CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

Lesson 5

Free Speech Around the World Teachers: This lesson offers a buffet for teaching about free speech in other countries. There are many ways to approach it, so we have offered alternatives for you to sample. Select from among them – you need not consume the whole thing. Objectives

Students will recognize that free speech rights differ in countries around the world. Students will make connections between the internet, free speech, and democracy movements in the U.S. and other countries. Handouts (5-1) World Freedom Map; (5-2) Free Speech in Other Countries; (5-3) Malema Judgement: What Do YOU Say?; (5-4) Social Media Critical to Emerging Democracies Around the World; (5-5) Cyberspace Scenarios Background Deliberations in a Democracy: Democratic Government: Protector and Regulator of Free Expression, Constitutional Rights Foundation Words that matter hate speech political speech

A. Daily warm-up and current events alert!

Warm-up – depending on what your last lesson was, choose one of the following: • Stand up activity: “Free speech matters because … “ • Pretend that you are one of the framers (original writers) of our Constitution who refused to sign the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. Explain, with emotion, why you need a guarantee of free speech. • About Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights: why do you think it was numbered ONE and not, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10?

B. What is the Declaration of Human Rights? Begin by asking students, “What do you think?” Do all countries protect free speech in the same way we do in the United States? If not, why not? You can guess if you do not know for sure! If you need a thinking partner, join another person to answer these questions. Share your thoughts with the class. Background: “The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides, in Article 19, that: 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. 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 1

Questions: What is free speech? What free speech rights and responsibilities do we have? Is free speech vital to a thriving democracy (why or why not)? What are the challenges to free speech in the coming year?

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

nations. “ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country. The Declaration is found on Handout 3-1 from Lesson 3. Also on this handout are the free speech protections in the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions. Strategy: With students’ eyes closed, teacher reads Article 19 aloud (slowly). Ask: Think; what is the main idea or the most important word(s) of Article 19? This could be an oral discussion with the whole class or chalk-talk strategy. For chalk-talk, after reading Art. 19, begin the “conversation” by writing Freedom of Expression on the board and circling it. Students go to the board and, one at a time, respond to the prompt, “what is the main idea or most important word(s) of Article 19?” The student draws a line from Freedom of Expression (circled) to his or her word or comment and circles it. One at a time other students add their comments. The exercise is totally silent – all communication is on the board. Teacher may need to say a new prompt once or twice. The result will be a webbed display of interesting and insightful thoughts.

C. What does free speech look like in other countries? Students will make comparisons about free speech in other countries. Ask them what they notice about other countries’ rights that are different from those in the U.S.? Resources include a world map with a freedom rating identifying countries as free, partly free, or not free (Handout 5-1); and a country by country description of free speech (from wikipedia, although some of it will be advanced for some middle schoolers, it is a good, brief source; Handout 5-2). Divide countries among students. (Teachers will want to pick and choose from among the countries in Handout 5-2.) In pairs – thinking partners – create a bumper sticker or miniposter showing how speech is or is not protected in their country. Thinking points while researching: • How does history affect the country’s approach (see Germany – hate speech not allowed)? • Which right is more important: free press or fair trial (see Canada, England, others) • Has speech via the internet or social media played an important role (see China; recent change countries in Africa and the Mideast are not included in this piece and require independent research)? Present your work to the class and advocate for the country you researched. For more, helpful information on hate speech in the U.S. compared to other countries, listen or read this March 2011 NPR interview with Charles Asher Small, founder of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism, http://www.npr.org/2011/03/03/134239713/France-Isnt-The-Only-Country-To-ProhibitHate-Speech.

D. Should a liberation song be considered hate speech? Use a current event in South Africa to explore what constitutes hate speech. A young ANC leader (black) was found guilty of hate speech for singing a well-known liberation song that includes the words “shoot the boer” (white). Bloggers’ comments both supporting and opposing the ruling are listed in Handout 5-3. Use as a read aloud with teacher reading the 2

Questions: What is free speech? What free speech rights and responsibilities do we have? Is free speech vital to a thriving democracy (why or why not)? What are the challenges to free speech in the coming year?

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

story and students the roles of the bloggers. Class discussion will include topics such as whether this song – or other songs – should be considered hate speech, and if the law is different in South Africa and the U.S. The NPR interview referenced above contains helpful information about hate speech in other countries.

E. What role is technology playing?

In many countries citizens are struggling to have their voices heard. Set the stage with a read aloud of Social Media Critical to Emerging Democracies Around the World (Handout 5-4) for a good, quick overview from an interesting source, U.S. Embassy in Turkmenistan. In our own country, struggles with what is and what is not permissible speech is ongoing. In small groups, students will decide one of the Cyberspace Scenarios in Handout 5-5. With social media and technology in mind, let’s go back to the future! Using the timeline from Lesson 4 (Handout 4-1), ask students to think about technological advances and predict the future of free speech. In pairs or triads, assign students to think one year, two years, five, ten, twenty, or fifty years into the future. Discuss, then take a stand on the timeline. Discussion prompts may include questions such as: • What changes make free speech better? • What are challenges to free speech? • Will privacy be protected? • Who will have access to technology? • What will be government controlled? Controlled by corporations? Individuals? • Will the changes be good for democracy?

E.

Extended Activities

Upper grades: contrast the First Amendment with Article 19. How are they the same? Different? What about Oregon’s free speech law, Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 8? More or less protection? (Handout 3-1) For entertaining and challenging hypotheticals that explore the legal complexities (imminent threat, time, place, manner, etc.) of speech issues, this law-student created document is for you. It is entertaining because it uses celebrities in various situations but is also difficult – geared for upper grades. Go to http://www.law.washington.edu/Clinics/Streetlaw/lessons.aspx then look for Freedom of Speech: Hypos and Supreme Court Arguments (2006) and click on Hypotheticals with arguments. For carefully crafted classroom discussion, see Constitutional Rights Foundation’s superb Deliberating in a Democracy: Freedom of Expression Lesson Plan. It explores the question: Should our democracy permit hate speech? Thoughtful reading guide, prompts, and instructions are included, http://www.did.deliberating.org/lessons/documents/DID%20FreedomofExpression_201

3

Questions: What is free speech? What free speech rights and responsibilities do we have? Is free speech vital to a thriving democracy (why or why not)? What are the challenges to free speech in the coming year?

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

1.pdf.

4

Questions: What is free speech? What free speech rights and responsibilities do we have? Is free speech vital to a thriving democracy (why or why not)? What are the challenges to free speech in the coming year?

Handout 5-1 World Freedom Map

Map of Freedom

FREED OM HOUSE

2011

Arc tic O cean Greenland Sea

Beaufort Sea

Norwegian Sea

GREENLAND ICELAND

NORWAY

U.S.A.

SWEDEN RUSSIA

FINLAND

Bering Sea

Hudson Bay Gulf of Alaska

Labrador Sea

DENMARK U.K.

CANADA

RUSSIA

ESTONIA LATVIA LITHUANIA

Sea of Okhotsk

BELARUS POLAND NETHERLANDS GERMANY BELGIUM TRANSNISTRIA CZECH REP. LUXEMBOURG SLOVAKIA UKRAINE LIECHTENSTEIN KAZAKHSTAN MOLDOVA SWITZERLAND AUSTRIA HUNGARY SLOVENIA ROMANIA FRANCE ITALY CROATIA SERBIA ABKHAZIA BOSNIA & HERZ. MONTENEGRO BULGARIA MONACO SOUTH OSSETIA UZBEKISTAN ANDORRA SAN MARINO MACEDONIA GEORGIA KYRGYZSTAN AZERBAIJAN KOSOVO PORTUGAL ARMENIA GREECE TURKMENISTAN SPAIN TURKEY TAJIKISTAN ALBANIA NAGORNO NORTHERN KARABAKH CYPRUS MALTA PAKISTANI KASHMIR SYRIA CYPRUS TUNISIA AFGHANISTAN LEBANON INDIAN KASHMIR IRAQ GAZA STRIP/ WEST BANK MOROCCO IRAN ISRAEL TIBET JORDAN IRELAND

Nor th Atlantic O cean

Nor th Pacific O cean

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MEXICO

KUWAIT

ALGERIA

Gulf of Mexico

BAHAMAS

LIBYA

EGYPT

WESTERN SAHARA

HAITI

DOM. REP.

Caribbean Sea

GUATEMALA EL SALVADOR

DOMINICA ST. LUCIA ST. VINCENT & GRENADINES BARBADOS

GRENADA

NICARAGUA

SENEGAL CAPE VERDE

THE GAMBIA GUINEA BISSAU

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO COSTA RICA

VENEZUELA

PANAMA

NIGER

GUYANA SURINAME FRENCH GUIANA

BURKINA FASO BENIN

GUINEA

SIERRA LEONE

CÔTE GHANA D’IVOIRE TOGO

LIBERIA

COLOMBIA

CHAD

ERITREA

CAMEROON

THAILAND

South China Sea VIETNAM

MARSHALL ISLANDS

PHILIPPINES

CAMBODIA

SRI LANKA

ETHIOPIA

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

MICRONESIA

PALAU

MALAYSIA

KENYA

TUVALU

SINGAPORE

RWANDA CONGO (KINSHASA)

BURUNDI INDONESIA TANZANIA

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

SEYCHELLES

BRAZIL

Indian O cean

COMOROS ANGOLA

SOLOMON ISLANDS

EAST TIMOR

ZAMBIA BOLIVIA

VANUATU MAURITIUS

ZIMBABWE

MALAWI

NAMIBIA PARAGUAY

S outh Atlantic O cean

CHILE

BOTSWANA

MOZAMBIQUE

FIJI

MADAGASCAR

TONGA AUSTRALIA

SWAZILAND

ARGENTINA SOUTH AFRICA

S outh Pac ific O cean

KIRIBATI

NAURU

BRUNEI MALDIVES

SOMALIA

UGANDA GABON

SAMOA

HONG KONG

LAOS

SOMALILAND

CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE)

PERU

Bay of Bengal

DJIBOUTI

EQUATORIAL GUINEA SAO TOME & PRINCIPE

ECUADOR

YEMEN

Nor th Pac ific O cean

TAIWAN BURMA

SUDAN NIGERIA

JAPAN

BHUTAN

BANGLADESH

OMAN

MALI

SOUTH KOREA

East China Sea

INDIA

SAUDI ARABIA MAURITANIA

ST. KITTS & NEVIS ANTIGUA & BARBUDA

NEPAL

NORTH KOREA CHINA

QATAR U.A.E.

PUERTO RICO CUBA JAMAICA BELIZE HONDURAS

PAKISTAN

BAHRAIN

MONGOLIA

LESOTHO

URUGUAY

Tasman Sea NEW ZEALAND

Survey Findings Freedom Status

Country Breakdown

FREE

87 (45%)

PARTLY FREE NOT FREE TOTAL

Population Breakdown

2,951,950,000 (43%)

60 (31%)

1,487,000,000 (22%)

47 (24%)

2,434,250,000 (35%)

194

6,873,200,000

The Map of Freedom reflects the findings of Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2011 survey, which rates the level of political rights and civil liberties in 194 countries and 14 related and disputed territories during 2010. Based on these ratings, countries are divided into three categories: Free, Partly Free, and Not Free. A Free country is one where there is broad scope

for open political competition, a climate of respect for civil liberties, significant independent civic life, and independent media. Partly Free countries are characterized by some restrictions on political rights and civil liberties, often in a context of corruption, weak rule of law, ethnic strife, or civil war. A Not Free country is one where basic political

rights are absent, and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied. Freedom House is an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom worldwide.

www.freedomhouse.org

http://alexandravaliente.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/freedom-house-movements-org-hit-list/freedom-house-map-of-freedom-2010/

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

Handout 5-2

Freedom of speech by country Source: Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion 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 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 democracies. INTERNATIONAL LAW The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides, in Article 19, that: 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.[1] 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. 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.[2] AFRICAN CONTINENT 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 1

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

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. Also countries like Somalia and Egypt provide legal protection for freedom of speech but it is not used publicly South Africa South Africa is probably the most liberal in granting freedom of speech, however 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.[3] 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: § 16 Freedom of expression (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes(a) freedom of the press and other media; (b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; (c) freedom of artistic creativity; and (d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research. (2) The right in subsection (1) does not extend to(a) propaganda for war; (b) incitement of imminent violence; or (c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm. 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.[4] Sudan Blasphemy against religion is illegal in Sudan under Blasphemy laws.[5] 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. 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

2

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

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). 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 other democratic countries such as the United States. In 1996, Albert Langer was imprisoned for advocating that voters fill out their ballot papers in a way that was invalid.[6] Amnesty International declared Langer to be a prisoner of conscience.[7] 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 re-introduced sedition law, which criminalises some forms of expression. Media Watch ran a series on the amendments on ABC television.[8] In 2006, CSIRO senior scientist Graeme Pearman was reprimanded and encouraged to resign after he spoke out on global warming.[9] The Howard Government was accused of limiting the speech of Pearman and other scientists. 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. Countries such as Myanmar, North Korea and some Central Asian Republics are reported to brutally repress freedom of speech.[citation needed] Freedom of speech has improved somewhat in the People's Republic of China in recent years,[citation needed] but the level of free expression is still far from that of Western nations. There is no clear correlation between legal and constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and actual practices among Asian nations. Iran Blasphemy against Islam is illegal in Iran,[10] Saudi Arabia Blasphemy against Islam is illegal in Saudi Arabia.[11] Pakistan Articles 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of the press with certain restrictions.[12] Blasphemy against Islam is illegal in Pakistan.[13] [14]

3

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

People's Republic of China (mainland) Article 35 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China claims that: Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.[15] Nonetheless strict censorship is widespread in mainland China. There is heavy government involvement in the media, with many of the largest media organizations being run by the Communist government. References to democracy, the free Tibet movement, Taiwan as an independent country, 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. Due to close geographical proximity to Hong Kong, parts of southern China are able to receive broadcast signals from television channels in Hong Kong, where China's censorship does not apply. However, comments that the Communist Party feel uncomfortable with are cut out and replaced with TV commercials before they can reach consumers TVs in mainland China. Very few Western films are given permission to play in Chinese theatres, although widespread unlicensed copying of these films makes them widely available. Hong Kong (editor’s note: officially part of PRC but different laws due to experience under longtime British rule) Under Hong Kong Basic Law, * Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech.[16] * The freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable.[17] * The freedom and privacy of communication of Hong Kong residents shall be protected by law.[18] India The Indian constitution guarantees freedom of speech to every citizen and 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. In India, citizens are free to criticize politics, politicians, bureaucracy and policies. The freedoms are comparable to those in the United States and Western European democracies. Article 19 of the Indian constitution states that: All citizens shall have the right — 1. to freedom of speech and expression; 2. to assemble peaceably and without arms; 3. to form associations or unions; 4. to move freely throughout the territory of India; 5. to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and 6. to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.[19]

4

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

These rights are limited so as not to effect: * 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[20] Freedom of speech has been restricted by the constitution of the Indian Union by the National Security Act which is still in effect and laws like POTO and TADA act in the past. Indonesia Blasphemy against religion is illegal in Indonesia under Blasphemy laws.[21] Malaysia In Malaysia, "God" and "Prophet Muhammad" are used by politicians to answer to the peoples and the media. In May 2008, the Prime Minister of Malaysia Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi put forward a headline "Media should practice voluntary selfcensorship",[22] 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 Prophet 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."[23] South Korea The South Korean constitution guarantees freedom of speech, press, petition and assembly. However, behaviors or speeches in favor of the North Korean regime or communism can be punished by the 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).[24] The UN Human Rights Commission expressed concerns about South Korea's deterioration of online free speech.[25]

5

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

EUROPE Council of Europe 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 historical facts – 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.[26] Each party to the Convention must alter its laws and policies to conform with the Convention, some, such as the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, 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".

6

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

European Union Currently, all members of the European Union are signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights along 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. Denmark Freedom of speech in Denmark is granted by Grundloven:[27] § 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. France 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. Restrictions French law prohibits public speech or writings that incite to racial or religious hatred, as well as those that deny the Holocaust. In December 2004, a controversial addition was made to the law, criminalizing the prohibition to hatred or violence against people because of their sexual orientation.

7

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

An addition to the Public Health Code was passed on the 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 classifications, 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 pornographic publications to minors, and can also prevent such publications from being publicly displayed or advertised; such decisions can be challenged before administrative courts.[28] 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] 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] 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 Freedom of expression is granted by Article 5 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany:[29] 1. Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship. 2. These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor. 3. Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution. The most important and sometimes controversial regulations limiting freedom of speech and freedom of the press can be found in the 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). * Malicious Gossip and Defamation (Section 186 and 187). Utterances about facts

8

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

(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. * Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations (Section 86). * Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations (Section 86a) as the Swastika. * Disparagement of o the Federal President (Section 90). o the State and its Symbols (Section 90a). * Insult to Organs and Representatives of Foreign States (Section 103). * 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). Blasphemy against religion is illegal in Germany under Blasphemy laws.[30] Outdoor assemblies must be registered beforehand.[31] Assemblies at memorial sites are banned.[32] Individuals and groups may be banned from assembling, especially those whose fundamental rights have been revoked and banned political parties.[32] 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.[33] Greece The 14th article of the Constitution of Greece makes it an offence for the press to insult the President of Greece as well as Christianity and any other religion recognized by the state.[34] Ireland Freedom of speech is protected by Article 40.6.1 of the 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.

9

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

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 form an integral part of the Republic of Ireland's laws. The act is, however, subordinate to the constitution. Italy Blasphemy against religion is illegal in Italy under Blasphemy laws[30] Malta Blasphemy against the Roman Catholic church is illegal in Malta.[35] The Netherlands Article 7 of the Dutch 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.[36] The penal code has laws however sanctioning certain types of expression. Such laws and freedom of speech are at the centre of a public debate in The Netherlands after the arrest on 16 May 2008 of cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot. Jurisprudence from the 60's prohibits prosecution of blasphemy. Parliament has recently expressed its wish to abolish the law penalizing blasphemy. The current Christian Democrat Justice Minister would however prefer to renew it and expand it to include non-religious philosophies of life, thus making it possible to anticipate and prevent international outcry similar to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Laws that punish discriminatory speech also exist and are being used against Gregorius Nekschot. Laws on lèse majesté exist and are occasionally used to prosecute. [edit] Poland "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, 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". As of 2005[update][citation needed], people are sometimes convicted and/or detained for about one day for insults to religious feeling (of the Roman

10

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

Catholic Church)[citation needed] or to heads of state who are not yet, but soon will be, on Polish territory. On 18 July 2003, During 26–27 January 2005, 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.[37] Sweden Freedom of speech is regulated in three parts of the Constitution of Sweden. * Regeringsformen, Chapter 2 (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) protects personal freedom of expression “whether orally, pictorially, in writing, or in any other way”[38] * Tryckfrihetsförordningen (Freedom of the Press Act) protects the freedom of printed press, as well as the principle of free access to public records (offentlighetsprincipen) and the right to communicate information to the press anonymously. For a newspaper to be covered by this law, it must be registered and have a “responsible editor”.[39] * Yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen (Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression) extends protections similar to those of Tryckfrihetsförordningen to other media, including television, radio and web sites.[40] Certain restrictions on freedom of speech exist, notably regarding hate speech against any group based on ethnicity, race and creed, and since 2002 also against sexual orientation. Some notable recent cases are Radio Islam and Åke Green.[citation needed] United Kingdom This section may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective. (May 2010) United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[41] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. There are many exceptions including incitement,[42] incitement to racial hatred,[43] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[42][44] glorifying terrorism,[45][46] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[47][48] threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior,[49][50] treason including imagining the death of the monarch,[51] sedition,[51] obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[52] defamation,[53] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[54][55] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[55] scandalizing the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[55] time, manner, and place restrictions,[56] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising. UK law imposes a number of limitations on freedom of speech not found in some other jurisdictions. For example, its laws recognise the crimes of incitement to racial hatred and incitement to religious hatred. UK laws on defamation are also considered[by whom?]

11

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

among the strictest in the Western world, imposing a high 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 at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/61). UK defamation law may have recently 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 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.” Illegal literature On 6 December 2007, Samina Malik was convicted of possessing literature deemed illegal by the Terrorism Act 2000. The illegal literature included poems she had written. She received a nine-month suspended jail sentence.[57] This case has been condemned by Hizb ut-Tahrir[58][59][60] Abdul Patel was found guilty of possessing a document likely to be useful for terrorism (a book on explosives).[61] Mohammed Siddique was sentenced to eight years of prison for possessing and distributing through his website freely available videos inciting martyrdom.[62][63] On 27 February 2008 civil servant Darryn Walker was arrested by officers from Scotland Yard's Obscene Publications Unit for posting a work of fiction allegedly describing the kidnap, mutilation, rape and murder of the girl band 'Girls Aloud' on a fantasy pornography website. While the website was hosted outside the UK, Walker's prosecution was possible under UK law as he is a British citizen living in the UK. He was found not guilty on 29 July 2009 as the CPS offered no evidence. The 1959 Obscene Publications Act makes it illegal to publish material that tend to deprave and corrupt those reading or viewing it. In 1960 a prosecution under the Act was brought against Penguin Books over the novel 'Lady Chatterley's Lover'. Penguin was found not guilty and within a year the book had sold more than two million copies.[64] In 2009, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle were sentenced to prison time for publishing material that was likely to incite racial and religious hatred. They had tried to escape to the United States but were not granted political asylum and were deported back to the UK.[65]

12

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

Video Recordings & Games 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. 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 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. Switzerland The Swiss Constitution also guarantees Freedom of speech and Freedom of information for every citizen (Article 16).[66] But still the country makes some controversial decisions,

13

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

which both Human Right Organizations and other states criticizes. The Swiss Animal Right organization "Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz" took the country to the European Court of Human Rights twice for censoring a TV-Advertisement 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.[67] Another very controversial law of Switzerland is that persons who refuse to recognize genocide like the Armenian Massacre of 1915 have to face trial. The Turkish politician Doğu Perinçek was fined CHF 12,000 for denying the existence of 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.[68] Turkey Article 26 of the Constitution of Turkey guarantees the right to "Freedom of Expression and Dissemination of Thought". Moreover, the Republic of Turkey is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights and submits to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The constitutional freedom of expression may be limited by provisions in other laws, such as Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which outlaws denigration of the Turkish Nation, while also providing that "expression of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute a crime". NORTH AMERICA Cuba Books, newspapers, radio channels, television channels, movies and music are censored. Cuba's is one of the world's worst offenders of free speech according to the Press Freedom Index 2008.[69] RWB states that Cuba is "the second biggest prison in the world for journalists" after the People's Republic of China.[70] Canada The constitutional provision that guarantees Freedom of expression in Canada is 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 Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states: 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

14

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

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. Despite these protections, Canada has had a string of high-profile court cases in which writers have been prosecuted for their writings, in both magazines and web postings. In February 2006, Calgary 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 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 sentences 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.[71] In 2007, a complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission related to an article "The Future Belongs to Islam,"[41] written by Mark Steyn, published in Maclean's magazine. The complainants alleged that the article and Maclean's refusal to provide space for a rebuttal violated their human rights. The complainants also claimed that the article was one of twenty-two (22) Maclean's articles, many written by Steyn, about Muslims.[42] Further complaints were filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.[72] Steyn was eventually acquitted. A Montreal neo-Nazi has been given a six-month prison sentence for wilfully promoting hatred toward blacks and Jews on his website. Calling Jean-Sebastien Presseault's opinions "vile" and "nauseating," Quebec Court Judge Martin Vauclair sent the heavily tattooed man back to jail. The 24 tattoos, including several Ku Klux Klan and Nazi symbols covering the defendant's torso, figure prominently in Vauclair's decision to give jail time, as opposed to a sentence to be served in the community, as the defence had hoped for. "The violence he inflicted on his own body to leave almost-indelible marks of his convictions testify as to his unresolved frustrations but also to his deep-seated racist and hateful beliefs," Vauclair said. In the landmark Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Zundel (1992), the court struck down a provision in the Criminal Code of Canada that prohibited publication of false information or news, stating that it violated section 2(b) of the Charter. Under section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to promote genocide. Under section 319, it is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith. The prohibition against inciting hatred based on sexual orientation was added to the section in 2004 with the passage of Bill C-250. 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 and the Canadian Bill of Rights.

15

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

United States In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several statutory and common law exceptions including obscenity,[73][74] defamation,[73][74] incitement,[74] incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,[73][74] fighting words,[73] information decreed to be related to national security such as classified information,[75] false advertising,[74] perjury,[74] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, copyright, patents, military conduct, and time, place and manner restrictions. 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 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] Freedom of speech is also sometimes limited to free speech zones, 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. 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.[76] Civil libertarians 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.[76] Neither the federal nor state governments engage in preliminary censorship of movies. However, the Motion Picture Association of America has a rating system, and movies not rated by the MPAA cannot expect anything but a very limited release in theatres. Since the organization is private, no recourse to the courts is available. The rules implemented by the MPAA are more restrictive than the ones implemented by most First World countries.[citation needed] However, unlike comparable public or private institutions in other countries, the MPAA does not have the power to limit the retail sale of movies in tape or disc form based on their content, nor does it affect movie distribution in public (i.e., government-funded) libraries. Since 2000, it has become quite common for movie studios to release "unrated" DVD versions of films with MPAA-censored content put back in. 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 regulation is incompatible with free speech.[77]

16

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

SOUTH AMERICA 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 1824 Constitution was enacted, though it was banned by the Vargas dictatorship and severely restricted under the military dictatorship in 1964-85. References 1. ^ General Assembly of the United Nations (1948-12-10). "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (in English/French) (pdf). pp. 4–5. http://daccessods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/217(III)&Lang=E. Retrieved 2007-05-06. 2. ^ Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. "List of Declarations and Reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". Archived from the original on 2007-01-22. http://web.archive.org/web/20070122093223/http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries /ratification/4_1.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-06. 3. ^ "Freedom of Expression" (doc). pre-1997. Archived from the original on 2007-06-14. http://web.archive.org/web/20070614102820/http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/dow nloads/Freedom+of+Expression.doc. Retrieved 2007-05-06. 4. ^ 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) http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2005/7.html 5. ^ "Teacher held for teddy bear 'blasphemy'". London: The Independent. 2007-11-27. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/teacher-held-for-teddy-bearblasphemy-760590.html. 6. ^ Triple J (2004-06-30). "The story of Albert Langer". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/events/election_04/albertlanger.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-05. 7. ^ Amnesty International (1996-02-23). "Australia: Political activist becomes first prisoner of conscience for over 20 years (Albert Langer) - Amnesty International". http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA120051996. Retrieved 2007-05-05. [dead link] 8. ^ Media Watch (TV program) (2005-09-24). "Seditious opinion? Lock 'em up". Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Australian). http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1489465.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-05. 9. ^ Chandler, Jo (2006-02-13). "Scientists bitter over interference". The Age (Melbourne). http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/scientists-bitter-overinterference/2006/02/12/1139679479548.html. 10. ^ "Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious

17

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

Freedom May 2009". http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/iran.pdf. Retrieved 2009-0706. 11. ^ Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom May 2009 12. ^ "The Constitution of Pakistan". pakistani.org. http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part2.ch1.html. 13. ^ "Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom May 2009". Pakistan. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. May 2009. http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/pakistan.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-24. 14. ^ The relevant articles of Pakistan penal code against "Blasphemy 1) Religion 2) Quran 3) Prophets of Allah" are 295 (a), (b) and (c). 15. ^ "Chapter II. The Fundamental Rights and duties of Citizens". Constitution of the People's Republic of China. 1982-12-04. http://english.people.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html. Retrieved 2007-05-12. 16. ^ "Article 27". Basic Law Full Text. http://www.info.gov.hk/basic_law/fulltext/content0203.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-06. 17. ^ "Article 28". Basic Law Full Text. http://www.info.gov.hk/basic_law/fulltext/content0203.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-06. 18. ^ "Article 20". Basic Law Full Text. http://www.info.gov.hk/basic_law/fulltext/content0203.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-06. 19. ^ "19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc." (doc). The Constitution of India. 1949-11-26. pp. 8. http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/Art1-242%20(188).doc. Retrieved 2007-05-06. 20. ^ "19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc." (doc). The Constitution of India. 1949-11-26. pp. 8. http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/Art1-242%20(188).doc. Retrieved 2007-05-06. 21. ^ "Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom May 2009". Indonesia. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. May 2009. http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/indonesia.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-24. 22. ^ Thestaronline.tv 23. ^ Thestar.com.my 24. ^ Google.com 25. ^ Ryu (류), Nan-yeong (난영) (2011-05-31). "유엔 인권이사회 "한국, 인터넷상 표현의 자유 훼손 심각"" (in Korean). Newsis. http://www.newsis.com/ar_detail/view.html?ar_id=NISX20110531_0008339498&cID=101 01&pID=10100. Retrieved 2011-06-29. 26. ^ Explanatory Report on the additional protocol to the convention on cybercrime 27. ^ Danmarks riges grundlov af 5. juni 1953 (English translation). 28. ^ Loi n°49-956 du 16 juillet 1949 sur les publications destinées à la jeunesse 29. ^ German Law Archive 30. ^ a b "EUROPE: Where there's a will, there is a law". Straits Times. 2006-02-08. http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-world.asp?parentid=38666. 31. ^ FRA 2008, p. 24 32. ^ a b FRA 2008, p. 23 33. ^ Legal Study on Homophobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation – Germany. European Union Fundamental Rights Agency. February 2008. p. 23. http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/FRA-hdgso-NR_DE.pdf. 18

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

34. ^ http://www.ekloges.gr/syntagmaDetails.asp?pageid=3&langid=1&ArthroID=16 35. ^ Matthew Vella. http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/03/08/t13.html Maltatoday on Sunday, 8 March 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-15. 36. ^ "De Grondwet". www.overheid.nl. 2011-04-29. http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840#Hoofdstuk1/Artikel7. 37. ^ "28 Detained for insulting Putin?". Independent Media Center. http://www.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/112837.shtml. Retrieved 2007-05-07. "Relacja z demostracji w Krakowie" (in Polish). centrum niezalez'nych medio'w Polska (Independent Media Center, Poland). http://pl.indymedia.org/pl/2005/01/11431.shtml. Retrieved 200705-07. 38. ^ "Chapter 2. Fundamental rights and freedoms". The Instrument of Government. 1974. http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6319.aspx. Retrieved 2007-05-07. 39. ^ Summary of The Freedom of the Press Act, Swedish Riksdag 40. ^ Summary of The Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression, Swedish Riksdag 41. ^ Klug, Francesca (1996). Starmer, Keir; Weir, Stuart. eds. The Three Pillars of Liberty: Political Rights and Freedoms in the United Kingdom. The Democratic Audit of the United Kingdom. p. 165. http://books.google.com/books?id=G0UMoZMrQh0C&pg=PA165. 42. ^ a b Joint Committee on Human Rights, Parliament of the United Kingdom (2005). Counter-Terrorism Policy And Human Rights: Terrorism Bill and related matters: Oral and Written Evidence. Counter-Terrorism Policy And Human Rights: Terrorism Bill and related matters. 2. The Stationery Office. p. 114. http://books.google.com/books?id=2CRQ6hNzHuAC&pg=PA114. 43. ^ Sadurski, Wojciech (2001). Freedom of Speech and Its Limits. Law and Philosophy Library. 38. p. 179. http://books.google.com/books?id=4Ldb0cIbS7kC&pg=PA179. 44. ^ Conte, Alex (2010). Human Rights in the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism. Springer. p. 643. http://books.google.com/books?id=pJsqayP3OD8C&pg=PA643. 45. ^ Crook, Tim (2010). Comparative Media Law and Ethics. p. 397. http://books.google.com/books?id=Egsj58tyvdkC&pg=PA397. 46. ^ Joint Committee 2005, p. 116 47. ^ "Blogger who encouraged murder of MPs jailed". BBC News. 29 July 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-14344199. Retrieved 01 August 2011. 48. ^ West Midlands Police (29 July 2011). "Online extremist sentenced to 12 years for soliciting murder of MPs". Press release. http://www.westmidlands.police.uk/np/wolverhampton/news/newsitem.asp?id=4066. 49. ^ Hensley, Thomas R. (2001). The Boundaries of Freedom of Expression & Order in American Democracy. Kent State University Press. p. 153. http://books.google.com/books?id=a1V53azMBlwC&pg=PA153. 50. ^ Klug 1996, pp. 175-179 51. ^ a b Klug 1996, p. 177 52. ^ Klug 1996, p. 173 53. ^ Klug 1996, pp. 169-170 54. ^ Klug 1996, pp. 156-160 55. ^ a b c Helsinki Watch; Fund for Free Expression (1991). Restricted Subjects: Freedom of Expression in the United Kingdom. p. 53. http://books.google.com/books?id=sjvb0YiwqQC&pg=PA53. 56. ^ "Brown 'to change' protests laws". BBC News. 3 July 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6266420.stm. Retrieved 20 June 2010. "A 2005 law created an "exclusion zone" inside which all protests required police permission. ... The

19

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

requirement for police permission was introduced in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005." 57. ^ 'Lyrical terrorist' sentenced over extremist poetry 58. ^ The conviction of Samina Malik is a manifest injustice 59. ^ The crime of rhyme: the extraordinary case of Samina Malik 60. ^ In Britain, possessing a book can be 'Terrorism' 61. ^ "'Terror manual' teenager guilty". BBC News. 2007-09-26. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7014516.stm. Retrieved 2010-05-02. 62. ^ ITN - Student jailed for terror offences 63. ^ Theregister.co.uk 64. ^ Telegraph.co.uk 65. ^ BBC News 66. ^ Article 16 of the Swiss Constitution 67. ^ German: 3sat TV: Switzerland's violation against Freedom of speech 68. ^ Turkish politician fined over genocide denial 69. ^ "Press Freedom Index 2008" (PDF). Reporters Without Borders. 2008. http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/cl_en_2008.pdf. 70. ^ "Updated information on imprisoned Cuban journalists". Reporters Without Borders. http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=367. 71. ^ note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Standard#cite_note-1 72. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn#Canadian_Islamic_Congress_human_rights_c omplaint 73. ^ a b c d Neisser, Eric (1991). Recapturing the Spirit: Essays on the Bill of Rights at 200. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 68. ISBN 9780945612230. http://books.google.com/books?id=dj6Ddz0cFfcC&pg=PA68. 74. ^ a b c d e f Law and Business of the Entertainment Industries. Law and Business of the Entertainment Industries Series. Greenwood Publishing Group. 2007. p. 457. ISBN 9780275992057. http://books.google.com/books?id=hKguqdfT3eMC&pg=PA457. 75. ^ Protection of National Security Information, Congressional Research Service, 30 June 2006, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL33502.pdf 76. ^ a b Secret Service Ordered Local Police to Restrict Anti-Bush Protesters at Rallies, ACLU Charges in Unprecedented Nationwide Lawsuit. ACLU press release, 23 September 2003 77. ^ Schauer, Frederick (February 2005). "The Exceptional First Amendment". Working Paper Series from Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government. doi:10.2139/ssrn.668543. "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.".

20

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

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 1992 * This page was last modified on 8 September 2011 at 21:49. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

21

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

Handout 5-3

Malema Judgement: What do YOU say? Words that matter: • • •

“dubhula ibhunu” – a liberation song that includes the words "shoot the boer." ANC – African National Congress; South Africa’s governing party since post-apartheid in 1994; “left-wing,” committed to increase the rights of black South Africans. Boer – White (Dutch colonists) population that settled in southern Africa in the late 17th century whose descendants are the present-day Afrikaners.

Read the following account: 'Dubhula ibhunu' is hate speech by Sapa and Lauren Holley, 12 September 2011 - 13:00 Julius Malema is guilty of hate speech. That is the ruling just handed down by Judge Collin Lamont in the Equality Court against the ANC Youth League leader. Lamont says Malema's singing of the words "dubhula ibhunu" or "shoot the boer" amounts to hate speech, adding that they undermine the dignity of people and are discriminatory and harmful. … The judge says words are powerful weapons that could lead to disastrous actions and even genocide. "The words of one person inciting others...that's how a genocide can start," he said in handing down judgement. Lamont says in determining the outcome of this case, the court had to analyse the meaning of the words in the song, and its effect on society. He believes the Malema's singing of 'shoot the boer' has not been forgotten - as the words are derogatory and hurtful. Lamont likened the songs by Malema as those sung by soldiers when they were at war. Lamont noted that unfair discrimination remained rooted in certain structures of society. Racial discrimination of one group or community over another could not be justified, and certain groups did not enjoy "superior status" over others in a democracy. Since apartheid, transformation had been difficult for some in South Africa. "Certain members [of the public] embrace the new society, others found it hard to adjust... it will continue for some time. There can be no transformation without pain," said Lamont. The court heard that the Constitution provided for equality, and the eradication of social and economic inequalities. South Africa had international obligations under the United Nations for peace and unity including the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, and discrimination against women. … Source: EastCoastRadio – Durban’s No. 1 (South Africa) http://www.ecr.co.za/kagiso/content/en/east-coast-radio/east-coast-radionews?oid=1362829&sn=Detail&pid=490476&-Dubhula-ibhunu--is-hate-speech 1

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

Bloggers had a great deal to say about the ruling; a representative dozen are below. Assign students the roles of the bloggers and read aloud: by MyNews24 Editor 2011-09-12 11:49 Shonitso Vhota: This is not hate speech at all. Our constitution or law is the one which is not clear, this case is far from over I'm telling you. Graeme Martin: Of course it’s hate speech! You do not have to be white or a judge to hear it only once, and know that it is nothing less. The majority of normal South Africans (green, pink and blue included) will in their hearts agree with this ruling. The ANC should have reprimanded him immediately before the court action developed into such a farce. This trial was a waste of public money, now wait for the appeals to follow. This will further divide our beautiful country. Rochelle Butler: The judge’s ruling should be respected. Apartheid is over, why dwell on the past? Aren’t we supposed to be moving forward as a democratic country? The struggle is over, oppression is over why is it so difficult for Julius Malema and the ANCYL to accept this, get over it and work together to form a united South Africa? As youth league leaders, they're supposed to be setting an example for the youth of SA to become a united SA, instead they want to sing Shoot the Boer!! They are missing the point of what they are put in government and leadership to do. Mahlangu Fana: “Shoot the Boer” is not hate speech. The context in which it was composed was never as a result of hatred but as a reaction to a system that was oppressive to the majority of the people in the country. This is the same context in which “Ngeke ngiye KwaZulu kwafel’ umama” was never hate speech but social commentary. If this is hate speech then 80% of all struggle songs are hate speech. Kim Rogers: Anything with the words “shoot”, “kill”, etc. is hate speech. How can you justify such words as anything but hateful? Right is right and wrong is wrong irrespective of race, colour or creed. Dhirendra Mistry: Thought become words, word become actions and action eventually becomes your character! Wandile Zibi: So it means singing leads to action. Whites who are members of the ANC also hate other whites as they also sing this song and this song can lead them to kill their fellow whites. So songs like Siyaya e Pitori should not be sung because they will incite people to go and crowd the Union Building in Pretoria. And Christians should stop singing about the Egyptians who oppressed the Israelites.

2

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

Alf van Wyk: By singing this song, Julius Malema is inciting hate of white (Afrikaans) people. Have you ever noticed how worked up his supporters get when they sing this song? I believe that Malema has created more hate between whites and blacks, not only with the singing of the song 'Shoot the Boer', but by his actions and speeches as well. Lorraine Windvoel: The judge missed the point; all revolutionary songs must then be banned. Does this judge really know or understand why these songs were sung? These songs used to liberate our parents emotionally where the apartheid system was very tough to then. And that was enforced by their forefathers. Susan da Costa: Very glad that Shoot the Boer constitute hate speech. Because that is exactly what it is all about - pure hate. We can not build a nation with that type of behaviour. Siphiwo Mendu: I think the judge has missed the point. These songs are part of us. We will sing them until we die - we have a history with these songs that can’t just vanish into thin air. Eric Martinisch: First of all I must say that we are talking about a Liberation song. Does this mean that a liberation song will be banned from being sung or is the song to be amended? This judgment would surely mean that all songs, by whatever artist it is sung and that could contain hate speech can't be sung any longer in South Africa. Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received. Whole class discussion: what would you say? • Can a liberation song be hate speech? Why or why not? • Does the law in the United States differ from the law in South Africa? Why or why not? • Can you think of other anthems or symbols that have violent themes? (Your school fight song? Confederate flag?)

3

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

Handout 5-4

Social Media Critical to Emerging Democracies Around the World Embassy of the United States Ashgabat, Turkmenistan Statement on World Press Freedom Day, May 3, 2011 by Charge d’Affaires, a.i. Ambassador Eileen A. Malloy

Social media users are playing a starring role in the drama unfolding in the Middle East and North Africa. In many countries in the region - including Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria - the Internet is serving as a catalyst for journalists, activists, and citizens alike to connect with each other and share their stories and calls for change with the world. “We were unplugged for five days, no Internet connection no mobile devices. We were like in a big prison in Egypt,” says Egyptian Blogger Dalia Ziada, in explaining what it felt like when former President Hosni Mubarak’s regime switched off the power to the Internet and blocked mobile phone communications in an attempt to stifle press freedom and the freedoms of citizens to access information and assemble peacefully. But the dark did not stop people from gathering in the streets to demand change. “The civil rights movement is not new,” Ziada explained, “but it did not succeed until the Internet appeared and social networks like Facebook and Twitter attracted larger number of Egyptians.” The Internet is the global gate which has amplified demands for freedom of expression and other universal human rights, facilitated vibrant and open discussions on a wide range of topics and connected citizens with each other and with people around the world. Indeed, access to information has been profoundly altered with the arrival of the digital age. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said earlier this year: “The Internet has become the public space of the 21st century—the world’s town square, classroom, marketplace, coffeehouse and night club. We all shape and are shaped by what happens there, all 2 billion of us (on the Internet) and counting.” In this new public space crowded with news and chatter, journalists play an essential role in searching for truth, analyzing trends, maintaining credibility, and providing reports to serve the public good. Undoubtedly, the arrival of the digital age – the evolution of the Internet, the emergence of new forms of media and the rise of online social networks – has sparked debate as to what it means to be a 1

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

journalist, what role bloggers play, and what the effect of a blurring of lines between citizen journalists and professionals will be on the media of today and tomorrow. … “When a free media is in jeopardy,” Secretary Hillary Clinton has said, “all other human rights are also threatened. So in that spirit, let us continue to champion those who stand for media freedom – and expose those who would deny it. And let us always work toward a world where the free flow of information and ideas remains a powerful force for progress.” We are facing a critical, transformative moment in our history. Around the world people are calling out for freedom, transparency, and self-determination. New digital tools are supporting this cause in a way that is faster and more widespread than ever before, and journalists are playing a central role in this effort. Unfortunately, many of them have been killed or injured as they’ve sought to report on the grave challenges facing us today. It is up to each of us to honor their legacy and do all we can – both virtually and in reality – to support press freedom as a fundamental right to be enjoyed by everyone, everywhere. * This site is managed by the U.S. Department of State. External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein. http://turkmenistan.usembassy.gov/statement20110503.html

2

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

Handout 5-5

Cyberspace Scenarios Instructions: Pretend you are a Supreme Court justice. Discuss and resolve the case using reasoning from the Constitution and previous cases. Busted Blogger? Administrators bar a high school student from running in a student election after the student criticizes them in a blog for their handling of a student festival. In the blog, the student calls the administrators names and asks fellow students and parents to complain to the superintendent to make him mad. Inappropriate language was used in the post, which was written and sent from home. Q: Does the student blogger have a free speech defense?

Cyberbully Suspended? Student 1 wrote derogatory and hateful comments about Student 2 and posted them online for everyone to read. The comments caused significant emotional distress and interfered with Student 2’s ability to participate fully in school. School officials punished Student 1; the parents of Student 1 are suing the school. The school takes the position that it can punish student conduct if it disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others even if the student is not in class. Q: When do students’ online comments “cross the line” and become First Amendment concerns?

Additional questions 1. Should Internet speech be regulated? 2. If so, what criteria should be used? 3. Does it matter if a teacher is being defamed instead of a student? 4. Would the answer be different in another country? Name a country and explain. 1

CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT

Words Matter: Limits on Free Speech

Lesson 5

ANSWERS Both scenarios provide the solution found by the court in its jurisdiction, however, this is an evolving area of law. Other courts rule the other way under similar facts. Students should understand that this is an unsettled area of law with much grey area.

Busted Blogger? Administrators bar a high school student from running in a student election after the student criticizes them in a blog for their handling of a student festival. In the blog, the student calls the administrators names and asks fellow students and parents to complain to the superintendent to make him mad. Inappropriate language was used in the post, which was written and sent from home. Q: Does the student blogger have a free speech defense? In 2008, the 2nd Circuit Court ruled for the school officials in Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2nd Cir. 2008). School officials could punish a student for blogging critical comments about a school administrator. “We have determined, however, that a student may be disciplined for expressive conduct, even conduct occurring off school grounds, when this conduct ‘would foreseeably create a risk of substantial disruption within the school environment,’ or at least when it was similarly foreseeable that the off-campus expression might also reach campus,” the court concluded. http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/doninger-v-niehoff

Cyberbully Suspended? Student 1 wrote derogatory and hateful comments about Student 2 and posted them online for everyone to read. The comments caused significant emotional distress and interfered with Student 2’s ability to participate fully in school. School officials punished Student 1; the parents of Student 1 are suing the school. The school takes the position that it can punish student conduct if it disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others even if the student is not in class. Q: When do students’ online comments “cross the line” and become First Amendment concerns? Student 1’s comments did not cross the line here. Cyberbully’s father, Evan Cohen, sued his daughter’s school district when the school, Beverly Vista School in Beverly Hills, CA, disciplined his eighth-grade daughter. After school one day in May 2008, Cohen’s daughter, known in court papers as J. C., videotaped friends at a cafe, egging them on as they laughed and made mean-spirited, sexual comments about another eighth-grade girl, C. C., calling her “ugly,” “spoiled,” a “brat” and a “slut.” J. C. posted the video on YouTube. The next day, the school suspended her for two days. Judge Stephen V. Wilson of Federal District Court found that the off-campus video could be linked to the school: J. C. told perhaps 10 students about it; the humiliated C. C. and her mother showed it to school officials; educators watched it and investigated. But the legal test was whether J. C.’s video had caused the school “substantial” disruption. Judge Wilson ruled in favor of the cyberbully, because the disruption was only minimal: administrators dealt with the matter quietly and before lunch recess. This legal test comes from a 1969 Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The court overturned the suspension, but crafted a balance between a school’s authority and a student’s freedom of expression. When a student’s speech interferes substantially with the school’s educational mission, a school can impose discipline. http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/03/02/facebook-poses-problems-to-schools-

and-raises-privacy-free-speech-questions/ Lesson source: Freedom of Speech: Finding the Limits – a Lesson by Linda Weber for Sunnylands Seminars 2009 (Annenberg Foundation Trust) http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/files/documents/lessonplans/FreeSpeechLessonPlan.pdf 2