Critically, the ability to express oneself unhindered by legal penalties, censorships or any other form of restraint is fundamental not only to the circulation of information and ideas but also to independent and critical thought. Arguably, it is in appreciation of the same that in 1948, states adopted article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Similarly, the American Constitution also provides safeguards of the same rights out of an understanding of its contribution to democratic societies and processes. Given its significance, it is vital to interrogate the guarantees of this freedom. The object is to analyze the stated guarantees along with the reality of such assurances in the context of support for and the efficacy of their execution. Along with the United States’, Hungary’s and Saudi Arabian freedom of expression guarantees shall be examined.
United States
It is the 1st Amendment that protects the right to freedom of religion and expression from government interference by ruling out any laws that, among other things, abridge the freedom of expression and speech, impede freedom of the press, erode the rights of citizens to assemble peacefully, and dissuade citizens from petitioning their governments for redress of grievances (Legal Information Institute, n.d). According to the Supreme Court, this amendment applies to the entire federal government but it specifically applies to Congress. Similarly, the due process clause of the 14th amendment also protects these rights from state interference. Furthermore, any government attempt to regulate the content of free speech requires stringent justification to the Court (Legal Information Institute, n.d). Essentially, it is not likely that persons can be held either criminally or civilly liable for written or spoken content relating to other persons or topics provided that it is based on either truth or an honest opinion. Significantly, such freedoms are not absolute as the Court does recognize that there are instances where the government prohibits speech that is likely to cause violence or a breach of peace. For the right to free speech also includes the medium used in communicating the message, speech receives varying levels of protection based on the fora in which it happens (Legal Information Institute, n.d). Therefore, it is the 1st amendment that safeguards both individual freedoms of speech and press freedom.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The right to assemble helps people gather for purposes that are both peaceful and lawful, this implies the right to association and belief. Even though this right is implicit in the 1st, 5th, and 14th amendments, the Court has also expressly recognized it (Legal Information Institute, n.d). However, for purposes of the 1st amendment, this implicit right excludes the right of social association. Also, the right to associate limits the government from requiring groups to register or reveal its members. It is because of this that the government cannot deny such members government benefits based on either current or prior association with any group. What’s more, the government cannot compel people to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to any group (Legal Information Institute, n.d). Nonetheless, in the event that the Court determines government interests in either disclosure or registration outweigh interference based on 1st amendment rights, exceptions apply. Furthermore, because the right to assemble allows people to gather peacefully towards a lawful objective, it forms the basis for the right to petition the government. This right guarantees that people can seek redress from the government either through litigation or government action (Legal Information Institute, n.d). Therefore, the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments also provide guarantees for the right to assemble and lobby the government for compensation of grievances. Significantly, in both instances, government interests in security and legal actions provide the basis for the exceptions.
Howie (2017) notes that as a response to the large-scale protests associated with either environmental or civil rights groups, at least 19 states have proposed bills that effectively curtail rights to protest. In one instance, the laws prohibit the wearing of masks and hoods publicly. In another instance, the laws provide immunity to drivers who accidentally run over highway blocking protestors (Howie, 2017). Fundamentally, the proposed laws are in direct contravention of the Supreme Court posture that both the rights to freedom and assembly embrace the right to peaceful social protest which is fundamental to the preservation of democratic values (Howie, 2017). These laws eroding the rights to expression and protest signify a growing among governments to limit the participation of the civil society in public discussions and debates.
Similarly, because of the American government’s metadata retention laws, it is less likely that people will share information on matters of public interest due to the erosion of both the freedom of expression and press freedom. Howie (2017) asserts while metadata parameters exclude the contents of a communication, it provides details that are pertinent to the exchange like the time, place, duration, and recipient in the case of a telephone call. The nature of the freedom of expression is such that it depends on the existence of press that is both free and uncensored in its work of informing public opinion. Fundamentally, not only do journalists need to access information in the course of their work, but they also need to provide confidentiality and safety to their sources. The increased surveillance of telephone threatens the ability of journalists to provide confidentiality to their sources because metadata provides revealing insights about the habits, social and private lives of those under surveillance (Howie, 2017). Primarily, the use of metadata retention poses a threat to both the rights to privacy and freedom of expression when these laws become tools for uncovering journalistic sources and whistleblowers. Hence, the use of metadata retention laws is eroding the freedoms of expression and press freedom.
Hungary
The Hungarian constitution also guarantees freedom of expression and press freedom. However, since 2010, such guarantees have been undermined by media legislation and subsequent amendments. For instance, penal code provisions against incitement to hatred, violence, and incitement against a community (Freedom House, 2018a). Not only is defamation a criminal offence, but a 2013 amendment of the penal code provides an imprisonment term of not more than 3 years against anyone who intentionally creates or distributes false or defamatory audio or video recordings. Still, a civil provision penalizes those who take photographs without the permission of everyone whose images have been captured (Freedom House, 2018a). Previously, such permission was necessary only for publication. However, in 2016, the Constitutional Court found that photographs of police officers could be exempted from this provision for purposes of public interest (Freedom House, 2018a). These instances provide examples of how the government is undermining both press freedom and the freedom of expression.
Similarly, 2015 amendments to the Freedom of Information Act enable public entities to attach opaque labor costs, this makes fulfilling an information request quite costly (Freedom House, 2018a). Further, these provisions allow government bodies to reject requests made for information for which the government might have future use in decision-making, copy written by a 3rd party, or in the instance of a repeat petition, regardless of whether the initial request was unanswered. There is a law that exempts the Hungarian Postal Service from public scrutiny along with another that limits public interest in companies and foundations funded by the nation’s central bank (Freedom House, 2018a). However, the Constitutional Court determined the latter unconstitutional and publication of foundation transactions exposed several irregular activities. Subsequently, a new law was passed that created new exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act requests to the Central Bank. Toward the end of 2016, the country withdrew from the Open Government Partnership, an intergovernmental transparency initiative (Freedom House, 2018a). Evidently, the government is using legal means to restrict the right to impart information and ideas.
Politically, editorial bias and partisan pressure feature in both public and private media entities while the landscape is polarized with the public broadcaster openly favoring the government. Furthermore, pro-government outlets have intensified their domination of the market leading to the exit of several independent players (Unesco, 2018). Entities and personalities allied to the current administration have been consolidating ownership of formerly independent media outlets by taking advantage of the increased government influence of the regulatory framework (Unesco, 2018). Economically, because public media is controlled by the state it is the only media sector that has witnessed growth in funding since 2010. Conversely, there has been a reduction of foreign investment in a landscape dominated by private ownership. For the 2010 media laws requires broadcasters to carry news without exempt of advertisements during their broadcasts, local and regional outlets are forced to adopt news from the state-funded news agency (Freedom House, 2018a). Still, the government uses its political influence to control the entire media value chain and introduced a tax regime that unfairly burdens middle-sized and domestically-owned outlets. Because state and state-dependent buy advertisement space from pro-government outlets, private businesses have also joined in this practice. The outcome has been an expansion of pro-government media outlets (Freedom House, 2018a). In this instance, the government is using economic forces, political pressure, and government friendly regulations to erode guarantees on the freedom of expression and press freedom.
Saudi Arabia
According to the basic law of 1992, both the Koran and the Sunna are the country’s constitution. Not only is Islam its official religion, but all Saudis are legally required to be Muslims and atheism is punishable by a prison term up to 20 years as of 2014 (Freedom House, 2018b). Equally, the government restricts the religious rights of religious minorities like the Shiite and Sufi Muslim sects and the construction of Shiite mosques is limited through the use of construction licenses. These limit such constructions to the Eastern province, where the Shiite are the majority. Even though the government recognizes the rights of non-Muslims to worship in private, this right is not always observed (Freedom House, 2018b). To some degree, Saudi’s can participate in private political criticism of government performance, however, severe criminal penalties prevent direct criticism of both the regime and the royal family. Because the government has imposed harsh punishments on those who organize public protests, it is doubtless that the government does not respect its citizens’ freedom to assemble. In one instance, a Shiite cleric and political dissident was arrested and executed for organizing anti-government demonstrations (Freedom House, 2018b). Therefore, the kingdom does not have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and association.
According to Freedom House (2018b), the absolute monarchy prohibits all political and civil rights and freedoms while elections are only at the municipal level. Extensive surveillance, the criminalization of dissent, public spending based on oil revenues, and appeals to sectarianism are among the strategies that the regime uses to secure its power. Along with religious minorities, women also face extensive legal and practical discrimination (Unesco, 2018). Politically, the king is selected by members of the ruling al-Saud family and rules for life. The king appoints an advisory body on four-year terms, the Consultative Council, which lacks legislative authority (Freedom House, 2018b). Even though the 2015 elections allowed for women participation, the electoral framework lacks constitutional protections. Consequently, and based on gender segregation rules, candidates were unable to produce posters displaying their faces or hold in-person meetings with voters of the opposite sex (Freedom House, 2018b). Furthermore, the candidates were prohibited from traditional media interviews and campaigned mostly through social media. Therefore, the monarchy adopts several regulation-based strategies to exert greater influence and control of its citizens and inhabitants of Saudi Arabia.
Not only does the government regulate domestic media content, but it also dominates regional print and satellite-television broadcasting. According to a royal decree, it is a criminal offence to criticize the Council of Religious Scholars and government officials under the current press laws with penalties and forced closures of media outlets attached to violations (Freedom House, 2018b). Furthermore, the law requires anyone posting news or commentary online to have a license from the Ministry of Information or similarly risk fines and forced closure of their websites (Freedom House, 2018b). Because judges are appointed by the king and supervised by members of the Supreme Council of Justice, which is chaired by the justice minister, there is no judicial independence. Moreover, these judges are then provided with guidelines on how to interpret the basis of Saudi legislation: Islamic law (Freedom House, 2018b). Based on an anti-terror law passed in 2014, not only are defendant’s rights poorly defended, but the police can conduct targeted raids on suspicion of anti-government activity without judicial approval (Freedom House, 2018b). Evidently, the pattern is to use political influence and government security interests to suppress citizens’ rights.
Conclusion
The significance of the freedom of expression is that it is the basis for the practice of the other fundamental human rights. While historical evidence suggests that most states acknowledge this significance, recent developments highlight a trend of the erosion of this right among states, democratic and otherwise. In America, the right to protest as well as media freedoms are being eroded through legal means. In Hungary, the government exerts regulatory, political and economic influence to bring the media under its control while in Saudi Arabia, religious and security concerns are advanced at the expense of already curtailed political and civil liberties.
References
Freedom House. (2018a). Freedom of the Press 2017: Hungary profile . Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2017/hungary .
Freedom House. (2018b). Freedom of the Press 2017: Saudi Arabia profile . Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/saudi-arabia .
Howie, E. (2017). Protecting the human right to freedom of expression in international law. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20 (1), 12-15 . Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17549507.2018.1392612 .
Legal Information Institute. (n.d). First Amendment . Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment .
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2018). World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development: Global report 2017/2018 . Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002610/261065e.pdf/
