In carrying out its mission, the Clearinghouse attempts to remain eclectic, and thus presents information from various schools of philosophy in order to inform its audience of the diversity of thought in the mental health field. The Abstracts of the Collected Works of C.
It discusses the meaning of the right to free expression and the intersection between freedom of expression and other fundamental rights. It also explores the possibility to limit the parameters of freedom of expression and argues that such possibility is already foregrounded in the constitution.
The emerging jurisprudence on freedom of expression in South Africa does not support the thesis that there is a need for a South African approach to freedom of expression.
Die betekenis van vryheid van spraak en die interaksie tussen vryheid van spraak en ander fundamentele regte kom aan die orde. Dit ondersoek ook die moontlikheid om vryheid van spraak in te perk, en gaan van die standpunt uit dat hierdie moontlikheid reeds in die Grondwet gestel word.
Freedom of expression Defining freedom of expression The nature of the problem Freedom of expression is to a large extent a politico-legal construct. A cursory glance at constitutional texts would reveal, however, that we could not draw much assistance from them by way of defining freedom of expression.
What constitutions tend to do is merely to proclaim the right to freedom of expression and then, if we are lucky, indicate what it includes. To proclaim a right is not the same thing as defining it. Nor is an indication of what the right includes or excludes useful if what we want to know is what the right is.
What is included and excluded from a right must be distinguished from what the right is. It may be argued plausibly that, in order to arrive at what is included or excluded, one has to have a definition of the right as a precondition.
Otherwise the correctness in including certain things and excluding others is open to challenge. But even if it turns out to be correct, the correctness might well be fortuitous. I suggest that in the absence of a definition of freedom of expression in the constitution, it remains now to approach such definition by way of inference.
An attempt to define freedom of expression Section 16 1 of the South African constitution provides that everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
And then it indicates that included in that right is freedom of the press and other media; freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
What I suggest, now, is that one must infer a definition of freedom of expression from this provision. The definition must necessarily be influenced by the social condition antecedent to the proclamation of the right.
Hegel insisted that the origins of something must be distinguished from what that thing is Cobbah, What section 16 1 of the constitution says, then, is that we are free to express our views on any matter whatsoever, irrespective of the fact that some people might not like them.
It guarantees that we shall not be punished for giving expression to our views, even if others do not like them. It conveys that we can expect the state to come to our aid if anyone at all should try unconstitutionally to deny us the space to express our views freely on any subject.
It seems to follow, then, that we could define freedom of expression as the constitutional promise that we shall not be punished or any wise than in the ways set out in the constitution, be impaired in our right to make our views known.
Reading the right as it is formulated in the constitution As indicated above, section 16 1 of the constitution proclaims the right and then indicates what is included in it, namely freedom of the press and other media; freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
How must one read this? In an undated paper, Linnington reiterates the constitutional provisions on freedom of expression and then states: Therefore the press have the right to receive or impart information or ideas in addition to being free in other undefined aspects or areas, aspect or areas which may become obvious when circumstances arise where freedom would be appropriate but which could not be defined in advance.
I take the view that, in formulating the right in the constitutional words used, the intention was not to confer on the media additional unspecified rights. The constitution seems to me rather clear — it says the right to freedom of expression includes freedom of the press and other media; freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
Freedom of the media, therefore, is part of the definition of freedom of expression. Outside of freedom of expression as it is contained in section 16 of our constitution, it is hard to see what other freedom our media might claim.
Freedom of expression Had our constitution intended to communicate a different and separate right by freedom of expression from the rights it lists as being included in it, it was possible to articulate those rights separately.
The constitution of the Republic of Malawi, for instance, does just that. It provides in section And then in section 36 it provides: Allowing for the fact that there can be no airtight boundary between the right protected in section 35 and the one protected in section 36, it seems nevertheless clear that Malawi sees the two sets of rights as different and separate.
In the first right, everyone is covered, including the press, and presumably it does not matter what the medium is in which you express yourself.
The second right covers only the press — and one must hope electronic media as well. On the face of the constitution, therefore, the press is protected in what it publishes — at home or abroad — but not necessarily every person. On the face of the constitution, the press is entitled as fully as possible to access public information, but not necessarily every person.
The reach of freedom of expression I would like, under this subheading, to discuss two considerations, namely, the distinction between freedom of expression and freedom of speech, and the permeation of other rights by freedom of expression. The debate about whether we should have freedom of expression or of speech has not really captured the imagination of South Africans.UNESCO Series on Internet Freedom recommendations aiming to foster a conducive environment to freedom of expression on the Net.
This is the 11th edition of the series, with previous editions presented as below: e analysi s Principles for governing the Internet. Hoek,Brown Underground Excavation in Rock - Ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read book online.
The right to freedom of opinion and expression is a complex right that includes the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds and through whatever medium. Freedom versus Predestination: A Comparative Analysis Shane Furlong Humanities April 14, (Week 5) Freedom versus Predestination: A Comparative Analysis This week’s essay is a comparative analysis of the theories of freedom (indeterminism) and predestination (religious determinism).
The Sri Lankan courts have managed to strike a fine balance between the freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 14(1)(a) of the Sri Lankan Constitution and the right to privacy.
In fact, on numerous occasions, our courts have extended the right of publication and expression to engulf the right to information and the right to know. Freedom of expression: a comparative analysis Abstract This article focuses on a comparative analysis on freedom of expression between South Africa, Malawi, Zambia, Algeria, China, Japan, Switzerland, Germany, Russia, Canada and the USA.