Omar Bennett
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of censorship or punishment. Many countries have constitutional laws that protect freedom of speech. Constitutions of countries like the United States, India, South Korea, Bangladesh, and North Korea explicitly guarantee freedom of speech to their citizens. However, the degree to which this right is upheld in practice varies across nations. While some countries protect free speech, others deprioritize it or even suppress it.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Countries with freedom of speech guaranteed by their constitution | Bangladesh, China, India, North Korea, South Korea, United States |
| Top-ranking countries for freedom of speech | Denmark, New Zealand, Ireland, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom, Sweden |
| Countries with the least freedom of speech | North Korea, Syria, Pakistan |
Explore related products
$16.27 $28.99
What You'll Learn
The US Constitution and its First Amendment
Freedom of speech is a fundamental principle in the United States, protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". This amendment also protects the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the government.
In the U.S., freedom of speech includes the right to engage in symbolic speech, to use offensive language to convey political messages, to advertise commercial products and services (with some restrictions), and the right not to speak, such as the right not to salute the flag. Freedom of speech is not limited to verbal communication but also includes written communication, social media posts, the arts, and personal actions such as political protests.
The First Amendment also ensures governmental neutrality in matters of religion. It states that the government cannot establish a religion or interfere with the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that the government must be neutral between different religions and between religion and non-religion.
While freedom of speech is a fundamental right in the U.S., it is not absolute. There are ongoing debates about where to draw the line between free expression and offensive, threatening, or harmful content, especially in the age of social media. Additionally, while the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, other laws and interpretations can restrict this right in certain cases.
Understanding Hostile Work Environments: Massachusetts Law
You may want to see also
Bangladesh's constitution and its limitations
Freedom of speech is a right preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is formally granted by the laws of most nations. However, the degree to which this right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another.
The Constitution of Bangladesh, the country's supreme law, was adopted by the Constituent Assembly of Bangladesh on 4 November 1972 and came into effect on 16 December 1972. The constitution ostensibly guarantees freedom of speech to every citizen under Chapter III of the Fundamental Rights in Bangladesh. However, it is important to note that this freedom is not without limitations. The Bangladesh Constitution states that these rights are subject to restrictions imposed by law in the interests of state security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.
Bangladesh's constitutional journey has been tumultuous, marked by ideological shifts, political upheavals, and amendments that have both shaped and distorted its foundational principles. The country's original 1972 Constitution was based on four pillars: nationalism, secularism, democracy, and socialism. However, in 1975, a shift to a presidential system occurred, followed by military rule, which led to further significant changes. The references to socialism and secularism were removed, and the country's ideological pillars became a subject of intense contestation.
The current political landscape in Bangladesh is witnessing calls for constitutional reform. After protests led to the fall of an authoritarian government, the interim government established ten reform commissions, including one focused on the constitution. The Constitution Reform Commission is tasked with addressing critical issues such as mandate, inclusivity, and sustainability. Additionally, there are proposals to reduce the prime minister's powers, introduce term limits, and establish a bicameral legislature.
While Bangladesh's Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, the country's political and historical context has influenced the interpretation and application of this right. The limitations and ongoing reform efforts highlight the dynamic nature of constitutional law in Bangladesh, reflecting the country's ongoing struggle to define its constitutional identity.
Whiskey Rebellion: Constitution's First Test
You may want to see also
India's constitution and its restrictions
Freedom of speech is a right preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is formally recognised by the laws of most nations. However, the degree to which this right is upheld varies greatly from country to country. While some countries protect free speech, others deprioritise it, and some even outright suppress it.
India's constitution guarantees freedom of speech to every citizen, but it also allows for significant restrictions. The Indian Constitution's Article 19 states:
> "Freedom of speech is restricted by the National Security Act of 1980 and UAPA, 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."
The Constituent Assembly of India debated freedom of speech and expression on 1 December 1948, 2 December 1948, and 17 October 1949. The draft article read:
> "Subject to the other provisions of this article, all citizens shall have the right – (a) to freedom of speech and expression; …
>
> Proviso: Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of this article shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, relating to libel, slander, defamation, sedition or any other matter which offends against decency or morality or undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State."
While most members of the Constituent Assembly welcomed the inclusion of the right, there was conflict regarding the provision in the Article that placed restrictions on the right. Some members opposed the mention of restrictions, while others supported them, arguing that they were necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the Constitution and the State.
In India, citizens are theoretically free to criticise the government, politics, politicians, bureaucracy, and policies. However, there have been many cases of arrests of those who do so. There have been landmark cases in the Indian Supreme Court that have affirmed the nation's policy of allowing a free press and freedom of expression to every citizen. At the same time, the Court has also upheld restrictions on freedom of speech and of the press.
Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the freedom of speech and expression in India in the interest of the country's sovereignty and integrity, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign nations, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence, or the sovereignty and integrity of Parliament.
Experience vs Education: When Work Trumps Study
You may want to see also
Explore related products
North Korea's constitution and its censorship
While freedom of speech is theoretically guaranteed in North Korea under Article 67 of its Constitution, the country is widely regarded as one of the most heavily censored in the world. North Korea's constitution, known as the Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, was first approved in 1972 and has since been amended and supplemented numerous times, most recently in 2024. It consists of seven chapters and 172 articles, outlining the country's basic principles on politics, economy, culture, national defense, and the rights and duties of its citizens.
Despite the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, the North Korean government exerts strict control over communications and media outlets. All news content is produced and censored by the state-run Korean Central News Agency, with a significant portion dedicated to political propaganda promoting the Kim family's personality cult. The regime's press freedom ranking by Reporters Without Borders reflects this lack of media freedom, placing North Korea near the bottom of the list.
The country's censorship extends beyond traditional media to include all aspects of information dissemination. For example, radio and television sets sold in North Korea are preset to receive only government-approved frequencies and are sealed to prevent tampering. Accessing outside information sources is a severe criminal offence. The government also controls the internet, and foreign media outlets are often vilified in state-sanctioned media.
The censorship in North Korea is a tool to maintain obedience and disseminate the ideology of the ruling regime, with harsh consequences for those who attempt to circumvent it. This extreme censorship has been a hallmark of the leadership of Kim Jong-un, who became the country's supreme leader in 2011, continuing the authoritarian legacy of his predecessors, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il.
Understanding ODI Match Length: Overs and Innings
You may want to see also
South Korea's constitution and its National Security Law
Freedom of speech is a fundamental principle in many countries and is protected by their constitutions. Examples include the United States, Bangladesh, India, and South Korea.
The South Korean constitution guarantees freedom of speech, press, petition, and assembly for its nationals. However, this is not without limitations. The National Security Law, in place since 1948, allows the prosecution of those who express support for the North Korean regime or communism. Although prosecutions under this law have been rare in recent years, the law has been criticised by some as a restriction on freedom of speech and a tool for public oppression.
The National Security Act was enforced in South Korea following the national division of Korea during the Cold War. It was designed to "secure the security of the State and the subsistence and freedom of nationals, by regulating any anticipated activities compromising the safety of the State." The Act has been amended to include an article that limits its arbitrary application, preventing the restriction of citizens' fundamental human rights.
The South Korean constitution also states that the freedoms and rights of citizens may be restricted by law when necessary for national security, the maintenance of law and order, or public welfare. This is in line with the understanding that freedom of speech can be restricted when it threatens the safety or security of a nation.
In summary, while South Korea's constitution guarantees freedom of speech, this freedom is limited by laws such as the National Security Law, which aims to protect national security. The interpretation and application of these laws have been a subject of debate, with critics arguing that they infringe on human rights and freedom of expression.
Understanding Subpart Definition in Federal Rule of Procedure 33(a)
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Many countries have a constitution that guarantees freedom of speech, including the United States, India, South Korea, Bangladesh, and China.
Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. This includes other forms of expression, such as written communication, social media posts, art, and personal actions.
The degree to which freedom of speech is upheld varies between countries and is influenced by a country's history, political climate, and socio-cultural dynamics. For example, countries with authoritarian forms of government may have more overt censorship, while countries with a stronger tradition of free speech may still debate the line between free expression and offensive, harmful, or threatening content.
The Human Rights Measurement Initiative (HRMI) measures the right to opinion and expression for countries worldwide using a survey of in-country human rights experts. Other sources of data include the Global State of Democracy Indices, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Pew Research, and Vanderbilt University's The Future of Free Speech (FoFS).
