Dependants

Are there other specific rights that are critical to the exercise of this right? Can you identify specific examples of this?

Right	Breakout	Contents
Freedom of Association		Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are two of the most critical liberties for upholding freedom of association. As noted by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), “freedom of expression is frequently a necessary component of the rights to freedom of assembly and association when people join together for an expressive purpose” (ICJ n.d.), indicating that the liberties are intertwined. The United States Supreme Court itself has also stated that it “has recognized a right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment-speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion” (Roberts v. United States Jaycees 1984, 618). In other words, true freedom of association is not possible without the freedom to speak or to practice a religion, both of which often involve congregation and organization among citizens. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are often discussed together in court cases, indicating that the two rights are enmeshed. For example, in 2009 the country of Honduras experienced a coup d’etat when then-President Zelaya was forced out of office by members of his own cabinet and other government organs. Many protested this act, including four judges who expressed their support for rule of law by attending demonstrations and conversing with others. These individuals were also a part of the Association of Judges for Democracy (AJD), and used the organization’s platform to speak out against the coup. Once it was found that the judges had and expressed political opinions in these ways, they were stripped of their positions, prevented from holding AJD membership, and convicted of violating the judicial code of ethics (Lopez Lone et al. v. Honduras 2015, 14-48). The plaintiffs, then, appealed the judgements to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (IACHR), citing infringements on both freedom of expression and freedom of association. The Court eventually confirmed that the rights of the judges had been violated, explaining that their political participation was acceptable “in a context in which democracy is being impaired” (Lopez Lone et al. v. Honduras 2015, 57), while in other cases impartiality of officials is necessary. On the subject of the liberties that were violated and their importance, the Court stated that “it has recognized the relationship that exists between political rights, freedom of expression, the right of assembly and freedom of association, and that these rights, taken as a whole, make the democratic process possible. In situations where there is a breakdown of institutional order following a coup d’état, the relationship between these rights is even clearer, especially when they are all exercised at the same time in order to protest against actions by the public authorities that are contrary to the constitutional order” (Lopez Lone et al. v. Honduras 2015, 52). In addition, it claimed that “the ability to protest publicly and peacefully is one of the most accessible ways to exercise the right to freedom of expression, and can contribute to the protection of other rights” (Lopez Lone et al. v. Honduras 2015, 55). Through this case, the IACHR affirmed that freedom of expression is deeply intertwined with freedom of association. The critical connection between freedom of expression and freedom of association is further made clear in the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) case of Williams v. Zimbabwe. Between 2003 and 2013, individuals representing the organization Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) participated in protests where they used verbal expressions, held placards, and more. As a result, members were arrested multiple times by the Zimbabwean police and charged with attempts to disturb the peace and similar crimes under the state’s criminal code. Even after the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe stepped in and defended the rights of the victims, police continued to perform arbitrary arrests and blocked members of WOZA from peacefully protesting. As a result, members of the organization filed a complaint to the ACHPR stating that the Zimbabwean government had denied them multiple rights, including freedom of association and freedom of expression, as defined by the African Charter (Williams v. Zimbabwe 2021, 1-3). When deciding this case, the Court states that they would analyze the alleged violations of both rights at the same time, because “the rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association are intertwined to the extent that they are fundamental human rights that form the foundations of democratic societies”(Williams v. Zimbabwe 2021, 18). The Commission also stated that, in the past, they had “found a violation of freedom of expression when the State violated the rights to freedom of association and freedom of assembly” (Williams v. Zimbabwe 2021, 18). Eventually, the body was led to the conclusion that the restrictions placed on freedom of expression, and by default freedom of association, were not justified. As noted in the case report, “associations must be given the freedom to pursue a wide range of activities, including exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly” (Williams v. Zimbabwe 2021, 18), summarizing how both rights are critical to each other in the context of the case and in general. Judiciaries have also often examined freedom of religion and freedom of association together, as can be seen in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) case Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova. In 1992, the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was created. It applied to the Moldovan government for recognition as a religious denomination, as was required by Moldovan law. However, the application went unanswered by the government, and so for the next seven years the institution alternated between pursuing legal proceedings against the government and reapplying for recognition. In every case, the government ignored or refused the Church’s requests, stating that it was “not a denomination distinct from the Orthodox Church but a schismatic group within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova and that any interference by the State to resolve the conflict would be contrary to the Moldovan Constitution” (Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova 2001, 10). On top of this, members of the Church of Bessarabia were continually harassed, intimidated, assaulted, and prevented from worshiping or conducting services by authorities. As a result, the institution and individual members applied to the ECHR to hear their case on the grounds that it was breaching the freedom of religion as defined by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In their assessment, the court sided with the applicants, noting that “refusing to recognise the applicant Church…amounted to forbidding it to operate, both as a liturgical body and as an association” (Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova 2001, 24), indicating that religious communities are akin to associations, which are also protected under the Convention. As a result, the Court ruled that the Moldovan government had violated the right to freedom of expression, and added that the regime’s “refusal to recognise, coupled with the authorities’ stubborn persistence in holding to the view that the applicants could practice their religion within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, infringed their freedom of association, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention” (Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova 2001, 35). The ruling, then, exemplifies how associations can be religious in nature, and religions can act as associations, meaning that the protection of religion is critical to upholding freedom of association, and vice versa. References International Commission of Jurists. “Chapter four: Freedom of Assembly, Association, and Expression.” Accessed July 5, 2023. https://www.icj.org/sogi-casebook-introduction/chapter-four-freedom-of-assembly-association-and-expression/ Lopez Lone et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 30 ¶ 14-18, 52, 55, 57 (Oct. 6, 2015). https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_302_ing.pdf Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, Application no. 45701/99, ECtHR of 2001. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-59985%22]} Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984). https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep468/usrep468609/usrep468609.pdf Williams v. Zimbabwe, African Comm. Hum. & Peoples’ Rights, Comm. No. 446/13 (February 25, 2021) https://rfkhr.imgix.net/asset/WOZA-Case-_-ACHPR-Full-Decision-compressed-2.pdf
Freedom of Expression		Although the idea of freedom of expression, as a right distinct from other rights, was only elucidated in the mid-20th century, multiple theorists advocated for something closely resembling freedom of expression long before that, even if they did not use the term. From these sources we get a sense of what freedom of expression entails, and of its value as a foundation for so many of the other rights that citizens exercise in a democratic society. What seems less evident, however, is the rights that freedom of expression is itself founded on – and therefore, what rights one must have to be able to exercise it. Based on an analysis of the meaning of expression, those rights include freedom of speech and of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. Freedom of expression was first explicitly guaranteed, or at least widely accepted for the first time, in the system of international law established in the aftermath of World War II. Article 19 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, “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” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, 5). The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights similarly states that “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression;” this consists of the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds… orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice” (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, 10). Long before this, though, ideas hinting at a right to hold and express opinions can be found in political literature. In 1644, after Parliament passed an ordinance requiring pre-publication review of any printed material by the government, English poet-philosopher John Milton protested by anonymously publishing the polemic Areopagitica, in which he wrote, “give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties” (Milton 1644, 57). In 1789, James Madison wrote an early draft of the First Amendment which read, “the people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments…” (Read 2009). In his seminal 1859 treatise On Liberty, John Stuart Mill defended the freedom to express socially disfavored opinions: “the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it” (Mill 1859, 19). United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in 1927: “[the Founding Fathers] believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile…that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government” (Whitney v. California 1927, 274). Ten years later, his colleague Justice Benjamin Cardozo wrote that the “freedom of thought, and speech” is “the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom” (Palko v. Connecticut 1937, 302). Together, these quotes imply a multi-pronged freedom of expression, which can be seen mirrored in the definitions (“seek, receive, impart”) given in the international statutes that guarantee this right today. Freedom of expression can thus be understood as comprised of the freedom to form opinions (and therefore the freedom to access the information required to do so), the freedom to proclaim those opinions, and the freedom to share and debate those opinions with one’s fellow citizens. They likewise give a sense of how crucial freedom of expression is to the functioning of democracy, and indeed to liberty itself; that it acts as a safeguard that protects all other rights. Therefore, to answer the question of what rights are needed for one to have freedom of expression, we can ask what rights are necessary for the realization of each of the above prongs. First and foremost, we can intuitively appreciate that freedom of speech and of the press are essential for the ability to form, declare, and discuss opinions. This double-barreled right is intimated in the aforementioned writings: Milton advocates the liberty to “utter,” and Madison and both Justices specifically refer to speech; the necessity of a concomitant freedom of the press is supported by Milton’s call for a liberty to know, and by Madison’s reference to the freedom to write and publish one’s views in a manner distinct from speech. Freedom of assembly (referenced by Brandeis) is similarly crucial for the practical ability to exercise the right to expression: a citizen cannot fully acquire information and form opinions based on it, or fully participate in debates about those opinions, without the freedom to interact with as many diverse voices as they possibly can. Finally, though not specifically mentioned above, freedom of religion is required as well. This is not only because one topic that many people wish to express the strongest of opinions about is religion, but because religious expression often encompasses actions as well as speech and writing, and thus would not be sufficiently protected without its own discrete supportive right. The most foundational body of law laying out these rights is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which has inspired language in the constitutions of countless other countries. Moreover, due to the uniquely American practice of judicial review, US Supreme Court cases can provide illustrative examples of how these rights are vital to the freedom of expression. In the early history of First Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court proved amenable to claims that speech and the press could be restricted if there was a “clear and present danger” to national security or other critical national interests, as outlined in the 1919 case Schenck v. United States, and subsequently reinforced with Abrams v. United States that same year. Issued amid the nationalist fervor of World War I, both cases concerned people punished for distributing anti-war writings under the 1917 Espionage Act, which broadly criminalized interfering with the war effort or undermining public morale (Schenck v. United States 1919, Abrams v. United States 1919). Likewise in Whitney v. California (1927), the Court upheld a conviction under California’s “criminal syndicalism” law, which criminalized speech that advocated for social or political change by force, even if it was in general and imprecise terms. In that case, the convicted person had been a member of a Communist organization that broadly advocated revolution against the government, but insisted she had never personally called for or supported violence (Whitney v. California 1927). The tide began to turn with Stromberg v. California (1931), where the Court struck down a state law banning the display of red flags, and notably incorporated the right to free speech against the states for the first time. The Court found that a “sign, symbol, or emblem” like a flag was protected speech under the First Amendment, and further wrote that free speech is a central component of the liberty protected by the Constitution: “It has been determined that the conception of liberty … embraces the right of free speech” (Stromberg v. California 1931, 283). The Court subsequently relied on that right to free speech to offer a passionate defense of the “opportunity for free political discussion,” which it called “essential to the security of the Republic” (Stromberg v. California 1931, 283). Still, it took decades for the overly permissive “clear and present danger” test for limits on free speech to be effectively superseded by a more protective standard of “imminent lawless action,” which the Court invoked in the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio. Explicitly overturning Whitney, the Court wrote that Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute punishes “mere advocacy” (which can be translated as political expression), and thus is unconstitutional based on the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press (Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969, 395). Apart from national security/law and order, the predominant justification for government attempts to restrict speech and the press has tended to be some form of offense or social disruption caused by the expression. The Court invoked something like the freedom of expression when it ruled for a plaintiff arrested for wearing a jacket with the words “fuck the draft” in Cohen v. California (1971), finding that California could not exercise a “governmental power to force persons who wish to ventilate their dissident views into avoiding particular forms of expression,” and justified this statement under the First Amendment right to free speech (Cohen v. California 1971, 403). In Miller v. California (1973), the Court largely overturned obscenity laws restricting printed material (which had famously ensnared classics like Ulysses, Lady Chatterley’s Lover, and Tropic of Cancer due to sexual content), similarly deriving a wide-ranging right to express one’s views in writing from the First Amendment: “in the area of freedom of speech and press the courts must always remain sensitive to any infringement on genuinely serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific expression” (Miller v. California 1973, 413). Freedom of assembly, as provided for in the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, is another supportive right for freedom of expression. This right was notably litigated before the Supreme Court in the 1937 case De Jonge v. Oregon, in which the Court upheld the plaintiff’s right to speak at a peaceful meeting of the Communist Party (and incorporated this right to the states for the first time). In its ruling, the Court defended the importance of “free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means” (De Jonge v. Oregon 1937, 299). Of this opportunity the Court said, “therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government” (De Jonge v. Oregon 1937, 299). The final right undergirding the freedom of expression is freedom of religion. Multiple rulings have found that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment imposes a high standard for restrictions on religious acts. For example, in Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Court ruled in favor of a plaintiff who was denied unemployment benefits after losing her job for refusing to work on Saturdays on account of her Seventh-Day Adventist faith. The Court’s opinion indicated that a right to expression stems from the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion: “the imposition of such a condition upon even a gratuitous benefit inevitably deterred or discouraged the exercise of First Amendment rights of expression;” therefore, to “condition the availability of benefits upon this appellant's willingness to violate a cardinal principle of her religious faith” is impermissible because it “effectively penalizes the free exercise of her constitutional liberties” (Sherbert v. Verner 1963, 374). Subsequent rulings would similarly protect religious life choices and behaviors on the grounds of a Free Exercise Clause right to religious expression, such as Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), where the Court found that Wisconsin could not require parents to send their children to school past eighth grade when it was contrary to their Amish beliefs (Wisconsin v. Yoder 1972). Likewise in Church of the Lukumi Babulu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (1993), the Court overturned a city ordinance targeting ritual animal sacrifice by practitioners of the Caribbean religion Santeria (Church of the Lukumi Babulu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah 1993). In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), concerning COVID-19 capacity restrictions on houses of worship, the Court found that even a temporary abridgement of the ability to attend religious services constitutes an “irreparable harm” to free exercise rights, and thus must meet the highest level of judicial scrutiny (Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo 2020, 5). Most recently, the Court made clear that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious expression in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), where it ruled in favor of a high school football coach’s practice of praying on the field after games: “The Clause protects not only the right to harbor religious beliefs inwardly and secretly. It does perhaps its most important work by protecting the ability of those who hold religious beliefs of all kinds to live out their faiths in daily life through ‘the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts’” (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District 2022, 12). While a clearly delineated freedom of expression is relatively recent, these examples show how it has been identified decades and centuries prior, in a wide variety of situations. The rights of freedom of speech and the press, assembly, and religion have all been highlighted as essential to free expression. These rights are therefore crucial not just for themselves, but because of the right to expression that grows out of them, that being the groundwork without which any definition of a free society cannot exist. References: Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/250/616/ (accessed June 9, 2023) Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/ (accessed June 9, 2023) Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/520/ (accessed June 9, 2023) Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/15/ (accessed June 9, 2023) De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/299/353/ (accessed June 9, 2023) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/ccpr.pdf Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/21-418/#:~:text=Justia%20Summary&text=The%20Constitution%20neither%20mandates%20nor,it%20allows%20comparable%20secular%20speech (accessed June 9, 2023) Mill, John Stuart. 1859. On Liberty. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada: Batoche Books Limited, https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liberty.pdf Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/15/ (accessed June 9, 2023) Milton, John. 1644. Areopagitica. Courtesy of the Online Library of Liberty, Liberty Fund, Inc., 2006, http://files.libertyfund.org/files/103/1224_Bk.pdf Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/302/319/ (accessed June 9, 2023) Read, James. 2009. “James Madison.” The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Free Speech Center, Middle Tennessee State University, https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1220/james-madison#:~:text=%22The%20people%20shall%20not%20be,of%20liberty%2C%20shall%20be%20inviolable Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/592/20a87/#:~:text=Justia%20Summary&text=In%20challenges%20under%20the%20Free,requirement%20of%20neutrality%20to%20religion (accessed June 9, 2023) Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/249/47/ (accessed June 9, 2023) Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/374/398/ (accessed June 9, 2023) Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/359/ (accessed June 9, 2023) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, United Nations, https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2021/03/udhr.pdf Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/357/ (accessed June 9, 2023) Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/205/ (accessed June 9, 2023)
Freedom of Religion		When dealing with cases in which freedom or religion seems to conflict with other guaranteed rights, international human rights law has historically precedented certain principles to consider in settling the matter: “These include the principles of: non-discrimination, meaning that there is no ‘right to discriminate;…’ neutrality and impartiality of the state as between religions and as between religious and nonreligious forms of belief; respect for others to believe and the duty of the state to create a level playing field between different groups of different religions or beliefs or no religion or belief, which may be summarized as respecting the believer rather than the belief; pluralism and tolerance, which includes that there is no right not to be offended; institutional and personal autonomy; proportionality in determining whether an interference with the right to manifest one’s religion is justified: the restriction must have a legitimate aim and the means used to achieve that aim must be proportionate and necessary…; no hierarchy of rights, meaning that in each instance, an attempt is made to maximize each of the rights engaged and to ensure that none is inappropriately sacrificed; and, legality, i.e. that restrictions on rights must be clear, publicly accessible, non-retrospective, and that people must be able to understand the circumstances in which restrictions might be imposed and foresee the consequences of their actions with a degree of certainty” (Donald and Howard, 2015) All this is ultimately to outline the considerations necessary to consider when dealing with encroachments upon and/or suppression of the freedom of religion due to society’s necessity of freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience is ultimately necessary and fundamental to the workings of democracy. The right to freedom of religion falls well under the category to the right to freedom of conscience. And within this category, the right against religious discrimination is a distinct and complimentary right to freedom of religion: “Religious freedom is best understood as protecting our interest in religious adherence (and non-adherence), understood from the committed perspective of the (non)adherent. This internal, committed perspective generates a capacious and realistic conception of religious adherence, which reflects the staggering plurality of forms of religiosity (or lack thereof) as extant in contemporary societies” (Norton and Khaitan 1125, 2019). One example regarding the right to non-discrimination and freedom of conscience working in tandem with the freedom of religion is the 2013 case of Eweida and Others v UK. This case saw two of the applicants, a registrar of birth, deaths and marriages (Ladele) and a relationship counsellor (McFarlane), deny their services to same-sex couples due to their company policies regarding their Christian, religious beliefs. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) deemed the court found that the applicants’ actions complied with their company policies and therefore did not constitute discrimination (Donald and Howard 7, 2015). The workings of freedom of religion and the expression of said religion as well as conscientious objection work in tandem to support the right to freedom of religion. REFERENCES: Dr Alice Donald and Dr Erica Howard, “The right to freedom of religion or belief and its intersection with other rights,” ILGA-Europe, 2015 London. Tarunabh Khaitan and Jane Calderwood Norton, “The right to freedom of religion and the right against religious discrimination: Theoretical distinctions,” 1125, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2019 New York.
Freedom of the Press		The first right that is critical to the exercise of freedom of the press is the right to free speech and expression. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “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” (United Nations 1948) . Without the right to free speech and expression, the press would be very limited. This leads to another right which is critical to the exercise of freedom of the press which is the right to criticize the government. Before the American Revolution, the government did not allow freedom of the press because they were fearful of the spread of unfavorable information. The first American newspaper was published in Boston in 1690 called, Publick Occurrences, Both Foreign and Domestick. The British government banned this publication because it was critical (Kahane 1976, 203). Years later in 1773, Hamilton helped to establish the principle that libel could not be punished unless it was false information. This meant that critiques of the government could be published, so long as that information was true (Kahane 1976, 205). Hence, the ability to criticize the government became recognized as necessary for the realization of freedom of the press. A similar principle was later upheld within the case of New York Times Company vs. Sullivan in 1964 (New York Times Company v. Sullivan). In 1960, the New York Times printed a newspaper with a civil-rights fundraising editorial advertisement titled, “Heed Their Rising Voices.” The advertisement was opposed to the way Alabama law enforcement had treated Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.. L.B. Sullivan filed a lawsuit against the New York Times on the basis that there were mistakes in the newspaper that called his reputation into question because he was a supervisor of the Alabama local police. Originally, a jury awarded him $500,000 in damages. However, the Supreme Court later reversed this decision and dismissed the damage award. The Court established the “actual malice” test which made it so public officials could only receive damages against libel in cases where the libel was stated “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (New York Times Company v. Sullivan). In the case of New York Times Company vs. Sullivan, the publication did not meet the standards of the actual malice test. According to Justice William J. Brennan Jr. and the majority, “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open” (New York Times Company v. Sullivan). The majority implied that mistakes within publication would happen within any democratic society, and that debate and criticism of government affairs would be necessary for a truly free press. Another right that is critical to the exercise of freedom of the press is the right of the public to receive information. Between 1964 and 1968, the modern conception of freedom of the press changed. Free press began to not only mean the ability to publish as one pleases, but also that citizens have a right to receive information about the government in order to promote democracy. This would act as a check on the power of officials. With this, the extent to which freedom of the press could be protected expanded (Coyle 2017) . In 1996, the Federal Freedom of Information Act granted citizens the right to access many federal records. There are exceptions and limitations to this access, such as for privacy concerns, but in general, the right to know is upheld (Emerson 1979, 351). References: Thomas I. Emerson, "The Right of Privacy and Freedom of the Press," Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 14, no. 2 (Summer 1979): 329-360 Kahane, Dennis S. “Colonial Origins of Our Free Press.” American Bar Association journal 62, no. 2 (1976): 202–206. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964): https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39
Privacy Rights		“Privacy claims began gradually to be made independently of the trespass rules essential to property rights” (Heffernan, 2016, 102). The connection between these rights was recognized early on by Hixon (“the right to privacy…carried at least an implied right of property”) from Warren & Brandeis’s 1890 writing and by New York Court of Appeals judge John C. Grey (Hixon, 1987, 39). These rights are protected and exercised jointly in many constitutions and states, likely as privacy rights’ origins are rooted in property rights (Heffernan, 2016, 113). For instance, in Grenada Article 1(c) of the 1973 constitution protects both privacy and property (Constitute Project, Grenada 1973, reinst. 1991, rev. 1992) . Without the right to privacy, property rights would be lessened as it would only grant the right to ownership and, barring other protections, leave the property vulnerable to searches that may expose private information. When exercised in conjunction with property rights, privacy protections expand. This is explicit in the constitution of Saint Kitts and Nevis, which, in granting privacy rights, also prevents the deprivation of property without compensation (Constitute Project, Saint Kitts and Nevis 1983) . The right to privacy also convenes with the right to be forgotten in some states. This right is “the right of a past individual to be forgotten by people in the present” (Gadja, 2018, 205). The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in 2014 that the right to privacy granted in Europe extended to past economic troubles and that this lack of privacy that caused the lawsuit was harming his ability to move past these troubles (Gadja, 2018, abstract). This ruling allowed the past troubles to be forgotten. Since this ruling in 2014, the United States courts have also alluded to the right to be forgotten as a sect of privacy rights, despite many believing at the time “this right [would not] cross the Atlantic” because of the First Amendment and others believing this right was present before the conventional right to privacy (Gadja, 2018, 206). While the US Supreme Court has not ruled on this right, lower courts have, as the California Supreme Court did in Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association in 1971. Briscoe opined that while the reports of previous crimes were newsworthy, the “identification of the actor in reports of long past crimes usually serve[d] little independent public purpose” other than curiosity given the rehabilitation that had taken place (Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, 1971) . The plaintiff was allowed to have his past forgotten and the press was not allowed to take this right away, in this instance (Gadja, 2018, 212). However, this right is not internationally recognized, as other states such as Brazil have not supported this right (Library of Congress, 2021) . The right to be forgotten and property combine to create the right to one’s name and likeness which is especially important for those in the public eye (Mills, 2008, 220). It is accepted that people have a right to profit off of their own image, much like they have the right to profit off of their inventions or intellectual property (Mills, 2-008, 217-218). This right became clear in court cases soon after the 1890 publication of the Warren & Brandeis article, beginning with Robertson v. Rochester Folding Box Co. in 1902 (Hixon, 1987, 39). Beyond this, of course, are other sects of privacy law that remain pivotal in the protection of privacy rights as it is known today. References Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc, 4 Cal. 3d 529 (CA Sup. Ct. 1971). https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/4/529.html Constitute Project. (2021). Grenada 1973, reinstated 1991, revised 1992. https://constituteproject.org/constitution/Grenada_1992?lang=en Constitute Project. (2021). Saint Kitts and Nevis 1983. https://constituteproject.org/constitution/St_Kitts_and_Nevis_1983?lang=en Gadja, A. (2018). Privacy, press, and the right to be forgotten in the United States. Washington Law Review 93(1), 201-264. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3144077 Heffernan, W.C. (2016). Privacy and the American Constitution: New rights through interpretation of an old text. Palgrave Macmillan. Hixon, R.F. (1987). Privacy in a public society: Human rights in conflict. Oxford University Press. Library of Congress. (2021, Mar. 15). Brazil: Federal supreme court decides right to be forgotten is not supported by constitution. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-03-15/brazil-federal-supreme-court-decides-right-to-be-forgotten-is-not-supported-by-constitution/ U.S. Constitution. (1787). https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript