Government curtailment

Is this right often curtailed by government authorities for reasons other than those which are generally viewed as permissible?

Right	Breakout	Contents
Freedom of Expression		In some cases, governments have curtailed freedom of expression for reasons that are not generally seen as permissible by the standards of the United States. As noted by Professor Jérôme Viala-Gaudefroy, not all types of expression are protected under US law. Those involving “obscenity, fraud, child pornography, harassment, incitement of illegal conduct and imminent lawless action, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising, copyright or patent rights” (Viala-Gaudefroy 2021) can be restricted, among others. That said, there have been instances within the US where the right was curtailed for a reason not listed above. These justifications, therefore, would be viewed as non-permissible restrictions on freedom of expression. The Minnesota state legislature passed a statute that barred voters and other individuals from wearing political apparel and accessories inside a polling place on election day, which included a “political badge, political button, or other political insignia” (Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky 2018, 1). The legislation was meant to create “an island of calm in which voters [could] peacefully contemplate their choices” (Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky 2018, 11), essentially eliminating disruptions at the polling place. However, the ban was challenged by the Minnesota Voters Alliance (MVA) and other individual plaintiffs, who argued that it violated their first amendment rights “both on its face and as applied to their particular items of apparel” (Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky 2018, 1). The Supreme Court agreed with the general sentiments of the Minnesota law, stating that “casting a vote is a weighty civic act, akin to a jury’s return of a verdict, or a representative’s vote on a piece of legislation. It is a time for choosing, not campaigning. The State may reasonably decide that the interior of the polling place should reflect that distinction (Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky 2018, 11). However, the body ruled in favor of the MVA, explaining that the legislation was too broad and muddled - “the State must be able to articulate some sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out… the unmoored use of the term ‘political’ in the Minnesota law, combined with haphazard interpretations the State has provided in official guidance and representations to this Court, cause Minnesota’s restriction to fail even this forgiving test” (Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky 2018, 12-13). The state’s ban on expression within polling places was thus not deemed permissible. Similar to US law, the European Convention on Human Rights does not protect all types of expression. Article 10 of the document clearly states that the right can be restricted when “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 reputation or rights of others, for preventing disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary” (Council of Europe 1950, 12). However, what a country believes is a necessary restriction on one of these grounds does not necessarily match up with the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, which has the final say on what types of expression are permissible. In 2005, journalist Eynulla Fatullayev, an Azerbaijani national, visited Nagorno-Karabakh, a region that has been the subject of a territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan and at the time was controlled by Armenian military forces. Fatullayev interviewed both locals and officials during his visit, as well as some Azerbaijani refugees who had fled the region, which he then published the following year. In his piece, Fatullayev claimed that during the Nagorno-Karabakh war in 1992, civilians “had been mutilated by [their] own” (Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan 2010, 4) Azerbaijani forces as they attempted to flee the region, among other statements. Upon reading the article, a group filed a criminal complaint against Fatullayev, asking that he “be convicted of defamation and of falsely accusing Azerbaijani soldiers of having committed an especially grave crime” (Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan 2010, 5). Fatullayev was later convicted of these crimes, as well as of terrorism or the threat of terrorism for another article he had published which appeared to address Iranian-Azerbaijani relations and threaten ethnic conflict. As a citizen of a country that signed the European Convention on Human Rights (hereby known as“the Convention”), Fatullayev was able to appeal his convictions to the European Court on Human Rights (“the Court”) on the grounds that his right to freedom of expression as defined by Article 10 of the Convention had been violated. The Court sided with the applicant, saying that he was presenting a set of opinions in a debate and did not seek to defame or act maliciously towards the victims and actors involved in the war, and thus was not abusing their rights. Additionally, the Azerbaijani government’s interference was not “necessary in a democratic society” or “a pressing social need” (Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan 2010, 22). Therefore, the body concluded “that the statements that gave rise to the applicant's conviction did not amount to any activity infringing the essence of the values underlying the Convention or calculated to destroy or restrict the rights and freedoms guaranteed by it…the applicant's freedom of expression cannot be removed from the protection of Article 10” (Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan 2010, 22). By the Court’s standards, then, Azerbaijan’s attempt to inhibit the applicant’s freedom of expression was unacceptable. References: Council of Europe. 1950. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, Application no. 40984/07, ECtHR judgment of 4 October 2010. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-216685 Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 849 F. 3d 749 (2018). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1435_2co3.pdf Viala-Gaudefroy, Jérôme. 2021. “The Idolization of Free Speech in the United States.” The Conversation, February 22, 2021. https://theconversation.com/the-idolization-of-free-speech-in-the-united-states-155778#:~:text=Free%20speech%20is%20not%20absolute,advertising%2C%20copyright%20or%20patent%20rights
Freedom of Religion		Under international human rights law, freedom of religion is a fundamental and generally protected right, with exceptions. Though states have their own rules and regulations curtailing the right to freedom of religion, they often fall under reasons that are generally viewed as legitimate by the international community, with those that do not being subject to scrutiny. There are a small, but prominent number of states that, despite this international pressure from intergovernmental organizations and other nations, restrict freedom of religion for reasons that do not fall under that category, most notably those with an authoritarian style of government (Majumdar and Villa 2020) . The UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief has also noted that there are governmental authorities that obstruct freedom of religion under the pretense of using generally accepted limitations, such as public safety, without clear evidence, using the “excuse to limit the rights of persons belonging to a religion or belief community that it finds inconvenient” (United Nations Human rights Council 2023, 27). While the majority of nations curtail freedom of religion for reasons that are widely viewed as permissible, there are various instances where these reasons are abused and the actions taken exceed international norms, with a small number of states consistently restricting the right for reasons regarded as unjustified. Article 1 of the United Nation’s Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance sets the international standard for permissible limitations to the right to freedom of religion as those that “are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” (UN General Assembly 1981, 3). The United Nations further clarified these restrictions in paragraph 12 of the Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/40 and paragraph 14 of the Human Rights Council resolution 6/37, stating that these limitations must be “applied in a manner that does not vitiate the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” only being applied for its intended purpose, in a proportionate manner. The Pew Research Center (PRC), a nonpartisan American think tank, produces annual reports analyzing the extent to which governments and societies around the world impinge on religious beliefs and practices, including countries that curtail the right for reasons not justified under international human rights law. It noted that “the global median level of government restrictions on religion – that is, laws, policies and actions by officials that impinge on religious beliefs and practices – [has] continued to climb” since PRC began tracking the data in 2007. It labeled 56 countries as having “high” or “very high” levels of government restrictions, or “28% of the 198 countries and territories included in the study” (Majumdar and Villa 2020, 5). The report looked at government laws, policies, and actions, as well as acts of religious hostilities by private individuals, organizations, or group societies, finding that “most of the 56 countries with high or very high levels of government restrictions on religion are in the Asia-Pacific region (25 countries, or half of all countries in that region) or the Middle East-North Africa region (18 countries, or 90% of all countries in the region)” (Majumdar and Villa 2020, 3-6). The scores states received depended in part on a series of questions that determined how governmental authorities handled religious freedom, including whether they were discriminatory towards certain religions in law and/or practice, used physical force, or passed laws that impeded the right. The 56 countries designated as having high or very high levels of governmental restrictions were found to curtail freedom of religion excessively, often for reasons that are not viewed as permissible under international human rights law, such as accusing religious practitioners of inciting dissent, engaging in blasphemy, or practicing an unpopular religion in the state, among others (Majumdar and Villa 2020, 10-11). The Pew Research Center’s report, titled "In 2018, Government Restrictions on Religion Reach Highest Level Globally in More Than a Decade, named China and Iran as having the highest level of government restriction on religion. In China’s case, the report cited the government’s continued “detention campaign against Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs and other Muslims in Xinjiang province, holding at least 800,000 (and possibly up to 2 million) in detention facilities ‘designed to erase religious and ethnic identities,’ according to the U.S. State Department,” as well as its prohibition of certain religious practices (Majumdar and Villa 2020, 8). The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom further denounced the Chinese government’s implementation of its “sinicization of religion” policy which demands that “religious groups support the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) rule and ideology,” punishing those that did not (United States Commision on International Religious Freedom 2022, 1). Iran was similarly criticized for its persecution of religious minorities, including the Iranian government’s continued usage of “antisemitic rhetoric to incite intolerance against Jews”, the sentencing of Christian “on national security grounds”, and repression of Sunni Muslims for arbitrary reasons (United States Commision on International Religious Freedom 2022, 27). These acts have received international backlash, drawing the concern from intergovernmental agencies like the UN, as well as other nations. The other 54 states listed as having high or very high governmental restrictions followed similar trends, making up 28% of the states and territories that were included in the study. While a minority of governmental authorities actively curtail the right to freedom of religion for reasons that are not viewed as permissible by the international community, there is a larger number of states that do so for generally acceptable reasons but apply it in a manner inconsistent with international human rights law. The UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief delivered a report to the UN General assembly raising the concern that “the precise extent of such limitations in specific circumstances has become a salient topic in many countries,” with many governmental authorities obstructing freedom of religion under the pretense of using generally accepted limitations (United Nations Human rights Council 2023, 27). The Special Rapporteur recognized the “need to protect public safety and public order” but warns “there is a risk that States will cite them to justify restrictions on [freedom of religion or belief] imposed for reasons tantamount to national security interests, by arguing that a [religious or belief] group is engaged in political activities that endanger public safety and order” (Special Rapporteur 2018, 8). The report asserts that “laws on apostasy or blasphemy, which are often framed as ‘anti-incitement legislation’, [and] exist in at least 69 States, reflect the idea that the expression of certain views within a society may create ‘discontent’, subvert ‘national unity’ or undermine public order and public safety” (Special Rapporteur 2018, 9). They further mention that some “states have also adopted measures to address concerns that some religious publications (both online and off), including sacred texts, may constitute a threat to peace and security”, which can lead government authorities to ban or censor certain religious materials (Special Rapporteur 2018, 9). Critics have recently accused France of engaging in such activity, citing the “controversial Reinforcing Republican Principles Bill, also known as the Anti-Separatism Law,” passed by the National Assembly in 2021 (Freedom House 2022). Freedom House, a nonprofit organization that conducts research, reported that “claiming to combat ‘religious separatism,’ the law allows the government to dissolve religious organizations, increases the surveillance of mosques and Muslim associations, and requires the latter to sign a contract of ‘respect for Republican values’ when applying for state subsidies. Critics have warned that it particularly stigmatizes Muslims and could increase Islamophobic sentiment” (Freedom House 2022). Though the state’s reasoning for limiting religious freedom may be viewed as permissible (national security concerns, public safety, etc.), these same limitations may become overextended and used in an oppressive manner. Freedom of religion is protected under international human rights law, which allows for exceptions when limitations are needed to “protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” (UN General Assembly 1981, 3) . Most states curtail the right for these reasons, however, there is a smaller percentage of countries that do not do so, acting in a more restrictive manner. Additionally, there are states that use the reasons that are generally viewed as permissive but apply it in a manner inconsistent with international human rights law. References: Freedom House."France: Freedom in the World 2022 Country Report." 2022. Majumdar, Samirah, and Virginia Villa. "In 2018, Government Restrictions on Religion Reach Highest Level Globally in More Than a Decade." Pew Research Center, 2020. Special Rapporteur. "Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief." United Nations General Assembly, 2018. UN General Assembly. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. OHCHR, 1981. United Nations Human rights Council. "Rapporteur"s Digest on Freedom of Religion or Belief" United Nations. 2023. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Religion/RapporteursDige stFreedomReligionBelief.pdf. United States Commision on International Religious Freedom. "2022 Annual Report." 2022.
Freedom of the Press		Early American history was characterized by hostility to the common law of seditious libel, which restricted political speech. Legal objections sought to restrict the law's oppressive implementation, as in the Zenger case in 1735 (Rabban 1985, 799). English authors like Trenchard and Gordon (under the alias Cato) defended the truth and disregarded the notion that language's "bad tendency" might be used as a form of seditious libel (Rabban 1985, 799). Theoretical defenses of free speech highlighted its importance in limiting governmental authority and fostering good governance. The notion that free speech and the press were necessary for a free society and individual liberty was well-known in both America and England (Rabban 1985, 802). These ideas about the right to free speech were prevalent even before the Sedition Act of 1798 and had a significant impact on how the First Amendment was interpreted (Rabban 1985, 802). Early cases like the Bradford case (1694) added to the Zenger case’s questioning of the common law's long-standing definition of seditious libel. They brought up arguments that the jury should decide whether a publication was seditious and challenged the notion that true remarks might constitute libel (Rabban and Levy 1985). This demonstrated the widespread resistance to the idea of seditious libel in eighteenth-century England and colonial America. Levy however find that these early cases and thinkers such as Cato did not go far enough in their libertarianism regarding Freedom of the Press (Rabban 1985, 802). These arguments were accompanied by theoretical defenses of political expression rights. Different individuals asserted that freedom of speech and the press were crucial for limiting governmental power and upholding a free society, both in England and the American colonies. There is a grand shift between freedom of expression, seditious libel, and freedom of the press before and after the American Revolution (Rabban 1985, 804). The press enjoyed less actual freedom in the years leading up to the American Revolution than it did during the majority of the colonial period. Speaking out against the cause of the Revolution was silenced by those in favor of independence, which curbed freedom of expression (Rabban 1985, 805). Following the Revolution, many states continued to pursue seditious libel cases, and grand juries were more inclined to recommend indictments—especially in light of the Sedition Act of 1798. Seditious libel was not often challenged by libel victims in this era (Rabban 1985, 805). However, in modern-day America, most restrictions of freedom of expression, including that of the press, are limited. Slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, violation of copyright, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, public safety, and perjury are examples of common restrictions on the press. Outside of that, there are no other limits on the Press (Cornell Legal Information Institute). However, 57% of U.S. journalists are either extremely or very concerned about the freedom of the press as of 2023 (Pew Research 2023). More than 50 journalists were arrested or jailed in the US in 2021 while performing their jobs (Freedom Tracker). In 2022, reporters covering the school shooting in Uvalde were threatened with arrest, as well as prevented access from reporting in certain areas (Hernández and Farhi 2022). Journalists have been on high alert regarding potential future suppression of media in the U.S. Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the print media tends to act mostly self-regulatory and functions without many statutory restrictions. Everyone including the media has the right to freedom of expression in the UK, according to the Human Rights Act (HRA). However, this right "may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions, or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society." (Murray et al. 2022). However, libel in the UK functions differently in the US for the press. Britain actually has stricter regulations on freedom of the press. Since the country's libel rules have historically made suing for libel an easy pursuit, oligarchs and other wealthy foreigners and businesses have utilized British courts to sue journalists for news they don't like (Global Campaign for Free Expression 2023). It is far easier to sue these journalists in the UK. In contrast to the US' constitutional tradition, laws in the UK penalizes speech critical of public officials. The UK allows for greater ability to protect one’s public image and reputation (Global Campaign for Free Expression 2023). In comparison to the aforementioned libel cases in the US, the limits of the media are far stricter. In conclusion, there is a complicated and developing narrative to be found in the history of press freedom and early American democracy. The harsh use of seditious libel laws was vigorously resisted in early American history, with examples like the Zenger trial questioning accepted notions of libel. The theoretical foundations of free speech as a defense against excessive political power were well-established, laying the groundwork for the First Amendment's interpretation. While there are certain limitations on the freedom of speech and the press in modern America, they are often only applicable to situations involving slander, obscenity, provocation, and issues related to public safety. However, recent instances of journalists receiving threats, being detained, and having their access restricted underscore growing worries about press freedom in the United States. The UK's libel rules albeit more relaxed have had a history of being exploited by companies upset by the media. The appropriate balance to strike in this dynamic environment between defending free speech and attending to valid concerns is still up for discussion. It is clear that while the concepts of free speech are fundamental to democratic societies, how these concepts are actually put into practice can differ greatly, with repercussions for the media, public discourse, and individual liberty. In the ever-changing world, it is crucial to be attentive to defending and upholding the core ideals of freedom of expression and the press as these difficulties are negotiated (Global Campaign for Free Expression 2023). Bibliography Cornell Legal Information Institute. “First Amendment.” LII / Legal Information Institute. Accessed September 22, 2023. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment. Freedom Tracker. “More than 50 Journalists Arrested or Detained While on the Job in the US in 2021.” U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. Accessed September 22, 2023. https://pressfreedomtracker.us/blog/arrests-of-journalists-remain-a-threat-to-a-free-press/. Global Campaign for Free Expression. 2023. “Media Regulation in the United Kingdom.” September 2023. https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/publications/uk-media-regulation.pdf. Hernández, Arelis R., and Paul Farhi. 2022. “Journalists in Uvalde Are Stonewalled, Hassled, Threatened with Arrest.” The Washington Post, June 28, 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/28/we-were-seen-enemies-journalists-uvalde-threatened-by-police/. Murray, Calum, Fergus Nolan, Jessica Withey, Joanna Conway, and Katie Major. 2022. “Spotlight: Free Speech and Media Freedom in United Kingdom.” Deloitte Legal, November 21, 2022. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=91802897-644e-4932-b0fc-eea0e84ed037. Pew Research. 2023. “Most U.S. Journalists Are Concerned about Future Press Freedoms.” Pew Research Center. May 2, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/02/most-u-s-journalists-are-concerned-about-press-freedoms/. Rabban, David M. 1985. “The Ahistorical Historian: Leonard Levy on Freedom of Expression in Early American History.” Stanford Law Review 37, no. 3 (February): 795-805. https://doi.org/10.2307/1228715.
Privacy Rights		While the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution is in place to protect people’s privacy, a fact continuously recognized by the Supreme Court, it continues to leave people vulnerable to the decisions of authorities due to a lack of clarity and accountability provided by the courts (Enforcing the Fourth Amendment, n.d.). The Fourth Amendment is explicit in that it prevents unreasonable search and seizure (Enforcing the Fourth Amendment, n.d.). However, it is hard to determine what is reasonable and the Supreme Court has claimed that the reasonableness of a search is situationally dependent (Enforcing the Fourth Amendment, n.d.; US GPO, 1992, 1202) . Various rules and exceptions to the right to privacy have been established. Under the Exclusionary Rule, lots of searches are carried out which are later found to be unconstitutional by a court, at which point there is little that can be done to rectify the violation of privacy rights (Enforcing the Fourth Amendment, n.d.). These instances are not permissible exceptions, but rather instances in which it becomes clear after the fact that privacy was violated (Enforcing the Fourth Amendment, n.d.). Beyond the Exclusionary Rule, the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted in ways that cause the government’s regulatory interests to be placed over an individual’s interests (US GPO, 1992, 1204) . These interpretations have created exceptions, creating situationally specific instances in which privacy is not necessarily protected. For instance, during the execution of a search warrant, if it does not include a search clause for those occupying the location, they may not be searched, but they can be detained (US GPO, 1992, 1227) . For whatever reason, the courts have viewed detainment as less intrusive than a search, so it has become allowed, though it has been debated if it is a reasonable and permissible exception without a warrant (US GPO, 1992, 1227) . This debate starts with the Court’s opinions in Terry v. Ohio ( 1968) and United States v. Mendenhall( 1980) that state seizure is either restraining liberty or the belief that one is not at liberty to leave (US GPO, 1992, 1231) . The Terry decision was important in other ways as well, creating another standard for search and seizure without a warrant and probable cause - authorities may stop and frisk individuals if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (US GPO, 1992, 1230) . Recently, this standard has been applied less restrictively and more often, creating some tension between the right to privacy and public safety (GPO, 1992, 1231) . Exceptions don’t just result from court rulings. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 permitted information sharing between law enforcement agencies without notice, leading many to believe more privacy violations were occurring (Highlights of the USA PATRIOT Act, n.d.). However, some scholars argue while privacy is more elusive under the presence of this law, privacy is not hindered as most of us remain unconcerned about the information that may or may not be collected about us resulting in little or no behavioral change (Rubel, 2007, 148-149). At the same time, however, “lack of privacy bears upon how we act,” as does the knowledge that others may have access to our information, so the right becomes less protected under the PATRIOT Act (Rubel, 2007, 142, 153). References: Enforcing the Fourth Amendment: Exclusionary Rule. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/enforcing-the-fourth-amendment-the-exclusionary-rule Highlights of the USA PATRIOT Act. (n.d.) Department of Justice. Retrieved Sept. 14, 2021, from https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm Rubel, A. ( 2007, Mar.). Privacy and the USA Patriot Act: Rights, the value of rights, and autonomy. Law and Philosophy 26(2), 119-159. https://doi.org/10. 1007/ s10982-005-5970-x US Government Publishing Office (US GPO). ( 1992, June 29). Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure (S. Doc. 103-6). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-CONAN- 1992/ GPO-CONAN- 1992- 10-5/summary Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001, H.R. 3162, 107th Cong. ( 2001) . https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3162