On today’s episode of learning the law; we will be looking at the instances where an individual’s freedom of speech or expression can be restricted, limited or denied.
Freedom of speech remains one of the famous rights that accrue to every person in modern society. If you have the right to live, you should also have the right to speak up, express yourself, share your opinion, air your grievances or communicate with one another, hence freedom of speech is as important as the freedom to live or right to life.
In the United States of America, this right to speak or freedom of speech as it is preferably called is provided for in the First Amendment rights while in Nigeria it is constitutionally provided for in section 39 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and it reads thus; 39. (1) Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 14 (June 3 – Sept 2, 2024) begins registrations; get massive discounts with early registration here.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
This right to speak freely and express oneself is as well recognized in most jurisdictions of the world and any country that still censors speeches and limits citizens’ freedom to express themselves freely are always accused of being autocratic like the country of North Korea.
But as we always point out in every general rule there must be an or some exceptions; the same exists in this right to speak. There are some instances where your right to speak or express yourself may be restricted, limited or totally denied.
It has been held by the Supreme Court of Justices of the United States of America that the parliament can limit citizens’ freedom of speech if the occasion demands, like in wartime.
In the landmark case of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the Supreme Court of the United States while upholding the conviction of Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 through actions that obstructed the “recruiting or enlistment service” during World War 1 held that freedom of speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment could be limited if the words in the circumstances created “a clear and present danger.”
In the above case, Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer, members and leaders of the Socialist Party were circulating literature and articles to newly conscripted soldiers, the literature which was published with the intent of making the conscripted soldiers rebel. Some parts of the literature read that the drafting of the soldier for World War 1 was a form of involuntary servitude that violated the Thirteenth Amendment.
When they were arrested and charged, they raised the defense of having the freedom to express themselves which has been provided for under the First Amendment rights but the court while rejecting their defense ruled that there are limitations to such freedom of expressing oneself which an individual under a civilized society may enjoy and circulating articles that might make newly conscripted soldiers to rebel is an extreme way of expressing oneself.
This case remains the locus classicus on limitations to freedom of speech.