Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:18 pm
Time: 12:18 pm
Results for freedom of speech
5 results foundAuthor: Broecker, Christen Title: Turning Critics Into Criminals: The Human Rights Consequences of Criminal Defamation Law in Indonesia Summary: In Indonesia, publicly voicing criticism of officials and powerful individuals can lead to criminal charges and, in some cases, imprisonment. While media freedom and freedom of expression have expanded significantly in the 12 years since Indonesia began its transition from authoritarianism to democracy, a number of laws criminalizing speech remain on the books. These include criminal libel, slander, and insult laws. Punishments under the laws include stiff fines and prison sentences of up to six years. This report documents recent cases in which such laws have been used by public officials and powerful individuals in Indonesia to the detriment of anti-corruption activists, human rights defenders, journalists, consumers, and others. Based on interviews with more than 30 defendants and witnesses, it reveals the disastrous and long-lasting impact criminal defamation investigations and prosecutions can have on the lives of those accused. The report urges Indonesia to repeal its criminal defamation laws and craft appropriate civil defamation provisions to better safeguard freedom of expression while still adequately protecting reputational interests. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2010. 86p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: Indonesia URL: Shelf Number: 118813 Keywords: Criminal DefamationCriminal Law (Indonesia)Freedom of SpeechHuman Rights |
Author: Martin, Andre Title: Caught in the Act: Investigation into the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services' Conduct in Relation to Ontario Regulation 233/10 Under the Public Works Protection Act Summary: Regulation 233/10, passed to enhance security during the G20 summit, should never have been enacted. It was likely unconstitutional. The effect of Regulation 233/10, now expired, was to infringe on freedom of expression in ways that do not seem justifiable in a free and democratic society. Specifically, the passage of the regulation triggered the extravagant police authority found in the Public Works Protection Act, including the power to arbitrarily arrest and detain people and to engage in unreasonable searches and seizures. Even apart from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the legality of Regulation 233/10 is doubtful. The Public Works Protection Act under which it was proclaimed authorizes regulations to be created to protect infrastructure, not to provide security to people during events. Regulation 233/10 was therefore probably invalid for having exceeded the authority of the enactment under which it was passed. These problems should have been apparent, and given the tremendous power Regulation 233/10 conferred on the police, sober and considered reflection should have been given to whether it was appropriate to arm officers with such authority. This was not done. The decision of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to sponsor the regulation was unreasonable. Even had Regulation 233/10 been valid, the government should have handled its passage better. Regulation 233/10 changed the rules of the game. It gave police powers that are unfamiliar in a free and democratic society. Steps should have been taken to ensure that the Toronto Police Service understood what they were getting. More importantly, the passage of the regulation should have been aggressively publicized, not disclosed only through obscure official information channels. Perversely, by changing the rules of the game without real notice, Regulation 233/10 acted as a trap for the responsible – those who took the time to educate themselves about police powers before setting out to express legitimate political dissent. All of this makes for a sorry legacy. The value in hosting international summits is that it permits the host nation to primp and pose before the eyes of the world. Ordinarily Ontario and Canada could proudly showcase the majesty of a free and democratic society. The legacy of the passage and administration of Regulation 233/10 is that we failed to do that well. Details: Ottawa: Ombudsman Ontario, 2010. 127p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 10, 2010 at: http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/media/157555/g20final1-en.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/media/157555/g20final1-en.pdf Shelf Number: 120436 Keywords: Freedom of SpeechPolice BehaviorPolice Use of ForcePolicing (Canada)Public Order |
Author: Byberg, Jacqueline Helen Kingston Title: Childless Child Porn - A 'Victimless' Crime? A Comparative Analysis of the Validity of the Current Restrictions in the United Kingdom and United States on Virtual Child Pornography in Relation to the Right to Free Speech Summary: This paper will comment on the current prohibition of the (arguably) victimless crime of virtual child pornography (VCP) in both the US and UK and it’s interaction with the right to free speech. This paper is limited in it’s scope and will only discuss in passing the offence of prohibited images of a child, nor will it consider in anyway images that are a product of computer morphing, in which a physical element of a child is ‘morphed’ into an indecent image. The forthcoming discourse will contend that the current prohibition of VCP is an unjustifiable violation of the right to free speech, through the consideration of the practical and theoretical validity of the justifications for this prohibition. Furthermore, it will consider the possible advantages of restricting rather than prohibiting VCP. In order to achieve this the first chapter will briefly examine the development of the law regulating actual child pornography and the current legislation governing VCP in both the US and UK. The first chapter will also succinctly make note of the parallels that become evident when comparing the individual jurisdictional responses to VCP. The second chapter considers the right of free speech operationally in the US and UK, the legislative clarity of VCP’s current categorisation as obscene or indecent and the impact both this and private consumption has on the justifiability and adjudged proportionality of the prohibition. The third chapter will consider the prevailing justifications habitually referenced when defending the contravention of the right to free speech caused by the statutory prohibition of VCP. The fourth chapter will explore the interactions of the preceding chapters justifications with the right of free speech, consider alternate motivations for enacting the current prohibition as well as recommend a possible legislative solution. Lastly, the fifth chapter will conclude this paper. Details: Durham, U.K.: Durham University - Durham Law School, 2012. 49p. Source: Working Paper: Internet Resource: Accessed October 15, 2012 at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2114564 Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2114564 Shelf Number: 126743 Keywords: Child Pornography, VirtualFreedom of SpeechObscenity |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Stifling Dissent: The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in India Summary: Freedom of expression is protected under the Indian constitution and international treaties to which India is a party. Politicians, pundits, activists, and the general public engage in vigorous debate through newspapers, television, and the Internet, including social media . Successive governments have made commitments to protect freedom of expression. "Our democracy will not sustain if we can't guarantee freedom of speech and expression," Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in June 2014, after a month in office. Indeed, free speech is so ingrained that Amartya Sen's 2005 book, The Argumentative Indian, remains as relevant today as ever. Yet Indian governments at both the national and state level do not always share these values, passing laws and taking harsh actions to criminalize peaceful expression. The government uses draconian laws such as the sedition provisions of the penal code, the criminal defamation law, and laws dealing with hate speech to silence dissent. These laws are vaguely worded, overly broad, and prone to misuse, and have been repeatedly used for political purposes against critics at the national and state level. While some prosecutions, in the end, have been dismissed or abandoned, many people who have engaged in nothing more than peaceful speech have been arrested, held in pretrial detention, and subjected to expensive criminal trials. Fear of such actions, combined with uncertainty as to how the statutes will be applied, leads others to engage in self-censorship. Details: New York: HRW, 2016. 121p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 8, 2016 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/india0516.pdf Year: 2016 Country: India URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/india0516.pdf Shelf Number: 139330 Keywords: DemonstrationsFreedom of SpeechProtest Movement |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Deepening the Culture of Fear: The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in Malayasia Summary: Malaysia's use of criminal laws to arrest, question, and prosecute individuals for peaceful speech and assembly has deepened in the year since Human Rights Watch published Creating a Culture of Fear: The Criminalization of Expression in Malaysia in October 2015. The Malaysian authorities have moved forward with the prosecutions of many of those featured in that report, and continue to use the overly broad and vaguely worded criminal laws identified there to harass, arrest, and prosecute those critical of the government or of members of Malaysia's royal families. The Sedition Act and the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) remain the laws most frequently used against critical speech in Malaysia. Those criticizing the administration of Prime Minister Najib Razak or commenting on the government's handling of a major corruption scandal have been particular targets. The long-running corruption scandal involving the government-owned investment fund 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) has prompted calls from politicians, civil society activists, and commentators for Prime Minster Najib to resign from office. Rather than treating such statements as part of normal give-and-take in a democratic society, the Malaysian authorities have treated such speech as criminal, investigating those involved for sedition, "activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy," and violations of the Communications and Multimedia Act. Similarly, the government has pursued those making comments on social media deemed "insulting" to Najib or members of royal families with criminal investigations and charges under the Sedition Act, the Communications and Multimedia Act, and provisions of the penal code. The government has also continued to prosecute individuals for exercising their right to peaceful assembly under Malaysia's overly restrictive Peaceful Assembly Act, and has used the Official Secrets Act to shield reports on the 1MDB scandal from public view. Rather than amending the laws to bring them into line with international legal standards, as recommended in Human Rights Watch's 2015 report, the Malaysian government has moved in the opposite direction by suggesting it would strengthen some of the rights-offending laws, particularly those that can be used against speech on social media. Human Rights Watch reiterates its call for the Malaysian government to cease using criminal laws against peaceful speech and assembly, and to bring its laws and policies into line with international human rights law and standards for the protection of freedom of expression and assembly. Details: New York: HRW, 2016. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2016 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/malaysia1016_web_0.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Malaysia URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/malaysia1016_web_0.pdf Shelf Number: 145088 Keywords: Freedom of ExpressionFreedom of SpeechHuman Rights AbusesProtests |