Free Speech 6- Different Types of Speech Flashcards
Introduction-
Good news this lec wont take full 2 horus
Unpack media fr 2 parts
Shorter lec today
Next week 2 houir
Today- how polictal and comrival speech in –partic is treated in diff jurisdiciton
Introduction-
This lecture:
Political speech
Commercial speech
Next week: a way of communicating - anonymous and pseudonymous speech
Introduction-
Mentioned before that the eucthr in partic afford political expression, the highlest level of protection in contrast commercial expression is afforded far more limited protection lthough it is still protected, remember earliest lec, if you kind of ranking catgeories of speech,
political exp by far highest of prote- poliutcal exp = public interest expression not just expression relating to the casting vote, then it be
commercial then artistic speech
So there are other types, artistic speech, pornography, religious speech, hate speech- there are other diff types- but purpose of this lec only focus these 2
Introduction-
Next weeks – anonymous and pseudonymous expression- which cause is WAY OF COMMUNICATIAN which can apply to all types of speech, whether that be political commercial religious etc – that’s gonna do netx couple of weeks
A view from the US
Start fo with view from us- so as well see th eus supreme cour juris is very similar to echt hr in repsect of the importance it places on political speech.
cratic self goverencne. And just gonna recap
A view from the US
Now in the new York times- very famous case
A view from the US
the supreme court held that a civil liable action, bought by public official, could only be constitutionally sustained if the statement was made with malice, in that the d must have known that it was either runtrue or they were reckless as to its truth, now the fundamental rationale for the decision supreme court,
A view from the US
can be found in justice brennans dictime, this is what he said,
A view from the US
we consider this case against background of a profund national committmenet, to the principle, the debate on r.a.w
A view from the US
New York Times v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964)
‘…we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that the debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials…’
per Brennan J 376 US 254, 270 (1964)
A view from the US
thus it has been argued tha political speech, partic context of us juris, echthr aswell , occupies what is refereed to in us constitutional juris as a preferred position, so political speech, occupies or be elevated to, what is referred to as a preffered position
A view from the US
were gonna look at this preferred position, of political speech and the arg from democratic self goverencne. And just gonna recap
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
Recap stuff went over in 2nd lec
Remebr some of this principes is impor
Remember: Alexander Meiklejohn – political expression includes speech of public interest
As we saw from 2nd lec – the argument from democratic self gov, argument from democracy is largly attributed to alexander meikle-
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
now as we saw in that lec- miek argued for the subsition of political expression, with the wider and less restrictive notion of public discussion.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
Which relates to any matter of public interest, as opposed to expression purely linked to the casting of votes-
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
so that’s ewhat he said he sai dpoltiical expression actually should mena public discission which relates to any matter of public interest not just the casting of votes.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
What miekljohn sai dis that public expression is speech which impoacts directly or indirectly upon these issues with which voters have to deal. In other words matters of public interest.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
Now later on in later wrtings miekkljohn clarified this wider view of pub discussion- so we rtalked about this in more detail and he satted in later wrtiigns that voting is merely’the external expression of a wide and diverse no of activites by means at which xcitizens attempt to meet the responsibilits of making judgments.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
‘ so what that means is is that education, philoshophy, sciene literat , the arts and public discussion on public issues, are activities that will educate citizens for self govenrnce, all come under that wide umbrella of arg form democracy.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
Now the genral preference for political speech in our juris, can be justified by reference to the underlying argumnts for foe.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
Liberal contstitiuions /lib countries show a commitment to an open participatory democracy.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
And this commitiment conclude or makes difficult to defend total bans on public discourse.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
Strong protection afforded to political speech justified by AFDSG.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
As a result the strong protection which is afforded to political speech, can be justified by refernce to the weight of the argument from democrati c self gov. and what that does – arg democratic sel fgov affectively elvevates political discours-e discourse on public interest to a special staus
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
Q is- why does r.a.w ?-Why does political speech enjoy a special status?
Well eric barenft answered that- according to him, he says that free political speech, encourages a well informe, politically sophistacked electorate.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
Which is able to confront governments on more or less equal terms.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
Professor Barendt: electorate and government on equal terms.
Whitney v California 274 US 357, 376 (1927) per Justice Brandeis: prevents stifling of debate.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
So barendts vuew atcualy is mirrored to extent –us supreme court whitney v – in paritc by justice brandies in his judgement- he said that poltical discourse prevents the sti- r.a.w on political amtters.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
Which he said in the long term might indager the stabikit of the community and make rfevolution more likely. So in a nutshell that why we have this elevated status or political speech.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech and the AFDSG
That’s why its so improtnant.
And quite clearly its been – it enjoys this elevated status in diff jurisdci around wroled in respect of echtr and us supreme court.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech
AFDSG may be reinforced by other indications that political speech enjoys special status.
So …
Staying with this preffere dpsotion- so strength of the arg from democracy, arg form democ self gov may be reinforced by r.a.w over and above other types of speech.
For instance free speech rights may be incorp in the respesctive countries consituion, together with other political freedoms such as right 2 vote and right of political parties to play role in demcoractic process.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech
Court’s may uphold a ‘right’ of political discourse as a inherent element of a free society.
As a result a court may uphold a right’ of r.a.w on gorunf that it is inherent r.aw
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech
Even though there is nos peciific consituinal provision whicbc guarantees that right.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech
So what that means that ctrs may find that inherent right exists within a democracy even though not actually anything written in consituion which actually guarantees right to political speech, it just inherent within a democ.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech
Bc within democ have right to vote, political parties have right tot ka epart in democratic process.and thereofr as result of this there is an inherent right of public discourse within a democracy.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech
Illustrated by case law from Canada and Australian:
Re Alberta Statutes [1938] SCR 100
Nationwide New Pty v Wills (1992) 177 CLR; Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106
-This is illustrated- the upholding of a inherent right of political discourse as an element of free soc is i;llustatretd case law through dif fjursidictions
Actually cases from cananda and Australia
Look breifle these case
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech
Earlies t1 re alberta canandian supreme court case- very old case- in this case 3 member s of the candian supreme court, which had been asked for an advisory opinion on an alberat press law.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech
These 3 member sof supreme court found such a rifght implicit in the british north Americana ct 1867. which is there few reflected the spirit of the unwritten britsh consti. So what they found inherint int hata ct was this right inherent right o fpoltiical discourse. Because of course cnada that time was a colony common wealth country we as britan we don’t have written consit.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech
We are 1 of few countries that don’t have written const. we are 1 of them, but its is inheren twihtin our other rights. That there is for discourse.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech
So 2 austra cases much more recent
In both these cases the high ct of Australia upheld an implied right to freedom of political comm which they found was implicit in the expressed commimtment of the austrialian constitution, to the holding of free elctions and democratic gov. so Australian const there is a right to holding of free eelctions and democratic gov that is explaicit within the austral consition, its written ink. What high ct found is that inherent within those 2 rights I aright to political discourse.
The ‘preferred position’ of political speech
So as u can see this elevated status of poltical speech sint just found jursi echtr us – its wide spread, cananda and alos australi asell and im sure many other countries.
The ‘preferred position’: a balancing exercise
So gonna look at how balancing exercise is undertaken in relation to this 3rd position.
Political discourse balanced against countervailing rights
So the us courts not just us supremem court bus us court genrally and also echtr blance the relvant gov interests underlying the partic challneg law against the speech which the state wishes to punish or restrain.
Rules adopted to provide greater clarity/consistency:
E.g: US – ‘clear and present danger’ test
Schenk v United States 249 US 47 (1919) per Holmes J
The ‘preferred position’: a balancing exercise
Now the weight of consideration, such as national security or public ordr is assessed to determine whether it is enough to justify the suppression of the restriction of speech.
The ‘preferred position’: a balancing exercise
Now sometimes the process involves a adhock calculation of the improtanr in the partic circumstances of the competing interests.
The ‘preferred position’: a balancing exercise
Rules adopted to provide greater clarity/consistency:
The courts have also forumualted general rules which are adopted and used it order to try to ensure greate consitiency across their decisions.
The ‘preferred position’: a balancing exercise
So for instance in the us we have the clear and present danager trst- forumulated by justice holmes r.a.w –old test
-E.g: US – ‘clear and present danger’ test
Schenk v United States 249 US 47 (1919) per Holmes J
The ‘preferred position’: a balancing exercise
Now in schenk the d’s had been rpoesucted under the espinarge act 1917. they were prosec for circulating leafkets which opposed the draft to the he great wall. This is when us was joingin the wall.
The ‘preferred position’: a balancing exercise
Opposing draft and also participation in wall. Now upholding d conviiton under the act justice homes formaulted following rule ‘ clear and present danger tets’ q in evry case is whether words are used in such cirucm and such nature as to creat a clear and present danger that they will brin about the substantive evils that congress has a right to prevent.
The ‘preferred position’: a balancing exercise
So in other words saying is, well look if the speech creates a clear and present danger to the coutnervielign rights then in that sit the speech can be restricted.
The ‘preferred position’: a balancing exercise
So of course in thius partic cir cumsance u had people distrib leaflets panfles that were opposing the draft walla nd partic wall- in this aprtic sit the clear an p danger there was maybe threat to national security public order, numbe rof reasons but the words that were expressed by the individs concern created a clear and present danger.
The ‘preferred position’: a balancing exercise
That brought out substantive evils thjat congress wanted to prevent. So that’s 1 of the tests that’s been appkied try to atleast find some sort of consit In us clear and oresnt danger test.
The ‘preferred position’: a balancing exercise
The echt hr approach tobalancing political speech with coutnervielign rights is similar- before that is there any q’s.
The ‘preferred position’: a view from the ECtHR
So we look noe evelvated status of poltical speech but from echtr persp than us.
ECtHR attaches highest importance to political speech: Handyside v UK (1976) 1 EHRR 737; Sunday Times v UK (1979) 2 EHRR 245.
The ‘preferred position’: a view from the ECtHR
Political speech = defined expansively to include matters of general public concern.
So we know form 2nd lec that poltical expression has been itnerp expansively to inclide speech on matters of public concern/interst as a result the stras court, has viwed expression concerning things such as litgation, alleged speech police mail practice , the allege cruelty to seals, inflicted by hunters,
The ‘preferred position’: a view from the ECtHR
r.aw cases above the comments on vet surg- have all been reviwed by eu court as obtaing to matters of public concern which have ben worth of strong protection,
The ‘preferred position’: a view from the ECtHR
Sunday Times v UK (1979) 2 EHRR 245: litigation
Thorgeirson v Iceland (1992) 14 EHRR 843: police malpractice
Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway (1999) 29 EHRR 125: seals
Bergens Tidende v Norway (2001) 31 EHRR 16: cosmetic surgeons
Barthold v Germany (1985) 7 EHRR 383: veterinary surgeons
The ‘preferred position’: a view from the ECtHR
so this illyusttrates really how wide the ambit of political expression under euchrt juris actually is. Cos under political expression like said its been inter expansively.
The ‘preferred position’: a view from the ECtHR
So it would be massive publicconcern all this stuff here are e.gs of speech which have been held to const matters of ppbulci concern.Gives idea how expansivelty interp.
The ‘preferred position’: a view from the ECtHR
Now as wev epreviously disccued the chtr atatches the highest importance to polticla speech including speech of public interst and concner.
The ‘preferred position’: a view from the ECtHR
Now in handsyide the cts said the guarantee of freedo of express, was primarly concerned to protect dissemination of political idea.s. so said protection that weafford free speech we althjouh ther to protect other forms , its priamryy prupose its act to protect this kind of speech.