当前位置: X-MOL 学术Human Rights Review › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Justifying Limitations on the Freedom of Expression
Human Rights Review ( IF 1.2 ) Pub Date : 2020-11-01 , DOI: 10.1007/s12142-020-00608-8
Gehan Gunatilleke

The freedom of expression is vital to our ability to convey opinions, convictions, and beliefs, and to meaningfully participate in democracy. The state may, however, ‘limit’ the freedom of expression on certain grounds, such as national security, public order, public health, and public morals. Examples from around the world show that the freedom of individuals to express their opinions, convictions, and beliefs is often imperilled when states are not required to meet a substantial justificatory burden when limiting such freedom. This article critiques one of the common justificatory approaches employed in a number of jurisdictions to frame the state’s burden to justify limitations on the freedom of expression—the proportionality test. It presents a case for an alternative approach that builds on the merits and addresses some of the weaknesses of a typical proportionality test. This alternative may be called a ‘duty-based’ justificatory approach because it requires the state to demonstrate—through the presentation of publicly justifiable reasons—that the individual concerned owes others a duty of justice to refrain from the expressive conduct in question. The article explains how this approach is more normatively compelling than a typical proportionality test. It also illustrates how such an approach can better constrain the state’s ability to advance majoritarian interests or offload its positive obligations by limiting the freedom of expression of minorities and dissenting voices.

中文翻译:

为言论自由的限制辩护

言论自由对于我们表达意见、信念和信仰以及有意义地参与民主的能力至关重要。但是,国家可以基于某些理由“限制”言论自由,例如国家安全、公共秩序、公共卫生和公共道德。来自世界各地的例子表明,如果国家在限制这种自由时不需要承担实质性的正当负担,则个人表达意见、信念和信仰的自由往往受到威胁。本文批评了许多司法管辖区采用的一种常见的正当性方法,以界定国家为限制言论自由而承担的负担——比例性检验。它提出了一种替代方法的案例,该方法建立在优点的基础上并解决了典型比例测试的一些弱点。这种替代方案可以被称为“基于义务”的正当性方法,因为它要求国家通过提出公开正当的理由来证明有关个人对其他人负有正义义务,以克制有关的表达行为。文章解释了这种方法如何比典型的比例测试更具规范性。它还说明了这种方法如何能够通过限制少数群体的表达自由和不同意见的自由来更好地限制国家推进多数派利益或减轻其积极义务的能力。这种替代方案可以被称为“基于义务”的正当性方法,因为它要求国家通过提出公开正当的理由来证明有关个人对其他人负有正义义务,以克制有关的表达行为。文章解释了这种方法如何比典型的比例测试更具规范性。它还说明了这种方法如何能够通过限制少数群体的表达自由和不同意见的自由来更好地限制国家推进多数派利益或减轻其积极义务的能力。这种替代方案可以被称为“基于义务”的正当性方法,因为它要求国家通过提出公开正当的理由来证明有关个人对其他人负有正义义务,以克制有关的表达行为。文章解释了这种方法如何比典型的比例测试更具规范性。它还说明了这种方法如何能够通过限制少数群体的表达自由和不同意见的自由来更好地限制国家推进多数派利益或减轻其积极义务的能力。文章解释了这种方法如何比典型的比例测试更具规范性。它还说明了这种方法如何能够通过限制少数群体的表达自由和不同意见的自由来更好地限制国家推进多数派利益或减轻其积极义务的能力。文章解释了这种方法如何比典型的比例测试更具规范性。它还说明了这种方法如何能够通过限制少数群体的表达自由和不同意见的自由来更好地限制国家推进多数派利益或减轻其积极义务的能力。
更新日期:2020-11-01
down
wechat
bug