This is a Comment on Article 19 of the ICCPR, where the Human Rights Committee examines the extent of the freedom under the Article, as well as the restrictions that may lawfully be imposed by the State, and observes, inter alia, that “Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.”

In this volume, Talal Asad, Wendy Brown, Judith Butler, and Saba Mahmood confront the paradoxes and dilemmas attending the supposed stand-off between Islam and liberal democratic values in the context of the controversial Danish cartoons of Mohammad. The authors inquire into the evaluative frameworks at stake in understanding the conflicts between blasphemy and free speech, between religious taboos and freedoms of thought and expression, and between secular and religious world views. They examine whether the language of the law is an adequate mechanism for the adjudication of such conflicts, and inquire as to the other modes of discourse available for the navigation of such differences in multicultural and multi-religious societies.

This article explores the history of the prohibition of hate speech in international human rights law and practice, and analyzes the theories that emerge from that history. It compares positions under the UN treaty bodies with those under the European and Inter-American systems.

The article explores the social and cultural significance of the offence of blasphemy and of the legal strategies which are in question. The article contains a detailed account of its parameters and a critical analysis of its relationship to laws dealing with the adjacent areas of sedition, obscenity, outrage to public decency and offences against public order.

This book is a collection of papers compiled by Article 19 on the struggle of balancing liberty and community; and freedom of expression and non-discrimination. It analyses the hate speech laws present in 15 countries across the world, and discusses the international standards regarding the same. It concludes that hate speech and other similar laws can serve a useful function, and the problems lie in selective or indifferent enforcement.

The article examines the application of Article 17 (popularly known as the abuse clause) of the European Human Rights Convention in cases of hate speech by the European Court of Human Rights. It argues that that the abuse clause’s application is undesirable, since it tends, even in its indirect variant, to set aside substantial principles and safeguards that are characteristic of the European speech-protective framework. Thus, it concludes that the Court ought not exclude any type of speech from the free speech protection provided in Article 10.

This article attempts to address the question of how a potential Australian Bill of Rights would protect free speech and respond to hate speech. It provides an outline of statutory provisions adopted in Australia to respond to hate speech. It examines the hate speech clause in the South African Bill of Rights to provide a comparative perspective, and concludes that a qualified free speech clause should be included in the Australian Bill of Rights.

The term “disturbing social order” appears in several Chinese civil and riminal laws. The author argues that the vagueness of these three words, combined with the national culture of censorship, undermines various legal provisions that guarantee freedom of speech in China. As a result, laws against disturbing social order suppress nonviolent political speech. It recommends that Chinese lawmakers define the term to prevent misuse of the law.

This article examines the nature of the crimes of blasphemy and blasphemous libel as they have been understood and applied over centuries, but gives particular emphasis to certain recent events which led to their abolition of blasphemy in England and Wales at precisely the time they had been given a clean bill of health under the European Convention on Human Rights.

This paper examines the content of the right to freedom of religion and whether it entails a right to protection from ridicule, scurrility, vilification and insults directed at one’s religious teachings, symbols or beliefs from the perspective of international human rights law. It also review the approach of regional and national ‘models of regulation’ (the United States, Germany, the European Court of Human Rights, and Australia) to examine the unique experiences of these systems. It argues that a contextualized approach should be adopted in individual cases to carefully examine the value of the speech concerned, the ‘harm’ caused by it, and the position of the targeted individuals, group or community in that particular society and generally.

This paper argues that hate speech invades its targets’ rights to personal security, personality, citizenship, and equality and hence, this form of speech should not receive constitutional protection.

This note first contrasts the constitutional jurisprudence of free speech of Germany against the United States. The contrasting practices and doctrines are framed by a survey of international agreements on speech and a brief discussion of hate speech in the United States. The discussion then complicates the problems of speech by projecting it onto the Internet.

The article examines the history of cartoon satire, invoking past examples of racial and religious discrimination in cartoons while emphasizing the important role cartoonists have played in criticizing and checking the exercise of power. The legal implications of the “Danish cartoons” is analyzed through the lens of international human rights law, in particular the concepts of hate speech, racial discrimination and religious defamation. Finally the present movement in the UN towards “cartooning for peace” is promoted.

The article can be accessed from the New York Books website, but access is restricted by a paywall. 

In this article, the author compares the English and American laws against blasphemy. Drawing from the profoundly individualist character of American First amendment doctrine that is revealed by this comparison, he argues that the feminist challenge against pornography is controversial because it represents a pluralist challenge to our first amendment individualism.

This blog post discusses the significant provisions on hate speech in Indian law, and analyses their application. It argues that rather than protecting minorities from the vitriolic outbursts, the law on hate speech has been consistently used by an intolerant majority whose sentiments are easily hurt. Thus, it is in urgent need of reform.

Eric Barendt discusses the legal protection of free speech in countries including England, the United States (including recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court), Canada, and Germany. He examines the varied approaches of different legal systems and constitutional traditions to balancing free speech and freedom of the press against rights to reputation, privacy, and copyright, and explores case law in light of the philosophical and political arguments for free speech guarantees.

In a comparative study drawing on material from the United States and Britain, David Waddington examines how various types of industrial, political, urban and sectarian disorder occur. Contemporary Issues in Public Disorder critically appraises the theoretical approaches to understanding public disorder and contributes to the ongoing debates on police methods, police accountability and the controversial role of the media.

This report contains the Law Commission’s final recommendations for abolishing or repealing certain common law and old statutory offences in the field of offences relating to religion and public worship. The recommendations relate, in the first place, to offences against religion. The Report contains a summary of the various offences against religion in the U.K. at the time and a discussion on each, along with the rationale for their abolition.