuban journalists |publisher=Reporters Without Borders |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090422075856/http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=367 |archivedate=2009-04-22 |df= }}</ref>

===United States===
{{Main article|Freedom of speech in the United States}}
{{See also|Censorship in the United States}}
{{bquote|Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.|First Amendment to the United States Constitution|source=}}

In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. There are several common law exceptions including obscenity,<ref name="Neisser1991p68">{{cite book |title=Recapturing the Spirit: Essays on the Bill of Rights at 200|first=Eric|last=Neisser|page=68|year=1991|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|isbn=978-0-945612-23-0|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dj6Ddz0cFfcC&pg=PA68}}</ref><ref name="Biederman2007p457">{{cite book |title=Law and Business of the Entertainment Industries|first=Donald E.|last=Biederman|page=457|year=2007|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-275-99205-7|series=Law and Business of the Entertainment Industries Series|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hKguqdfT3eMC&pg=PA457}}</ref> [[defamation]],<ref name="Neisser1991p68" /><ref name="Biederman2007p457" /> incitement to riot or [[imminent lawless action]],<ref name="Neisser1991p68" /><ref name="Biederman2007p457" /> [[fighting words]],<ref name="Neisser1991p68" /> fraud, speech covered by copyright, and speech integral to criminal conduct; this is not to say that it ''is'' illegal, but just that either state governments or the federal government ''may'' make them illegal. There are federal criminal law [[statutory law|statutory]] prohibitions covering all the common law exceptions other than defamation, of which there is [[civil law (common law)|civil law]] [[legal liability|liability]], as well as [[Threatening terrorism against the United States|terrorist threats]],<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363525,00.html|title=Ex-Grocery Clerk Gets 6 Months for NFL Stadium Attack Hoax|date=5 June 2008|work=[[Fox News]]|agency=[[Associated Press|AP]]|quote=Brahm said the postings were not meant to be taken seriously and were at a Web site, www.4chan.org, that is 'outrageous.' … Welle said Brahm bragged in a posting, 'This is the most epic win ever.' … The charge is part of the Patriot Act.}}</ref><ref>[http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/Press/files/pdffiles/2008/brahmindictment.pdf U.S. v. Jake Brahm], Indictment, 18 U.S.C. §§&nbsp;1038(a)(1) and 2</ref> [[making false statements]] in "matters within the jurisdiction" of the federal government,<ref>{{Usc|18|1001}}</ref> spreading false and misleading information relating to death or injury of members of the US Military,<ref>Stop Terrorist and Military Hoaxes Act of 2004, Subtitle H of Title VI of the [[Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act]]; codified at {{USC|18|1038}} et seq.</ref><ref>"[http://www.cid.army.mil/documents/Lookout/Military%20Hoaxes_web.pdf Violators of Military Hoaxes Act could receive fines, prison time] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717135437/http://www.cid.army.mil/documents/Lookout/Military%20Hoaxes_web.pdf |date=July 17, 2011 }}", [[United States Army Criminal Investigation Command]], 22 February 2007. "Persons making false or misleading statements … could be … imprisoned … According to the Stop Terrorist and Military Hoaxes Act of 2004 …"</ref> speech related to information decreed to be related to [[national security]] such as military and [[classified information in the United States|classified information]],<ref>{{citation |title=Protection of National Security Information|publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]]|date=30 June 2006|url=http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL33502.pdf|ref={{harvid|CRS|2006}}}}</ref> [[false advertising]],<ref name="Biederman2007p457" /> [[perjury]],<ref name="Biederman2007p457" /> privileged communications, trade secrets,<ref>{{cite book |title=Essentials of the Legal Environment |first1=Roger LeRoy |last1=Miller |first2=Frank B. |last2=Cross |first3=Gaylord A. |last3=Jentz |page=245 |year=2008 |publisher=Cengage Learning |edition=2 |isbn=978-0-324-64123-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jz8t7X9QAnAC&pg=PA245}}</ref><ref>[[DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner]], 116 Cal. App. 4th 241</ref> copyright, and patents. There also exist so-called "[[gag order#United States|gag orders]]" which prevent the recipient of [[search warrant]]s<ref>[[California Electronic Communications Privacy Act]] §&nbsp;1, codified at [[California Penal Code]] §&nbsp;1546.2. "(b)(1) When a warrant is sought or electronic information is obtained in an emergency under Section 1546.1, the government entity may submit a request supported by a sworn affidavit for an order delaying notification and prohibiting any party providing information from notifying any other party that information has been sought. The court shall issue the order […]"</ref> and certain court orders (such as those concerning [[national security letter]]s,<ref>{{USC|18|2709}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-roadmap-justice-department-inspector-general-s-review-fbi-s-use-national-secu |title=ACLU Roadmap of Justice Department Inspector General’s Review of the FBI’s Use of National Security Letters |date=19 March 2007 |publisher=[[American Civil Liberties Union]] |accessdate=10 September 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Judge Refuses to Lift 5-Year-Old Patriot Act Gag Order |first=David |last=Kravets |url=https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/patriot-act-gag/ |newspaper=[[Wired News]] |date=20 October 2009 |accessdate=10 September 2011}}</ref> subpoenas,<ref>{{cite news|title=Judge Finds Fault With Gag Order in U.S. Attorney's Subpoena|first=James C., Jr.|last=McKinley|date=8 October 2015|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/nyregion/judge-finds-fault-with-gag-order-in-us-attorneys-subpoena.html}}</ref> [[pen register]]s and [[trap and trace device]]s,<ref>{{USC|18|3123}}(d)(2)</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.steptoe.com/assets/attachments/3449.pdf|title=In Re: Sealing and Non-disclosure of Pen/Trap/2703(d) Orders of May 30, 2008, p. 5|website=steptoe.com|accessdate=28 January 2018}}</ref> {{USC|18|2703}}(d) orders,<ref>{{USC|18|2705}}(b)</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115151.p.pdf|title=In Re: Application of the United States of America for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(d) of January 25, 2013, p. 4 |publisher=[[Wikileaks-related Twitter subpoenas]]|website=uscourts.gov|accessdate=28 January 2018}}</ref> [[suspicious activity report]]s<ref>{{USC|31|5318}}(g)(2)</ref>) from revealing them. Most states and localities have many identical restrictions, as well as harassment, and time, place and manner restrictions. In addition, in [[California]] it is a crime to [[:wiktionary:post#Verb|post]] a police officer's or public safety official's address or telephone number on the [[Internet]] for the purpose of [[obstruction of justice]] or retaliation for the exercise of official duties.<ref>[[California Government Code]] §&nbsp;6254.21(c)</ref><ref>[[California Penal Code]] §&nbsp;146e</ref>

[[File:Newseum 5 Freedoms 1st Amendment.jpg|thumbnail|right|The [[Newseum]]'s five freedoms guaranteed by the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment to the US Constitution]].]]
Historically, local communities and governments have sometimes sought to place limits upon speech that was deemed subversive or unpopular. There was a significant struggle for the right to free speech on the campus of the [[University of California, Berkeley|University of California at Berkeley]] in the 1960s. And, in the period from 1906 to 1916, the [[Industrial Workers of the World]], a working class union, found it necessary to engage in [[free speech fights]] intended to secure the right of union organizers to speak freely to wage workers. These free speech campaigns were sometimes quite successful, although participants often put themselves at great risk.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}

In some public places, freedom of speech is limited to [[free speech zone]]s, which can take the form of a wire fence enclosure, barricades, or an alternative venue designed to segregate speakers according to the content of their message. They are most often created at political gatherings or on college or university campuses. There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas—the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.<ref name="ACLU">[https://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11423prs20030923.html Secret Service Ordered Local Police to Restrict Anti-Bush Protesters at Rallies, ACLU Charges in Unprecedented Nationwide Lawsuit]. [[ACLU]] press release, 23 September 2003</ref> [[Civil liberties]] advocates claim that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of [[censorship]] and [[public relations]] management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.<ref name="ACLU" />

While federal and state governments are barred from engaging in preliminary censorship of movies, nearly all American theatres refuse to exhibit movies that have not been [[Motion picture rating system#United States|rated]] by the [[Motion Picture Association of America|MPAA]], a private movie industry organization. This does not affect movie distribution via physical tapes or discs, cable TV, or the Internet. Since 2000, it has become quite common for movie studios to release "unrated" versions of films on DVD, containing content that had been removed from the theatrical version in order to get a satisfactory MPAA rating.

Unlike what has been called a strong international consensus that hate speech needs to be prohibited by law and that such prohibitions override, or are irrelevant to, guarantees of freedom of expression, the United States is perhaps unique among the developed world in that under law hate speech is protected.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/world/americas/11iht-hate.4.13645369.html|title=Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.|date=11 June 2008|last=Liptak|first=Adam|work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=The Exceptional First Amendment|first=Frederick|last=Schauer|date=February 2005|work=Working Paper Series from [[Harvard University]], [[John F. Kennedy School of Government]]|doi=10.2139/ssrn.668543|quote=On this cluster of interrelated topics, there appears to be a strong international consensus that the principles of freedom of expression are either overridden or irrelevant when what is being expressed is racial, ethnic, or religious hatred. … In contrast to this international consensus that various forms of hate speech need to be prohibited by law and that such prohibition creates no or few free speech issues, the United States remains steadfastly committed to the opposite view. … In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one's legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment, but in the United States, all such speech remains constitutionally protected.}}</ref>

For instance, in July 2012 a U.S. court ruled that advertisements with the slogan, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel Defeat Jihad", are constitutionally protected speech and the government must allow their display in [[New York City Subway]].<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19665225 "Pro-Israel 'Defeat Jihad' ads to hit New York subway"], BBC News, 20 September 2012</ref> In response on 27 September 2012 [[Metropolitan Transportation Authority|New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority]] approved new guidelines for subway advertisements, prohibiting those that it "reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace". The MTA believes the new guidelines adhere to the court's ruling and will withstand any potential [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] challenge. Under the new policy, the authority will continue to allow viewpoint ads, but will require a disclaimer on each ad noting that it does not imply the authority's endorsement of its views.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/nyregion/mta-amends-rules-after-pro-israel-ads-draw-controversy.html?_r=1&hp "M.T.A. Amends Rules After Pro-Israel Ads Draw Controversy"], Matt Flegenheimer, ''New York Times'', 27 September 2012</ref>

In response to [[libel tourism]], in 2010 the United States enacted the [[SPEECH Act]] making foreign defamation judgments unenforceable in U.S. courts unless those judgments are compliant with the First Amendment.

==South America==
[[File:Brazilprotesters.jpg|thumb|In Brazil, [[freedom of assembly]] and expression are Constitutional rights.]]

===Brazil===
{{Main article|Freedom of speech in Brazil}}
In Brazil, freedom of expression is a Constitutional right. Article Five of the [[Constitution of Brazil]] establishes that the "expression of thought is free, [[anonymity]] being forbidden". Furthermore, the "expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communications activities is free, independently of censorship or license".
However, there are legal provisions criminalizing the desecration of religious artifacts at the time of worship, hate speech, racism, defamation, calumny, and libel. Brazilian law also forbids "unjust and grave threats".
Historically, freedom of speech has been a right in Brazilian Law since the [[History of the Constitution of Brazil#Imperial Constitution (1824)|1824 Constitution]] was enacted, though it was banned by the [[Getúlio Vargas|Vargas dictatorship]] and severely restricted under the [[Military dictatorship (Brazil)|military dictatorship in 1964–85]].

===Ecuador===
Accusations or insults without factual basis can be punished by three months to three years in prison according to Article 494 of Ecuador's penal code.<ref>{{citation|title=Correa Continues Assault on Freedom of Expression in Ecuador|publisher=[[Freedom House]]|accessdate=5 May 2013|url=http://www.freedomhouse.org/article/correa-continues-assault-freedom-expression-ecuador}}</ref> It is usually interpreted in media as criminal defamation and/or libel.

In 2012 the [[Supreme Court of Ecuador]] upheld a three-year prison sentence and a $42 million fine for criminal libel against an editor and the directors of the newspaper ''[[El Universo]]'' for "aggravated defamation of a public official".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/ecuadors-assault-on-free-speech.html |title=Ecuador's Assault on Free Speech |date=21 February 2012 |work=The New York Times |access-date=30 November 2012 |archivedate=30 November 2012 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/6CYEvjyKG?url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/ecuadors-assault-on-free-speech.html?_r=0 |deadurl=no |df= }}</ref> In 2013 [[National Assembly (Ecuador)|Assemblyman]] Cléver Jiménez was sentenced to a year in prison for criminal libel.<ref>{{cite news|title=Condenan a prisión a asambleísta en Ecuador|trans-title=Assemblyman sentenced to prison in Ecuador|first=Gonzalo|last=Solano|language=Spanish|date=17 April 2013|work=[[MSN]] Noticias|publisher=[[Associated Press|AP]]|url=http://noticias.latino.msn.com/latinoamerica/ecuador/condenan-a-prisi%C3%B3n-a-asamble%C3%ADsta-en-ecuador-3}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Ecuador's Correa: A continued assault on freedom|first1=Otto J.|last1=Reich|first2=Ezequiel|last2=Vázquez-Ger|date=2 May 2013|work=[[Miami Herald]]|url=http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/02/3377184/ecuadors-correa-a-continued-assault.html}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal|Freedom of speech}}
* [[Free Speech Movement]]
* [[Freedom (political)]]
* [[International Freedom of Expression Exchange]]
* [[Media transparency]]
* [[Linguistic rights]]
* [[List of linguistic rights in African constitutions]]
* [[List of linguistic rights in European constitutions]]

==References==
{{Reflist |2}}

==Further reading==
* [[Milton, John]]. ''[[Areopagitica]]: A speech of Mr John Milton for the liberty of unlicensed printing to the Parliament of England''
* [[Hentoff, Nat]]. ''Free Speech For Me – But Not For Thee. How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other'' 1992Pietro Semeraro, '' L'esercizio di un diritto'', Milano, ed. Giuffè, 2009.

==External links==
{{External links|date=January 2018}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/19961223024601/http://www.ifex.org/ International Freedom of Exchange]
* [http://www.article19.org ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for nudist freedom]
* [http://www.indexoncensorship.org/ Index on Censorship]
* [http://www.internationalpen.org.uk/ International PEN]
* [http://www.cpj.org Committee to Protect Journalists]
* [http://www.ifj.org International Federation of Journalists]
* [http://www.osce.org/fom/ OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media]
* [http://www.apfw.org/ Arab Press Freedom Watch]
* [http://lithub.com/bangladesh-a-case-study-in-what-actual-censorship-looks-like/ Bangladesh case study: Literary hub]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070103042942/http://www.freemedia.at/cms/ipi/ International Press Institute]
* [http://www.charterofrights.ca/language.php Fundamental Freedoms: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms] – Canadian Charter of Rights website with video, audio and the Charter in over 20 languages
* [https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/sunday-review/free-speech-in-the-age-of-youtube.html "Free Speech in the Age of YouTube"] in the ''New York Times'', 22 September 2012
{{World topic|prefix=Freedom of speech in|title=Freedom of speech by country}}
{{Censorship}}
{{Liberty}}

[[Category:Freedom of speech by country| ]]

Revision as of 08:24, 4 February 2018

Main article: [[:Human rights in Bangladesh]]
See also: Laws in Bangladesh

Under chapter III of the Fundamental rights in Bangladesh The Bangladesh constitution ostensibly guarantees freedom of speech to every citizen. accroding to PART III of the Laws in Bangladesh
Bangladesh constitution states that:

All the citizens shall have the following right

  • 39. (1) Freedom of thought and conscience

is guaranteed.

  • (2) Subject to any reasonable restrictions

imposed by law in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence–

  • (a) the right of every citizen to freedom of

speech and expression; and

  • (b) freedom of the press, are guaranteed.

These rights are not to affect:

  1. Laws inconsistent with fundamental

rights to be void (Article-26)

  1. Equality before law (Article-27)
  2. Discrimination on grounds of religion,

etc. (Article-28)

  1. Equality of opportunity in public

employment (Article-29)

  1. Prohibition of foreign titles, etc. (Article-30)
  2. Right to protection of law (Article-31)
  3. Protection of right to life and personal

liberty (Article-32)

  1. Safeguards as to arrest and detention

(Article-33)

  1. Prohibition of forced labour (Article-34)
  2. Protection in respect of trial and

punishment (Article-35)

  1. Freedom of movement (Article-36)
  2. Freedom of assembly (Article-37)
  3. Freedom of association (Article-38)
  4. Freedom of thought and conscience ,

and of speech (Article-39)

  1. Freedom of profession or occupation (Article-40)
  2. Freedom of religion (Article-41)
  3. Rights of property (Article-42)
  4. Protection of home and correspondence (Article-43)
  5. Enforcement of fundamental rights (Article-44)
  6. Modification of rights in respect of

disciplinary law (Article-45)

  1. Power to provide indemnity (Article-46)
  2. Saving for certain laws (Article-47)
  3. Inapplicability of certain articles (Article-47A)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_speech_by_country&oldid=823930576"