Отандық БАҚ-тағы сөз бостандығы («Reporters sans frontières» ұйымының тұжырымдамасы негізінде)

The article analyzes the problem of implementing freedom of speech in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, as well as compares the actual situation of observing the human right to freedom of speech before and after Russia’s annexation of four regions of Ukraine in 2022. During the study, cases of arbitrary restriction of this freedom by the occupation administration of the Russian Federation were characterized and the reasons for such restrictions were determined. The article emphasizes that the real purpose of establishing restrictions on freedom of speech and other human rights and freedoms by the aggressor state is to ensure the internal stability of the Russian authoritarian regime. In order to achieve this goal, the Russian political nomenclature resorts to the practice of underestimating or excluding the role of representative institutions, as well as canceling or significantly limiting the political rights and freedoms of residents of the territories controlled by Russia. The article states that due to the effective control of certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions by the Russian Federation since 2014, the Russian establishment managed to spread its autocratic practices on the territory of the self-proclaimed «republics» even before their annexation. In order to realize this goal, the occupation administration created formal grounds that allowed it to significantly limit the rights of residents in the territories under its control, although arbitrary restrictions on human rights, in particular the right to freedom of thought and speech, to the free expression of views and beliefs, were observed in the territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions from the first days of their transition under the control of Russian militants. As a result of conducting a comparative legal analysis of the real situation of freedom of speech in the occupied territories of Ukraine before and after their annexation by the Russian Federation, it was concluded that the annexation by Russia of four regions of Ukraine in 2022 made it more difficult for residents to exercise their right to freely express their views and beliefs. The deterioration of the situation with civil space and fundamental freedoms in the occupied regions of Ukraine is explained by the fact that, as a result of the violent and illegal temporary rejection of part of the territory of Ukraine, Russia extended the effect of its administrative-delict and criminal legislation to these territories, in particular the so-called «fakes laws», by which the Russian Federation introduced military censorship on its territory in March 2022. Compared to the territory of the Russian Federation, in the occupied Ukrainian regions the realization of human and citizen rights and freedoms is further complicated by the introduction of martial law by the Russian occupation administration, which gave Russia a formal opportunity to continue arbitrarily restricting a number of rights and freedoms in the aforementioned territories. Taking into account these and other arguments presented in the article, the conclusions were reached that improving the situation of freedom of speech in the respective regions is possible only in the case of restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty over the temporarily occupied territories and the prevention of any form of interference of the Russian authoritarian regime in the public and political life of Ukraine.

Freedom of speech and press of journalists are essential fundamental rights for a functioning democracy. In the modern world, freedom of speech and expression plays a vital role for safeguarding the democratic governance, promoting societal transparency and accountability for the smooth functioning of the governmental organizations. Journalism is a benevolent profession and considered as the fourth pillar in the democratic society. Journalism provides influence-free or impartial information to the society and Journalists fulfil their role as a watchdog with freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of speech and expression empowers journalists to deliver information free from external pressures and maintaining their information reliable and credible. This study is based on objective, the status in regard to the judicial approach: a comparative analysis of BRICS Nations: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. And how the Reporters without Borders (RSF, a French word) is playing its part in information transparency. In this comparative study on freedom of speech and expression of journalists in BRICS Nations shown judicial approach varies from one nation to another. This study adopted doctrinal methodology in this research paper. In this study, it founds that countries among BRICS Nations such as Brazil and South Africa have more protective measures in regard to the freedom of speech and expression of journalists, while Russia and China an environment with limited discretionary space for the individuals. The judiciary often step in to protect journalists' rights, but there are still concerns about government influence especially toward journalists. The freedom of speech and expression for journalists in India faces challenges, despite the judiciary's role in keeping checks on government access and protecting journalists' rights

The recent Review of Freedom of Speech in Australian Higher Education Providers (‘the Review’), overseen by the Hon Robert French AC, identified areas for improving freedom of speech and academic freedom, and to that end proposed the adoption of umbrella principles embedded in a Model Code. The Review’s engagement with international human rights law standards was confined, even though many are binding on Australia. As universities consider implementing the Review’s recommendations, this article reflects on the Model Code in the light particularly of the standards established by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’). If the drafters of the Model Code had paid closer regard to the ICCPR and other international standards, the result may have been a scheme that more clearly and predictably distinguishes permissible from impermissible restriction on free speech and academic freedom, and gives greater priority to promoting the human rights of those in the academic community than to the institutional power to limit them.

Freedom of thought and speech is one of the basic democratic freedoms and is recognized by Russian law as a fundamental freedom of the individual. The Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes the duty of the state to guarantee everyone freedom of thought and speech. Freedom of speech is the sovereign right of a person to freely and voluntarily express their beliefs, the right to accessible information and its free dissemination by any legal means. From all the diversity of its manifestations, including personal and political rights, the plurality of derivative rights, it follows that freedom of speech is a self-sufficient institution of law. Meanwhile, in modern conditions, the implementation of freedom of speech faces a number of restrictions. The authors of the article examine the problematic issues of the implementation of constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, which today gives rise to disputes and discussions.

This study examines the challenges and progress of human rights and legal reforms in Indonesia, focusing on the country’s evolving legal framework and its alignment with international human rights standards. Using a qualitative research methodology and a literature review approach, the study analyzes various legal reforms initiated since the fall of the authoritarian regime in 1998. It highlights key developments in areas such as freedom of speech, minority rights, and judicial independence, while also addressing ongoing challenges related to law enforcement, corruption, and discrimination against marginalized groups. The research draws upon academic sources, governmental reports, and international human rights organizations to assess the effectiveness of Indonesia’s legal reforms and their impact on protecting human rights. Findings indicate that although significant progress has been made, particularly in legal transparency and democratic governance, Indonesia still faces substantial hurdles in fully realizing its human rights commitments. Issues such as impunity for past human rights violations, restrictions on freedom of expression, and the lack of comprehensive legal protection for vulnerable populations persist. The study concludes that while Indonesia has made commendable strides in legal reforms, further efforts are required to ensure consistent and equitable enforcement of human rights laws across all sectors of society. Recommendations include strengthening legal institutions, enhancing public awareness of human rights, and aligning national laws more closely with international treaties.

In the post-Suharto era, freedom of speech, particularly the press, quickly gained stronger legal protections in the constitutional reforms of the early 2000s. Its exercise by citizens and journalists alike has been a key force in warding off a democratic reversal. Yet, following the unshackling of religious expression, a rise in Islamic fundamentalism and a backlash against Western liberalism have inspired new religious intolerance that has circumscribed certain forms of speech and threatened the embrace of diversity long central to Indonesia’s identity. Chapter 6 examines the intersection of religious tolerance, freedom of speech, and political pluralism to understand the relationship between regulating blasphemy and the future of Indonesia’s new democracy. Specifically, it studies the way Indonesia surged forward economically and politically in establishing a more modern democracy while atavistic elements from its past continue to complicate its transition.

This book discusses freedom of speech, which is central to the liberal democratic tradition. Freedom of speech touches on every aspect of our social and political system and receives explicit and implicit protection in every modern democratic constitution. Moreover, it is frequently referred to in public discourse and has inspired a wealth of legal and philosophical literature. The book provides a critical analysis of the foundations, rationales, and ideas that underpin freedom of speech as a political idea, and as a principle of positive constitutional law. In doing so, it examines freedom of speech in a variety of national and supranational settings from an international perspective.

This article studies the current state of freedom of speech and its limits, both in Russia and in the rest of the world. Despite the consolidation of elements of freedom of speech in international and national norms, current trends in its development raise many questions regarding the preservation of the previously established balance of freedom of speech and its restrictions, which makes this study relevant. Thus, the purpose of this research is to identify the conditions that contribute to these changes, to analyze modern patterns of development. In relation to freedom of speech, the author analyzes the influence of globalization and deglobalization processes, IT, media corporations, as well as elements of self-regulation of public structures on society and the state. The results reveal the changes in the implementation of freedom of speech without changing its legal consolidation, as well as the “generational gap” destabilizing society. The author assumes that the development of the law regarding the limits of freedom of speech will be influenced by the following factors: objectively increasing globalization and resistance to it from political elites; an increase in the influence of new media corporations and civil society, which will further exacerbate the established “generational gap”. This assumption relies on a sociological study conducted by the author on the topic “Freedom of Speech and Its Limits”, as well as an assessment of the results obtained and their comparison with the data of other researchers. This article continues the analysis of the contemporary understanding of freedom of speech and its limits within the framework of the integrative approach proposed by the author in his earlies publications. This approach helped in assessing the level of legal regulation of the limits of freedom of speech; in addition, it provides options for their change in the near future.

The fundamental rights were included in the constitution because they were considered essential for the growth of the personality of every individual to preserve human dignity and liberty, such are freedom of speech, expression movement, residence, trade and occupation protected by the State because they were considered essential for the development of the personality of every individual. Right to life guaranteed under Fundamental Rights article 21 of the Constitution of India, is not merely a fundamental right, it includes right to life and personal liberty which are most precious, sacrosanct inalienable and fundamental of all the fundamental rights of citizens which also assure, right to privacy. Right to privacy which are the most essential and basic human rights in a democratic form of government. In our increasingly digitized world, the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and the right to privacy has become a paramount concern. The right to privacy, a fundamental human right, faces unprecedented challenges in the wake of AI advancements, like personal data, questions about consent, transparency, and individuals’ privacy. This research paper seeks to unravel the intricate relationship among all these realms, exploring the ethical dimensions that arise as AI technologies permeate various aspects of our lives. Furthermore, our discussion will extend to the ethical responsibilities of AI developers, policymakers, and users, will gain insights into designing AI systems that prioritize privacy, emphasizing the need for ethical considerations throughout the development life cycle. A responsible and privacy-centric approach to AI deployment. This seminar paper seeks to unravel the intricate relationship among all these realms, exploring the ethical dimensions that arise as AI technologies permeate various aspects of our lives. The right to privacy, a fundamental human right, faces unprecedented challenges in the wake of AI advancements, like personal data, questions about consent, transparency, and individuals’ privacy. The methodology of the study is the descriptive analysis of doctrinal research and based on secondary sources like book, journal. articles and case laws

Right to be forgotten also known as data de-listing or de-identification is legal and ethical right providing individuals the right to request the search engine to remove the link to the information that is found when the person's name is searched online. Though its concept has been practiced in the developed countries like the members of European Union, its implementation in the developing country like Pakistan is still in bloom. This paper explores the plausibility, likelihood and consequences of imposing the RTBF within the Pakistani context with spec emphasis to its compatibility with privacy, freedom of speech and cyber security. Lack of proper Data protection laws in Pakistan put the individuals at risk of cyber harassment, and misuse of personal data; tarnishing one's reputation. The Constitution of Pakistan acknowledges the right to privacy to the citizens in article 14 and freedom of speech and expression in article 19 but these rights are not well realized while operating in digital platform. The RTBF could allow people to take back control of their online persona but freedom comes with crucial issues of censorship, transparency and the ability of the regulatory bodies. The study employs doctrinal research strategy that involves empirical and comparative methodology to explore the legal, social, and pragmatic implications of RTBF in social media regulations of Pakistan. The study further reveals that there are legal loopholes that need to be addressed in order to enhance the privacy laws relating to Pakistan particularly in the context of digital environment as there is lack of comprehensive legal protection, overlapping of the regulation and legislation and legal culture, freedom of speech and finally institutional framework. Suggestions include passage of a competently drafted Data Protection Act, better staff and structures, better implementing criteria for RTBF requests, creation of awareness among the citizens regarding their digital rights, involving international organizations in an effort to frame a suitable RTBF framework.

DOCTRINAL JUSTIFICATIONS OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECHFreedom of speech is one of the foundational values of contemporary liberal and democratic systems. The article analyzes four most important doctrinal justifications for extending afar-reach­ing protection for expression. First, respect for free speech is alogical corollary and consequence of respecting individual dignity and liberty. Second, free market of ideas is the best way of attaining truth and fostering healthy public debate. Third, freedom of speech is an indispensable condition of democratic political system. Fourth, respecting free speech helps create tolerant and open-minded society.

The survival of Russia's hybrid postcommunist regime, first under President Boris Yeltsin and then under President Vladimir Putin, poses difficult challenges for students of democratization. One of these challenges is exploring how regimes such as the Russian one resist both consolidation of democracy and a return to full-blown authoritarianism. The development of the Russian Internet policy is of special interest, as it brings forth two interesting puzzles related to this process: (1) Can governments of countries in political transition such as Putin's Russia allow for more freedom to increase their political control? and (2) Can we identify a learning process that a government such as Putin's undertakes on its transition path? The evidence presented here shows that the answer to both questions is yes. This article challenges the assumption that proliferation of Internet technology in transition countries such as Russia will lead to an increase in freedom of speech and further democratization. (1) It does so by identifying a method by which a government in transition cannot restrict or control the Internet directly but instead can use it actively to stifle political freedom. In this respect, the case of the Russian Federation is a first. It shows the problems created by governments learning how to appropriate the benefits of the information technology (IT) revolution to increase their control over the public information space. In virtue of its unique architecture and its speed of proliferation, the Internet should hold a potential to liberalize the information space and subsequently lead to democratization, especially in states where governments tightly control traditional media such as the newspapers, radio, and television. (2) Although in developed democracies the Internet is seen as a means to develop a more informed, pluralistic, and participatory electorate, the contribution of the Internet in authoritarian and democratizing states is more basic. The focus in this article is on the potential of the Internet to liberalize the information space, weaken the political control of all authoritarian government, and increase both individual freedom in the short run and the hope of democracy in the long run. Although estimates indicate that Russia has experienced a marked growth of Internet use (figure 1), this coincided with a drop in both political rights and civil liberties, as measured by Freedom House (FH) in the 1995-2003 period. Figure 2 shows that Russia performed below the world average in FH scores, and the marked decrease of freedoms in Russia contradicts the initial expectations of liberalization and democratization following the dissolution of the Soviet propaganda apparatus and the turbulent relationship of President Yeltsin with the emerging free media. [FIGURE 1-2 OMITTED] While freedoms in Russia markedly decline, the Russian government is aggressively targeting Internet development. The number of Russians online has just surpassed the 10 percent mark and, as early as 2002, the government announced a plan to invest $2.6 billion in the IT industry. To comply with demands of the World Trade Organization, the Russian Duma passed the Law On Electronic Signatures, which was the first law exclusively targeting Internet use. At the beginning of 2004, the new Law on Communications put into power new attempts to restructure the telecommunications market. However, the aggressive measures to promote further Internet development are only the most recent stage of Russian Internet policy. The initial stage of Internet proliferation in Russia was handled by an unprepared government that dealt with the new medium in the ways similar to those that its Soviet predecessor dealt with national media and technology regulation. The government's first-round response also included attempts at direct censorship of the Internet, but the general assumption about the inherent democratic nature of the Internet architecture proved true: Internet use in Russia escaped tight regulation, as the government was initially unprepared for the challenge. …

It is indicated that the rapid development of AI calls into question the effectiveness of existing constitutional and legal mechanisms for protecting human rights and the fundamental principles of democracy, which was partially explored in the author’s previous works, in particular, regarding the constitutional and legal status of strategic acts and the implementation of the constitutional right to access public information. The article examines the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on constitutional and legal regulation in Ukraine, which is one of the key issues in light of modern technological development. AI, as a new reality, not only creates significant opportunities for the national legal system but also poses challenges that require a revision of existing legal norms. Based on a thorough analysis of constitutional principles and human rights enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine, the article explores the interaction of AI with rights such as privacy, freedom of speech, property, and labor. Particular attention is paid to analyzing amendments that could be made to Articles 3, 8, 22, 28, 31, 32, 34, 41, and 43 of the Constitution of Ukraine to address the challenges of AI. The article also discusses the ethical and social aspects of AI use, particularly the need to ensure transparency, accountability, and non-discrimination in processes involving this technology. Possible consequences of inadequate AI regulation are analyzed, including risks of discrimination, privacy violations, and the weakening of democratic institutions. It is noted that timely and comprehensive legal regulation of AI’s impact will contribute to the creation of a balanced system of interaction between humans and technology. Based on the conducted analysis, practical recommendations are proposed for improving constitutional and legal regulation in light of AI challenges and for developing an effective strategy for regulating this field in Ukraine. Special attention is given to the importance of the rule of law, the protection of human rights, and the fundamental principles of democracy in the context of digital transformation. Thus, the article provides a comprehensive vision of AI implementation in Ukraine’s legal system, promoting the harmonization of national legislation with international standards and contemporary challenges.

This article addresses regulation of speech in culturally diverse contexts through a study of interfaith dialogue between the Church of Norway and Islam, using Jürgen Habermas' concepts ‘public discourse’ and ‘post-secular society’ and Katharine Gelber's idea of ‘speaking back’ to hate speech. The analysis is situated in the context of international and national human rights debates and integration policies and the political right's claims regarding the incompatibility between Islam and human rights, in particular freedom of speech. By claiming that Muslims cannot be integrated into Norwegian society because of an essential value conflict between Islam and Norwegian values, the right challenges the legitimacy of the liberal democratic state and its civic integration policy. Correspondingly, the interfaith dialogue which identifies with state integration policy has enabled some Norwegian Muslims to ‘speak back’ to right-wing discourse, and the act of ‘speaking back’ has increased these Muslims' capabilities to publicly identify with human rights at both national and international levels. This furthers their participation in public deliberation and strengthens the legitimacy of the liberal democratic state's civic integration project but raises the bar for the right.

Few governments today admit that they violate central human rights such as freedom of speech, or prohibitions against slavery and torture. Violations of human rights are denied or excused, but seldom defended (Schachter 1982: 336). The Bangkok Declaration of 1993 changed this. In this declaration, representatives of Asian states dismissed civil and political rights as contrary to “Asian values.” Their statement has received much attention, particularly since it appeared immediately prior to the 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights. Human rights are universal and critical norms constraining the allocation and exercise of state power, so it should come as no surprise that some governments object to human rights. The Bangkok Declaration insists that states have the primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights, and the primary responsibility to remedy human rights violations. It falls to the government to determine trade-offs where appropriate, and to secure rights through such institutions as each government decides. Human rights must be considered in the context of a dynamic and evolving process of international norm-setting, bearing in mind the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds. The Declaration insisted, in short, that national sovereignty entails noninterference in the internal affairs of the State, including the “non-use of human rights as an instrument of political pressure.”