Limits on Freedom of Expression

Argentina • Brazil • Canada • China • France 

Germany • Israel • Japan • Netherlands 

New Zealand • Sweden • Ukraine 

United Kingdom 

June 2019 
This report is provided for reference purposes only. 

It does not constitute legal advice and does not represent the official 

opinion of the United States Government. The information provided 

reflects research undertaken as of the date of writing. 

It has not been updated.
Contents 

Comparative Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1 

Argentina ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 

Brazil ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 

Canada ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 

China ........................................................................................................................................................... 20 

France .......................................................................................................................................................... 24 

Germany ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 

Israel ............................................................................................................................................................ 39 

Japan ........................................................................................................................................................... 49 

Netherlands ................................................................................................................................................. 52 

New Zealand ............................................................................................................................................... 58 

Sweden ........................................................................................................................................................ 69 

Ukraine ........................................................................................................................................................ 78 

United Kingdom .......................................................................................................................................... 86 
The Law Library of Congress 1 

Comparative Summary 

Ruth Levush 

Senior Foreign Law Specialist

This report examines the scope of protection extended to freedom of speech in thirteen selected 

countries. In particular, the report focuses on the limits of protection that may apply to the right 

to interrupt or affect in any other way public speech. The report also addresses the availability of 

mechanisms to control foreign broadcasters working on behalf of foreign governments. 

The report consists of individual surveys for the following countries: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, 

China, Israel, Japan, Germany, France, New Zealand, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United 

Kingdom, and Ukraine. The surveys were prepared by foreign law specialists and analysts at the 

Global Legal Research Directorate of the Law Library of Congress. Countries surveyed were 

selected from various continents based on relevance as well as on available staff’s expertise. 

The terms “freedom of speech” and “freedom of expression” as used in this report are 

interchangeable. Quotations in this summary were taken from the relevant country surveys. 

I. Limits on Public Speech 

All countries surveyed appear to expressly recognize the right to freedom of speech as a 

constitutional or fundamental right. Freedom of speech, however, is not absolute; all of the 

countries apply limitations to it at varied levels. 

A. Geopolitical Content Restrictions 

Broad restrictions on speech were found in China and Ukraine. 

Although the Chinese Constitution declares that citizens enjoy freedom of speech and freedom 

of the press, these freedoms are tightly restricted by specific laws and regulations. For example, 

China’s Cybersecurity Law prohibits the use of the internet to “endanger the sovereignty, 

overturn the socialist system, incite separatism, break national unity, advocate terrorism or 

extremism, advocate ethnic hatred and ethnic discrimination, . . . [and] create or disseminate false 

information to disrupt the economic or social order.” Similar prohibited expressions apply under 

China’s Regulation on the Administration of Publishing, including a prohibition on the 

destruction of “public order or . . . public stability.” Other restrictions apply under China’s 

Regulation on Radio and Television Administration, which prohibits endangerment of “state . . . 

honour and interests; . . . [as well as the instigation of] nationality separation or . . . [disruption 

of] nationality solidarity.” 

Restrictions on speech in Ukraine may be viewed in the context of the Euromaidan Revolution 

in 2014 and conflict with the Russian Federation. In addition to censorship, Ukrainian law 

contains restrictions in the form of language quotas for broadcasting, print, and publishing media 

in languages other than Ukrainian. Accordingly, only 10% of the total screenings of films in 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Comparative Summary 

The Law Library of Congress 2

Ukraine can be in a language other than Ukrainian, and at least 50% of books published and 

distributed in Ukraine must be in Ukrainian. 

Ukrainian legislation further authorizes the banning of “films containing the propaganda of an 

‘aggressor state,’ including positive images of the workers of the aggressor state, Soviet state 

security bodies, and films justifying violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” The 

ban applies to films produced by individuals and entities of the aggressor state, and to movies 

with the above mentioned content produced after August 1, 1991, regardless of country of origin. 

The ban also applies to movies and films produced after January 1, 2014, by individuals or legal 

entities of the ‘aggressor state’ “in the absence of propaganda”. Restrictions also apply to the 

import and distribution of print media from the territory of the aggressor state.” 

B. Specific Prohibitions on Disruption of Public Speech and Deliberations 

Some surveyed countries were found to have specific rules prohibiting disruption of public 

speech and deliberations. For example, the Brazilian Internal Rules of the National Congress as 

well as the Internal Rules of the Chamber of Deputies and Federal Senate do not allow the 

interruption of parliamentarian speech. During the joint sessions of the Congress, the galleries 

are made available to the public. No manifestation of support or disapproval to what happens in 

the plenary or the practice of acts that can disturb the work is allowed. Similarly, all persons are 

allowed to attend the public sessions in the Federal Senate from a reserved seat provided that 

they are silent and give no sign of applause or disapproval of what happens there. 

Japan specifically recognizes an offense of disruption of public speech for public election 

campaigns, an offense punishable by imprisonment or a fine. 

Sweden prohibits noise disruptions of public gatherings such as religious services, marriages, 

funerals, court proceedings, state or municipal meetings, or public deliberations. For example, 

disruption caused by hecklers at the Swedish Parliament is punishable with a fine or 

imprisonment. Swedish law further prohibits disorderly conduct that is aimed at aggravating 

people. Heckling a political group, according to the Swedish country survey, is likely to fall 

within the constraints of this offense even if it does not specifically meet the requirements to be 

deemed disruption of public deliberations and gatherings. 

Unreasonable disruption in a public place of “any meeting, congregation, or audience” is 

specifically prohibited under New Zealand law. 

In addition to a general prohibition on acting in a disorderly manner at a public meeting in order 

to “prevent . . . the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together,” the 

United Kingdom has specific provisions prohibiting incitement to disrupt meetings that are part 

of an electoral campaign during a campaign period. 

C. Indirect Limitations on Public Speech 

Limitations on the right of expression exist in all the surveyed countries and are recognized under 

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human 

Rights. Such limitations are designed to secure a variety of objectives that may include the 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Comparative Summary 

The Law Library of Congress 3

protection of national security, territorial integrity, public safety, health, morals, the integrity of 

public service, a person’s dignity and good name, religious feelings, etc. Protection of these and 

additional objectives are provided under the countries’ constitutional provisions as well as under 

statutory and case law, as relevant. 

Limitations on speech that might be relevant in the context of interruption of public speech such 

as heckling include prohibitions on disturbance of public order or safety, defamation, hate 

speech, insult and violation of human dignity in a number of the countries surveyed. A 

prohibition on disrespecting the French national anthem or the French flag has been highlighted 

as a recognized limitation on speech under French law. 

Germany, Israel, and the Netherlands specifically recognize limits on speech that constitutes a 

denial or praise for atrocities committed during the Holocaust, with German law prohibiting 

disturbance of “the public peace in a manner that violates the dignity of the victims [of the Nazi 

regime] by approving of, glorifying, or justifying the National Socialist rule of arbitrary force.” 

In France the denial or minimization of recognized crimes against humanity, in particular the 

Holocaust, are considered prohibited hate speech. 

Other types of restrictions that may affect public speech apply to limits “based on political, 

religious, cultural or other beliefs in Sweden, incitement to religious hatred and discrimination 

in the Netherlands, and insults to religious feelings in Israel. 

The implementation of limits on speech in many countries is interpreted in a restrictive way, 

however, especially with regard to public speech. Recognizing the importance of free expression 

in democratic societies, the European Court of Human Rights has declared that freedom of 

speech “is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favorably received or regarded 

as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the 

State or any sector of the population.” 

The courts in Canada, France, Germany, and Israel have similarly extended the scope of free 

speech protection to harsh and exaggerated statements, as well as to political expressions that 

may not please the government. Protection of speech, however, does not apply in the same way 

to the deliberate assertion of untrue facts. 

D. Balancing the Right to Free Speech against Other Protected Rights 

Recognizing the importance of protecting freedom of speech, the European Convention on 

Human Rights provides that any limitation of freedom of expression must be prescribed by law, 

“necessary in a democratic society,” and aimed at certain enumerated objectives, one of which 

could be the prevention of disorder or crime. A determination as to whether a restriction on 

freedom of expression is necessary “requires the existence of a pressing social need, and . . . the 

restrictions should be no more than is proportionate.” Feelings or even outrage, in the absence of 

intimidation, however, was held by the European Court of Human Rights as insufficient for 

limiting freedom of expression: “To hold otherwise would mean that freedom of speech and 

opinion is subjected to the heckler’s veto.” 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Comparative Summary 

The Law Library of Congress 4

A similar approach is expressed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 

which recognizes that freedom of expression may only be restricted as provided by law and to 

the extent necessary: “(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection 

of national security or of public order... or of public health or morals.” 

The need to interpret limitations on freedom of expression restrictively has been recognized by 

the Argentinian Supreme Court. A narrow interpretation of the scope of limitations on speech 

was similarly applied by the New Zealand Supreme Court. One of the justices defined prohibited 

“offensive behavior” within the meaning of that country’s law as behavior “capable of wounding 

feelings or arousing real anger, resentment, disgust or outrage, objectively assessed, provided 

that it is to an extent which impacts on public order and is more than those subjected to it should 

have to tolerate.” In determining whether the limitation on freedom of expression is justified, a 

balancing of the conflicting interests must be undertaken, the Court held. 

Attempting to find a balance between freedom of speech and the prohibitions against defamation 

and insult, French law determines that publication of a true statement that concerns a person’s 

private life may nonetheless be defamatory for the purpose of criminal liability. 

An expansive protection of publication of even false information has been recognized by the 

Israeli Supreme Court based on a “defense of responsible journalism.” This defense applies in 

defamation suits where the publication was made in good faith, even if the information it 

contained ultimately turned out to be false. The defense is restricted to cases where there was an 

obligation to publish; no malicious intent; the publication complied with standards of 

responsible, cautious, and fair journalism; and the publisher took steps to prevent unnecessary 

harm to the object of the publication. 

French law similarly exempts good-faith reporting of parliamentary or judicial proceedings from 

prosecution for defamation. The French Cour de cassation has declared that criticism of the 

manner in which institutions function is a valid exercise of freedom of expression. Nevertheless, 

the country survey for France notes that defamation prosecutions do occur in France and are often 

difficult to defend against. 

Interpreting the wide scope of protection that should apply to political expression in Israel, that 

country’s Supreme Court has narrowly interpreted the elements of the offense of insult to a public 

servant under Israel’s criminal law. The Court held that the prohibition would apply only in rare 

cases where the expression “harm[s] the core of human dignity and involve[s] a substantive and 

severe violation of the value-moral nucleus from which the public servant draws the source of 

his/her power and authority. “The prohibition was similarly held to be applicable only where it 

is almost certain that the anticipated harm will harm the public employee as an individual as well 

as the public service system and the public’s trust in it. 

 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Comparative Summary 

The Law Library of Congress 5

II. Mechanism to Control Foreign Broadcasters Working on Behalf of 

Foreign Governments 

The issuance of foreign correspondent’s certificates to foreign journalists is common among the 

countries surveyed. A number of countries similarly require licensing for radio and television 

broadcasting operations. Licensing in some countries surveyed requires legal residence or 

registration, or a commitment to adhere to broadcasting standards. 

A. Rules Specific to Broadcasters Controlled by Foreign States 

Under French legislation adopted in December 2018 the French regulatory agency for radio and 

television broadcasting may, after a first warning, withdraw the broadcasting authorization of an 

operator controlled by or under the influence of a foreign state if that state broadcasts content 

that harms a fundamental national interest of France. The law explicitly states that the 

propagation of false information to interfere with the proper functioning of institutions should 

be considered harmful to a fundamental national interest. 

Explicit blockage of access to Russian media and social networks, as well as search engines and 

electronic mail services and domains, was implemented in 2017 in Ukraine based on a 

presidential order. The same order also blocked individual journalists or broadcasters (foreign 

and domestic) who were deemed to be a threat to national security. 

B. Broadcasting Pluralism Standards 

The French regulatory agency for radio and television applies criteria for granting broadcasting 

permits that include, in addition to technical considerations, the promotion of “the public interest 

and the respect of pluralism.” Although the agency does not practice censorship prior to 

broadcasting, it may apply sanctions after broadcasting if a program violates French law. 

Foreign broadcasters operating in the United Kingdom and broadcasting to UK audiences must 

similarly be licensed by the UK’s communication regulator, Ofcom. In order to obtain a license, 

the broadcaster must agree to the license conditions and to comply with the Broadcasting Code. 

Among broadcasting standards to which licensees must commit in the UK is the requirement 

that, in dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and matters relating to 

current public policy, an appropriately wide range of significant views (respect for pluralism) 

must be included and given due weight in each program. Failing to abide by the license’s 

conditions or the Code and laws may result in Ofcom issuing its findings publicly, imposing a 

financial penalty, or suspending or revoking the broadcaster’s license in the UK. 

A violation of the requirement of respect for pluralism resulted in the closing of an Iranianfunded television channel held by Ofcom to have failed to air alternative viewpoints on 

controversial issues in one case. The broadcasting of a news item with a two-minute video filmed 

by a terrorist prior to him conducting a terrorist attack resulted in a fine for the broadcast channel, 

which originated in Afghanistan but broadcast in the UK. According to Ofcom, “the programme 

contained hate speech and was likely to encourage or to incite the commission of crime or to lead 

to disorder . . . with no surrounding content that sought to challenge, rebut or otherwise 

contextualise . . . highly extreme views.” 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Comparative Summary 

The Law Library of Congress 6

The investigation of a TV channel that is financed by the Russian Federation and determined by 

Ofcom to have been controlled by the Russian government is ongoing in connection with an 

influx of programs broadcast on the channel after the poisoning of two Russian nationals in the 

UK. 

C. Requirements Regarding Broadcasters’ National Identity or Financial Backing 

Foreign media organizations operating in China must seek approval from China’s Ministry of 

Foreign Affairs and submit required documents in order to establish offices in China and send 

resident journalists to the country. 

The Netherlands limits the participation of foreign broadcasters by applying quotas for European 

and Dutch-Frisian programming of public and private broadcasters, thereby excluding or 

limiting the participation of foreign, non-EU broadcasters. 

Residence or seat requirements in Germany, in another EU Member State, or another Member 

State of the European Economic Area (EEA) apply to private broadcasters in Germany. A license 

will not be granted to legal persons under public law or to entities that are government funded. 

This prohibition also applies to foreign public or state institutions. The German Commission on 

Licensing and Supervision reportedly revoked the radio license of a broadcasting company 

because it allegedly uses too much content that is financed by the Russian government, thereby 

making it a de facto state organization. 

Under Israeli law, television and radio broadcasters are required to have a license. License 

applicants must, among other requirements, be a corporation registered in Israel. The Law 

requires that a certain percentage of the means of control to direct the corporation’s operation be 

held by Israeli citizens and residents of Israel, or by registered corporations in Israel. Applicants 

may be disqualified based on a determination that granting them a license is contrary to the public 

interest or constitutes a risk to state security. Broadcasters must disclose any foreign contributions 

received from “foreign political entities” as defined by law. 

It should be noted that some surveyed countries have expressed concerns for foreign 

broadcasting activities. With regard to Russian Television (RT), the Canadian Radio-television 

and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) recently commented that at this time “it is not 

reviewing the presence on Canadian TVs of RT.” Sweden has similarly recognized that foreign 

media has the potential to become a threat to its national security. 
The Law Library of Congress 7 

Argentina 

Graciela Rodriguez-Ferrand 

Senior Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY Freedom of expression is protected in Argentina’s National Constitution. Its exercise is 

restricted by certain actions that the Penal Code considers crimes, such as crimes against 

the public order or crimes against honor. No specific limits on speech aimed at 

undermining another speaker’s freedom of expression were found. 

I. Constitutional Protection 

In Argentina the right to freedom of expression is protected at the constitutional level by 

proclaiming that all the inhabitants of the nation are entitled to a number of rights, in accordance 

with the laws that regulate their exercise, including the right to express their ideas in the press 

with no pre-publication censorship.1 The Constitution further provides that Congress may not 

enact laws restricting freedom of the press or establishing federal jurisdiction over the press.2 

II. Criminal Sanctions on Violations of Freedom of Expression 

The Penal Code describes a number of crimes related to freedom of expression.3 The chapter on 

crimes against the public order provides for the crime of public intimidation, penalizing with two 

to six years of imprisonment anyone who, in order to spread general fear or cause a riot or 

disorder, makes any sign, sounds an alarm, threatens to commit any crime of common danger, 

or uses any other physical means that would normally produce any such result.4 This penalty is 

increased to imprisonment for three to ten years if explosives or chemical substances were used 

in the perpetration of the crime.5

Anyone who publicly incites collective violence against groups of persons or institutions is 

sanctioned with imprisonment for three to six years for the incitement alone.6

 

 

1 CONSTITUCIÓN NACIONAL [CONST. NAC.] art. 14, BOLETÍN OFICIAL [B.O.], Jan. 3, 1995, http://servicios.infoleg. 

gob.ar/infoleg Internet/anexos/0-4999/804/norma.htm, archived at https://perma.cc/S3BN-9NA3.

2 Id. art. 32. 

3 CÓDIGO PENAL DE LA REPÚBLICA ARGENTINA [CÓD. PEN.] [PENAL CODE], Ley 11.179, B.O., Nov. 3, 1921 (revised 

1984), http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/15000-19999/16546/texact.htm#22, archived at 

https://perma.cc/S3XE-9JTQ. 

4 Id. art. 211. 

5 Id. art. 211, para. 2. 

6 Id. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Argentina 

The Law Library of Congress 8 

In addition the Penal Code contains an entire chapter on the protection of the right to honor.7 It 

sanctions with a fine of 3,000 to 30,000 pesos (about US$67 to $670) anyone who slanders or falsely 

accuses another of a crime.8 Anyone who intentionally dishonors or discredits another is subject 

to a fine of 1,500 to 20,000 pesos (about US$34 to $454). However, the sanction does not apply to 

expressions concerning matters of public interest or those that are not assertive.9

III. Limitations of Freedom of Expression 

The constitutional right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right and, according to 

Supreme Court decisions, may be limited if the limitation (1) is established by law, (2) has a legal 

purpose, and (3) meets the needs of a democratic society and is proportionate to that need.10 In 

addition the Supreme Court has unequivocally established that limitations on freedom of 

expression must always be interpreted restrictively.11 

No specific limits on speech aimed at undermining another speaker’s freedom of expression 

were found.12 

 

7 Id. arts. 109-117 bis. 

8 Id. art. 109. 

9 Id. art. 110. 

10 CENTRO DE ESTUDIOS EN LIBERTAD DE EXPRESIÓN Y ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN, TENDENCIAS EN LA LIBERTAD DE 

EXPRESIÓN EN ARGENTINA 3 (Mar. 2018), https://www.palermo.edu/cele/pdf/Libertad_de_expresion_ 

en_Argentina.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/V43L-B3KX. 

11 Id. at 4. 

12 Anecdotally, it may be worth noting that disruption of speeches by hecklers is not uncommon in Argentina. 

A recent example occurred at an event held by the head of the National Library at which the speaker was 

disrupted by protests while he was speaking; the protesters were removed from the room by security guards 

but apparently not arrested. Silbaron e Increparon a Avelluto en el Acto Inaugural de la Feria del Libro, TN NOTICIAS

(Apr. 24, 2019), https://tn.com.ar/sociedad/silbidos-e-incidentes-durante-el-discurso-de-pablo-avelluto-en-lainauguracion-de-la-feria-del-libro_957726, archived at https://perma.cc/V43L-B3KX. 
The Law Library of Congress 9 

Brazil 

Eduardo Soares 

Senior Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY Freedom of speech is protected under the Constitution. The Internal Rules of the 

National Congress as well as the Internal Rules of the Chamber of Deputies and Federal 

Senate do not allow the interruption of parliamentary speech. In addition to freedom 

of speech generally, the Constitution also specifically provides for freedom of the press. 

I. Scope of Protection of Freedom of Speech 

According to article 5 of the Brazilian Constitution, everyone is equal before the law, with no 

distinction whatsoever, guaranteeing to Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country the 

inviolability of the rights to life, liberty, equality, security, and property, on the following terms: 

II - no one shall be compelled to do or refrain from doing something except by force of law; 

IV - manifestation of thought is free, but anonymity is forbidden; 

V - the right of reply is assured, in proportion to the offense, as well as compensation for 

pecuniary or moral damages[2]or damages to reputation; 

IX - expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communication activity is free, 

independent of any censorship or license; 

X – personal intimacy, private life, honor and reputation are inviolable, guaranteeing the 

right to compensation for pecuniary or moral damages resulting from the violation thereof;

XIII – exercise of any job, trade or profession is free, observing the professional 

qualifications that the law establishes;

XIV - access to information is assured to everyone, protecting the confidentiality of sources 

when necessary for professional activity.

1

Article 220 further determines that the expression of thoughts, creation, speech, and information, 

through whatever form, process or vehicle, must not be subject to any restrictions, observing the 

provisions of the Constitution.2

 

 

1 CONSTITUIÇÃO FEDERAL [C.F.], art. 5, http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm, 

archived at https://perma.cc/RK8F-EPVZ. 

2 Id. art. 220. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Brazil 

The Law Library of Congress 10

II. Right to Interrupt Public Speech (e.g., by hecklers) 

No information on a general right of hecklers as a form of free speech was located. Specific rules 

against the interruption of parliamentary speech in the National Congress are discussed below. 

A. Common Rules of the National Congress 

The Common Rules of the National Congress (Regimento Comun do Congresso Nacional) 

determine that on the floor, only legislators, officials in service to the plenary, and, in their 

respective benches, representatives of the press accredited by the legislature will be admitted.3

During the joint sessions of the Congress, the galleries will be made available to the public. No 

manifestation of support or disapproval of what happens in the plenary or actions that can 

disturb the work is allowed.4

B. Internal Rules of the Federal Senate 

In public sessions, in addition to the senators, only alternate senators, federal deputies, former 

senators, including alternate senators who have exercised their mandate, and ministers of state 

when they appear for the purposes set forth in the Internal Rules of the Federal Senate, and Senate 

officials who are on duty will be admitted to the plenary.5 During public sessions, the bench 

designated for the press cannot hold people other than press professionals.6 

All persons are allowed to attend the public sessions, in the galleries, provided they are unarmed 

and keep silent, without giving any sign of applause or disapproval of what happens there.7

C. Internal Rules of the Chamber of Deputies 

Article 73 of the Internal Rules of the Chamber of Deputies determines, among other things, that 

for the maintenance of order, respect, and austerity of the sessions, the following rules must 

be observed: 

II - conversation that disturbs the reading of documents, calls for voting, communications 

from the bureau, speeches and debates will not be allowed; 

VI - no Deputy will be allowed to speak without asking the floor and without the President 

granting it, and only after this concession will the reporter begin the taking of the speech; 

 

3 REGIMENTO COMUM DO CONGRESSO NACIONAL, 3rd ed. (2017), art. 26, https://www2.camara.leg.br/ 

deputados/pesquisa/56a-legislatura/regimento_comum_3ed_rev.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/W5G5-

D7XV. 

4 Id. art. 146. 

5 REGIMENTO INTERNO DO SENADO FEDERAL (2019), art. 182, https://www25.senado.leg.br/ 

documents/12427/45868/RISF+2018+Volume+1.pdf/cd5769c8-46c5-4c8a-9af7-99be436b89c4, archived at

https://perma.cc/2S7F-MX3X. 

6 Id. art. 183.

7 Id. art. 184. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Brazil 

The Law Library of Congress 11

VII - if a Deputy intends to speak or remain in the podium against the internal rules, the 

President will warn him or her; if, despite this warning, the Member persists in speaking, 

the President must end his or her speech; 

IX - if a Deputy disturbs the order or the procedural progress of the session, the President 

may censure him or her orally or, according to the gravity, promote the application of the 

sanctions provided for in the Internal Rules; 

XIII - the speaker may not be interrupted, except with his or her special permission, and in 

the case of a relevant communication that the President has to make; 8

A Deputy may only speak in accordance with the express terms of article 74 of the Internal Rules.9

On the floor, during the sessions, only deputies and senators, former parliamentarians, staff of 

the Chamber and accredited journalists will be admitted.10 The public will be allowed access to 

the surrounding galleries to attend the sessions, without communicating with the plenary.11

Print, radio, and television outlets may obtain accreditation of their correspondents, including 

foreign correspondents, for the exercise of reportage concerning the Chamber of Deputies and its 

members.12 Only journalists and accredited press professionals will have access to the private 

premises of the Chamber of Deputies, other than the exceptions provided in the regulation.13

III. Availability of Mechanism to Control Foreign Broadcasters Working on Behalf of 

 Foreign Governments 

Article 220 (§ 1) of the Constitution determines that no law shall contain any provision that may 

constitute an impediment to full freedom of the press, in any medium of social communication, 

observing the provisions of art. 5 (§§ IV, V, X, XIII, and XIV).14 Brazilian courts have upheld 

freedom of the press as an essential tool for the effective functioning of democracy.15 No 

legislation or case law was found specifically addressing foreign broadcasters. 

 

8 REGIMENTO INTERNO DA CÂMARA DOS DEPUTADOS, Resolução No. 17, de 1989, art. 73, 

https://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/legislacao/regimento-interno-da-camara-dosdeputados/arquivos-1/RICD atualizado ate RCD 6-2019.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/BU7Z-N8KT. 

9 Id. art. 74. 

10 Id. art. 77. 

11 Id. art. 77, § 4. 

12 Id. art. 260. 

13 Id. art. 260, § 1. 

14 C.F. art. 220, § 1. 

15 See OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION OF THE INTER-AMERICAN 

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, NATIONAL CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 13 (2017), 

http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/docs/publications/JURISPRUDENCIA_ENG.pdf (citing 

cases upholding freedom of the press by Brazilian courts, including the Federal Supreme Court), archived 

at https://perma.cc/X9YN-VG2P. 
The Law Library of Congress 12 

Canada 

Tariq Ahmad 

Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes the right to 

freedom of expression, and the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted this right in 

a very broad fashion. However, section 1 of the Charter establishes that reasonable 

limits can be placed on the right if those limits are prescribed by law and can be 

demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 

Television broadcasting in Canada is governed by the Broadcasting Act and regulations 

made under the Act by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications 

Commission. Federal regulations prohibit television broadcasters from “broadcasting 

false or misleading news and abusive comments that are likely to expose persons to 

hatred based on listed grounds.” Subject to a public hearing under section 18 of the Act, 

the Commission has the power to suspend or revoke the license of a licensed 

broadcaster for contravention of or failure to comply with any condition of the license 

or mandatory orders, or any regulation made under the Act. 

I. Constitutional Protection of Free Speech 

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,1 which is part of Canada’s 

Constitution, stipulates that everyone is entitled to certain fundamental freedoms, including 

“freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,” which encompasses “freedom of the press 

and other media of communication.”2 

The purpose of the section has been outlined on a number of occasions by the Supreme Court 

of Canada: 

The protection of freedom of expression is premised upon fundamental principles and 

values that promote the search for and attainment of truth, participation in social and 

political decision-making and the opportunity for individual self-fulfillment through 

expression (Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 at 976; Ford 

v. Quebec, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712 at 765-766). The Supreme Court of Canada has maintained 

that the connection between freedom of expression and the political process is “perhaps 

the linchpin” of section 2(b) protection (R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; Thomson 

Newspapers Co. v. Canada (A.G.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; Harper v. Canada (Attorney 

General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827). Free expression is valued above all as being instrumental to 

democratic governance. The two other rationales for protecting freedom of expression — 

encouraging the search for truth through the open exchange of ideas, and fostering 

 

1 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1, https://laws-lois.justice. 

gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html, archived at https://perma.cc/TM58-2844. 

2 Id. § 2(b). 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 13 

individual self-actualization, thus directly engaging individual human dignity — are also 

key values that animate section 2(b) analysis.3

The Supreme Court has adopted the following three-part test for analyzing freedom of expression 

cases under section 2(b) of the Charter: 

1) Does the activity in question have expressive content, thereby bringing it within section 

2(b) protection?; 

2) Does the method or location of this expression remove that protection?; and 

3) If the expression is protected by section 2(b), does the government action in question 

infringe that protection, either in purpose or effect? (Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. 

Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 2 (“Canadian Broadcasting Corp.”); Montréal (City) 

v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141; Irwin Toy Ltd., supra.)4

II. Scope of Protection 

The Supreme Court has interpreted freedom of expression “in a very broad fashion.”5 According 

to Constitutional Law Professors Kent Roach and David Schneiderman, “[t]he Supreme Court’s 

purposive approach and “large and liberal” orientation to Charter guarantees ensured that all 

manner of expressive activities qualified for constitutional protection.”6 Therefore Canadian 

courts often found “a prima facie breach easily” due to its broad interpretative approach to section 

2(b).7 According to the Department of Justice’s Charterpedia, “[e]xpression protected by section 

2(b) has been defined as “any activity or communication that conveys or attempts to 

convey meaning.”8

A. Content Neutrality 

According to the Charterpedia, “[t]he courts have applied the principle of content neutrality in 

defining the scope of section 2(b), such that the content of expression, no matter how offensive, 

unpopular or disturbing, cannot deprive it of section 2(b) protection.”9 The Charter also protects 

 

3 Department of Justice, Charterpedia: Section 2(b) – Freedom of Expression, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csjsjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2b.html (last updated Apr. 10, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/BAZ8-FCYS. 

4 Id. 

5 Kent Roach & David Schneiderman, Freedom of Expression in Canada, 61 SUP. CT. L. REV. (2D) 429, 439 (2013), 

https://www.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/documents/Schneiderman/Chapter%2010%20Roach%20Schne

iderman.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/EA43-KZ5L. 

6 Id. at 433. 

7 Charterpedia: Section 2(b) – Freedom of Expression, supra note 3. 

8 Id. 

9 Id. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 14 

the “expression of both truths and falsehoods.”10 In R v. Zundel (1992),11 Canada’s Supreme Court 

held that section 181 of Canada’s Criminal Code, which prohibits the spreading of false news, is 

unconstitutional as it violates section 2(b) (freedom of expression) of the Canadian Charter of 

Rights and Freedoms.12 

B. Expression in the Form of Violence 

Expression that takes the form of violence does not qualify for section 2(b) protection.13 The 

Supreme Court has held that “whether or not physical violence is expressive, it will not be 

protected by section 2(b).”14 Though the Court did protect threats of violence as protected speech 

in a subsequent decision it found that such threats also falls outside the scope of section 

2(b) protection.15

C. Location 

Location can also play a part in the determination of whether protection is removed from an 

expression as the right does not extend on all places. For example, private property “will fall 

outside the protected sphere of section 2(b) absent state-imposed limits on expression, since state 

action is necessary to implicate the Charter”:16 

The application of section 2(b) is not automatic by the mere fact of government ownership 

of the place in question. There must be a further enquiry to determine if this is the type of 

public property which attracts section 2(b) protection In Montréal (City), the majority of the 

Supreme Court set out the current test for the application of section 2(b) to public 

property]). The onus of satisfying this test rests on the claimant(paragraph 73). The basic 

question with respect to expression on government-owned property is whether the place 

is a public place where one would expect constitutional protection for free expression on 

the basis that expression in that place does not conflict with the purposes which section 

2(b) is intended to serve, namely (1) democratic discourse, (2) truth finding and (3) selffulfillment. To answer this question, the following factors should be considered: 

i.The historical or actual function of the place; and 

ii.Whether other aspects of the place suggest that expression within it would undermine 

the values underlying free expression. (Montréal (City), paragraphs 73, 74). 

 

10 Id. 

11 R. v. Zundel [1992] 2 SCR 731, https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/904/index.do, archived at

https://perma.cc/7LJS-GCDA. 

12 R. v. Zundel: Case Analysis, GLOBAL FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, https://globalfreedom 

ofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/r-v-zundel/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/RY9QSWCW. 

13 Roach & Schneiderman, supra note 7, at 433. 

14 Charterpedia: Section 2(b) – Freedom of Expression, supra note 3. 

15 Roach & Schneiderman, supra note 7, at 434. 

16 Charterpedia: Section 2(b) – Freedom of Expression, supra note 3. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 15 

The Supreme Court has highlighted that the ultimate question is the second factor. 

In Canadian Broadcasting Corp, supra, the court added that analysis of the second factor 

should focus on the essential expressive activity as opposed to the “excesses” that would 

be incidental to this activity. In that particular case, the essential expressive activity, a 

journalist’s ability to gather news at a courthouse to inform the public about court 

proceedings, was held to engage section 2(b), despite the incidental excesses of this 

expression (“. . . crowds, pushing and shoving, and pursuing possible subjects in order to 

interview, film or photograph them . . . ”). 

Other relevant questions that that may guide the analysis of whether expression in a 

particular location is protected under 2(b) are: whether the space is one in which free 

expression has traditionally occurred; whether the space is in fact essentially private, 

despite being government-owned, or public; whether the function of the space is 

compatible with open public expression, or whether the activity is one that requires 

privacy and limited access; whether an open right to intrude and present one’s message 

by word or action would be consistent with what is done in the space, or whether it would 

hamper the activity. There is some flexibility in the analysis and allowing public expression 

in a particular government-property location does not commit the government to such 

use indefinitely.17

D. Limitations on Free Speech and Hate Speech Laws 

Fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, are subject to section 1, which allows 

“reasonable” limits to be placed on those rights:18 “[t]he Canadian Charter of Rights and 

Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits 

prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”19 This means 

that “once an infringement of a Charter right has been established, the courts must decide 

whether the violation by the government or other institution to which the Charter applies can be 

considered justified.”20

As part of the section 1 analysis, courts must determine whether the limit on the right is 

“prescribed by law,” “reasonable,” and “demonstrably justified” (applying the test the Supreme 

Court established in R. v. Oakes21), and the law must have a pressing and substantial objective.22

Section 1 considerations have been described as follows: 

The broad scope of section 2(b) means that in most cases the constitutionality of the 

legislation or the government action will depend on the section 1 analysis. Generally 

 

17 Charterpedia: Section 2(b) – Freedom of Expression, supra note 3 (citations in original omitted). 

18 JULIAN WALKER, LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT, LEGAL AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS DIVISION, HATE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF 

EXPRESSION: LEGAL BOUNDARIES IN CANADA 3 (June 29, 2018), https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/ 

default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201825E, archived at https://perma.cc/WW6J-6CWT. 

19 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1, § 1. 

20 Charterpedia: Section 2(b) – Freedom of Expression, supra note 3. 

21 R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/117/index.do, archived 

at https://perma.cc/33SB-8LYW. 

22 Department of Justice, Charterpedia: Section 1 – Reasonable Limits, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfcdlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art1.html (last updated Apr. 25, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/RL54-3T89. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 16 

speaking, because of the importance of the right to free expression, “any attempt to restrict 

the right must be subjected to the most careful scrutiny”. However, the “degree of 

constitutional protection may vary depending on the nature of the expression at issue . . . 

the low value of the expression may be more easily outweighed by the government 

objective”. For example, limits are easier to justify where the expressive activity only 

tenuously furthers section 2(b) values, such as in the case of hate speech, pornography or 

marketing of a harmful product. Limits on political speech will generally be the most 

difficult to justify. Restrictions will also be more difficult to justify where they capture 

expression that furthers artistic, scientific, educational or other useful social purposes 

(Butler, supra). Whether the limit minimally impairs the right to freedom of expression is 

often the deciding factor in section 2(b) cases. A total prohibition on a form of expression 

will be more difficult to justify than a partial prohibition. A restriction on expression 

backed by a civil penalty rather than a criminal sanction such as imprisonment will be 

considered a less impairing alternative. Where the limit on freedom of expression is 

minimal, the court may, in certain circumstances like elections advertising, accept section 

1 justifications for this limit based on logic and reason without supporting social 

science evidence.23

Canada’s Criminal Code24 specifies three distinct hatred-related offenses: section 318 (advocating 

genocide), section 319(1) (publicly inciting hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace), and 

section 319(2) (willfully promoting hatred). In the landmark decision R v. Keegstra,25 the Supreme 

Court decided that section 319(1) was a breach of section 2(b) but held in a section 1 analysis that 

the infringement was justified as “a reasonable limit prescribed by law in a free and democratic 

society” and furthered “an immensely important objective and directed at expression distant from 

the core of free expression values.”26

In addition, provincial human rights laws “further keep a tight grip on hate speech activity 

through its broad targeting of fundamentally discriminatory behaviors.”27

III. Interrupting Public Speech

Heckling that involves actual threats or hate speech might violate Canada’s Criminal Code, 

including the Code’s hate-crime provisions. If the speech is in a public space and the heckling 

involves “screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language” it 

 

23 Charterpedia: Section 2(b) – Freedom of Expression, supra note 3 (citations in original omitted). 

24 Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/, archived at

https://perma.cc/W5ME-NH39. 

25 R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697, https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/695/index.do, archived 

at https://perma.cc/NLB5-8MT8. 

26 Id. 

27 Pyeng Hwa Kang, Constitutional Treatment of Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression: A Canada – U.S. Perspective, 

LA REVUE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME [EN LIGNE] 14 | 2018, mis en ligne le 14 juin 2018, consulté le 13 juin 2019, 

http://journals.openedition.org/revdh/4109, archived at https://perma.cc/3QF6-SET2. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 17 

might constitute a violation of section 175(1) (“Causing disturbance”) Municipal bylaws or city 

regulations may also come into play depending on the situation.28 

Whether heckling would be protected under section 2(b) would depend on the factual 

circumstances under the section 2(b) and 1 analyses above. The Supreme Court of Canada is 

currently considering a case on appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario29 that will partly 

look at the discretionary common law police power to arrest to prevent a breach of peace during 

a political demonstration where an individual was preventatively arrested even though the 

individual was not committing or even suspected of committing a crime. The Court is expected 

to look at whether such arrest would breach section 2(b) of the Charter.30 

IV. Restriction on Foreign Government Broadcasters 

Television broadcasting in Canada is governed by the Broadcasting Act31 (S.C. 1991, c. 11) and 

regulations made under the Act by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications 

Commission (CRTC). Federal regulations prohibit television broadcasters from “broadcasting 

false or misleading news and abusive comments that are likely to expose persons to hatred based 

on listed grounds.”32

Federal broadcasting regulations that deal with false or misleading news include 

 section 8(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations; [and] 

 section 5(1)(d) of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987[.] 

Subject to a public hearing under section 18 of the Act, the Commission has the power to suspend 

or revoke the license33 of a broadcaster where the licensee has contravened or failed to comply 

with any condition of the license or mandatory orders, or any regulation made under the Act. 

 

 

28 Legal No Man’s Land: The Law Ill-equipped to Deal with FHRITP Hecklers, NATIONAL POST (May 15, 2015), 

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/legal-no-mans-land-the-law-ill-equipped-to-deal-with-fhritphecklers, archived at https://perma.cc/HT86-FRCU. 

29 Fleming v. Ontario, 2018 ONCA 160, http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2018/2018ONCA0160.pdf, 

archived at https://perma.cc/5FXT-BVLE. 

30 Steph Brown, Breach of the Peace: ONCA Addresses Police Power to Arrest in Fleming v Ontario, THECOURT.CA

(Mar. 1, 2019), http://www.thecourt.ca/fleming-v-ontario/, archived at https://perma.cc/RX86-FEQY; Freedom 

of Expression: Fleming v. Ontario, CANADIAN CONSTITUTION FOUNDATION (Feb. 15, 2019), https://theccf.ca/ 

freedom-of-expression-fleming-v-ontario/, archived at https://perma.cc/FW2J-C2WV. 

31 Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/b-9.01/. 

32 Questions and Answers – An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Removing Unconstitutional Portions or Provisions), 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/cuol-mgnl/qa-qr.html (last updated Mar. 

9, 2017), archived at https://perma.cc/7D69-Z62H. 

33 Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, § 9(1)(e). 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 18 

According to a report by Politifact, 

[a]ny network that wants to broadcast in Canada must get approved by the Canadian 

Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. And Canadians who take issue 

with the truthfulness of their programming can file complaints to the commission. If a 

network amasses enough complaints and is found to have knowingly and deliberately 

broadcasted false news, its license can be limited or revoked. But that has never happened 

before, commission spokesperson Eric Rancourt said “Based on the history of these kind 

of complaints, it would have be very, very egregious for the commission (to revoke or deny 

a license). That’s all speculative, since it hasn’t happened before,” Rancourt said. The 

commission has only taken serious action a couple of times in its history, and not against 

Fox News, but Al Jazeera, according to commission regulator Sheehan Carter. The 

commission approved the Arabic-language news channel in 2004, with the condition that 

distributors must edit out abusive content. The condition doesn’t apply to Al 

Jazeera English.34

According to news reports CRTC says “it is not reviewing the presence on Canadian TVs of RT,” 

a channel that has been “labelled a propaganda tool of the Russian government by US intelligence 

agencies and accused of spreading disinformation by French president Emmanuel Macron.”35

Eric Rancourt, a spokesperson for the CRTC, reportedly said 

RT “is not currently under review, nor has it ever been under review.” Asked whether its 

use as a propaganda tool as outlined in the US intelligence report would contravene the 

conditions for its distribution in Canada, he said the CRTC “cannot speculate on what 

might happen in the future,” noting that the agency makes decisions “based on the 

public record.”36

More recently, partly in an effort to counter foreign influence in Canada’s federal general 

elections, the government passed the Elections Modernization Act,37 which amended the Canada 

Elections Act38 to include a prohibition on the use of broadcasting stations outside Canada to 

influence elections: 

 

 

34 Linda Qiu, Is Fox News Banned in Canada?, POLITIFACT (July 14, 2014), https://www.politifact.com/ 

punditfact/statements/2014/jul/14/facebook-posts/fox-news-banned-canada/, archived at

https://perma.cc/2PLD-737D (click “See the Screenshot View”). 

35 Murad Hemmadi, Russia’s ‘Propaganda Outlet’ Will Remain on Canadian TV, MACLEAN’S (Sept. 19, 2017), 

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/russias-propaganda-outlet-will-remain-on-canadian-tv/,

https://perma.cc/8YKX-VNXA. 

36 Id. 

37 News Release, Government of Canada, Government of Canada Passes Elections Modernization Act (Dec. 14, 

2018), https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/news/2018/12/government-of-canada-passeselections-modernization-act.html, archived at https://perma.cc/7RZE-CSXE. 

38 Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-2.01/FullText.html, archived 

at https://perma.cc/5J92-5QSH. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Canada 

The Law Library of Congress 19 

Broadcasting outside Canada 

Prohibition — use of broadcasting station outside Canada 

330 (1) No person shall, with intent to influence persons to vote or refrain from voting, or 

to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate or registered party, at an election, 

use a broadcasting station outside Canada, or aid, abet, counsel or procure the use of a 

broadcasting station outside Canada, during an election period, for the broadcasting of 

any matter having reference to an election. 

Exception 

(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any matter that is broadcast if the 

broadcasting signals originated in Canada. 

Prohibition — broadcasting outside Canada 

(2) During an election period, no person shall broadcast, outside Canada, election 

advertising with respect to an election.39

 

39 Elections Modernization Act, S.C. 2018, c. 31, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/ 

2018_31/page-1.html, archived at https://perma.cc/G33K-BGFY. 
The Law Library of Congress 20 

China 

Laney Zhang 

Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY Although the Chinese Constitution declares that citizens enjoy freedom of speech and 

freedom of the press, these freedoms are tightly restricted by specific laws and 

regulations. Typically, the laws and regulations governing cyberspace, the press, and 

the media contain a list of prohibited content, which includes but is not limited to 

matters concerning national security, terrorism, ethnic hatred, violence, and obscenity. 

 Foreign media organizations and their journalists must be approved by and register 

with the Chinese foreign affairs authority and obtain relevant certificates. Compared 

with journalists working for China’s state-controlled media, foreign journalists appear 

to have less opportunities to be called on and raise questions at press conferences of the 

National People’s Congress meetings. 

I. Introduction 

The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (PRC or China) declares that citizens enjoy 

freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In practice, however, these freedoms are not 

institutionally protected. Public speeches of wide impact on forbidden subjects could result in 

punishment, including criminal sentences.1 

According to the Freedom House’s 2019 Freedom in the World report, China has become “home to 

one of the world’s most restrictive media environments and its most sophisticated system of 

censorship, particularly online.” The Freedom House report observes that the government’s 

ability to monitor online and offline communications “has increased dramatically in 

recent years.”2

II. Limits on Freedom of Speech 

A. Constitution 

Article 35 of the PRC Constitution provides that “[c]itizens of the People’s Republic of China 

enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of 

demonstration.”3 Meanwhile, article 51 states that citizens, “in exercising their freedoms and 

 

1 QIANFAN ZHANG, THE CONSTITUTION OF CHINA: A CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS 225 (2012). 

2 FREEDOM HOUSE, FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2019: CHINA COUNTRY REPORT, https://freedomhouse.org/ 

report/freedom-world/2019/china, archived at https://perma.cc/GXC4-6NT6. 

3 XIANFA (Dec. 4, 1982, last revised Mar. 11, 2018) art. 35, http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/2018-

03/22/content_2052489.htm (in Chinese), archived at https://perma.cc/QF3J-FVU8, English translation of 2004 

version available at http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Constitution/node_2825.htm, archived at

https://perma.cc/S24S-9GVT. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: China 

The Law Library of Congress 21 

rights, may not infringe upon the interests of the State, of society or of the collective, or upon the 

lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.”4

B. Laws 

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are tightly restricted by specific laws and 

regulations.5 Typically, laws and regulations governing cyberspace, the press, and the media 

contain a list of prohibited content and penalties for violations. Such prohibited content includes 

but is not limited to matters concerning national security, terrorism, ethnic hatred, violence, 

and obscenity. 

1. Cybersecurity Law 

The PRC Cybersecurity Law, which took effect on June 1, 2017, provides that the state protects 

the rights of citizens, legal persons, and other organizations to use networks “in accordance with 

the law,” and prescribes a series of prohibited activities when using networks.6 Paragraph 2 of 

article 12 of the Law states as follows: 

Any person and organization using networks shall abide by the Constitution and laws, 

observe public order, and respect social morality; they must not endanger cybersecurity, 

and must not use the Internet to engage in activities endangering national security, 

national honor, and national interests; they must not incite subversion of national 

sovereignty, overturn the socialist system, incite separatism, break national unity, 

advocate terrorism or extremism, advocate ethnic hatred and ethnic discrimination, 

disseminate violent, obscene, or sexual information, create or disseminate false 

information to disrupt the economic or social order, or information that infringes on the 

reputation, privacy, intellectual property or other lawful rights and interests of others, and 

other such acts.7

Article 70 of the Law further provides that the publication or transmission of any information 

specified under paragraph 2 of article 12 of this Law or other laws or administrative regulations 

is subject to penalties prescribed by relevant laws and regulations.8

 

4 Id. art. 51. 

5 ZHANG, supra note 1. 

6 PRC Cybersecurity Law (adopted by the NPC Standing Committee on Nov. 7, 2016, effective June 1, 2017) art. 

12, http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/ xinwen/2016-11/07/content_2001605.htm (in Chinese), archived at

https://perma.cc/3HAP-D6MZ, English translation available at https://www.newamerica.org/cybersecurityinitiative/digichina/blog/translation-cybersecurity-law-peoples-republic-china/, archived at

https://www.newamerica.org/cybersecurity-initiative/digichina/blog/translation-cybersecurity-lawpeoples-republic-china/. 

7 Id.

8 Id. art. 70. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: China 

The Law Library of Congress 22 

2. Regulation on the Administration of Publishing 

Publishing activities in China are governed by the Regulation on the Administration of 

Publishing, which was first promulgated by the State Council in 2001 and most recently amended 

in 2016.9 According to article 25 of the Regulation, no publication may contain content on any of 

the following matters: 

(1) Those opposing the basic principles established in the Constitution; 

(2) Those endangering the unification, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State; 

(3) Those which divulge secrets of the State, endanger national security or damage the 

honor or benefits of the State; 

(4) Those which incite the national hatred or discrimination, undermine the solidarity of 

the nations, or infringe upon national customs and habits; 

(5) Those which propagate evil cults or superstition; 

(6) Those which disturb the public order or destroy the public stability; 

(7) Those which propagate obscenity, gambling, violence or instigate crimes; 

(8) Those which insult or slander others, or infringe upon the lawful rights or interests 

of others; 

(9) Those which endanger public ethics or the fine national cultural traditions; 

(10) Other contents prohibited by laws, administrative regulations or provisions of 

the State.10

Persons publishing or importing publications containing such content may be criminally 

prosecuted or subject to administrative penalties, according to article 62 of the Regulation.11

3. Regulation on Radio and Television Administration 

Similarly, the Regulation on Radio and Television Administration, which was first promulgated 

by the State Council in 1997 and has not been majorly revised since then, prohibits radio and 

television stations from producing or broadcasting programs containing the following content: 

(1) that which endangers the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country; 

(2) that which endangers state security, honour and interests; 

(3) that which instigates nationality separation or disrupts nationality solidarity; 

(4) that which divulges state secrets; 

 

9 Regulation on the Administration of Publishing (promulgated by the State Council on Dec. 25, 2001, revised 

Mar. 19, 2011, last amended Feb. 6, 2016), http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2016/content_ 5139389.htm, 

archived at https://perma.cc/P9HD-FGHH, English translation of 2006 version available at https://www.cecc. 

gov/resources/legal-provisions/regulation-on-the-administration-of-publishing-chinese-and-english-text, 

archived at https://perma.cc/EN8P-6AH7. 

10 Id. art. 25. 

11 Id. art. 62. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: China 

The Law Library of Congress 23 

(5) that which slanders or insults others; 

(6) that which propagates obscenity, superstition or plays up violence; and 

(7) other contents prohibited under provisions of laws and regulations.12

Those who produce, broadcast, or provide to overseas users programs containing such content 

may be criminally prosecuted or subject to administrative penalties, according to article 49 of 

the Regulation.13 

III. Mechanism to Control Foreign Broadcasters Working on Behalf of 

Foreign Governments 

The reporting activities of foreign media organizations and foreign journalists in China are 

governed by the Regulation on Reporting Activities of Permanent Offices of Foreign Media 

Organizations and Foreign Journalists, which was issued by the State Council in 2008.14 Under 

the Regulation, foreign media organizations must seek approval from China’s Ministry of Foreign 

Affairs and submit required documents in order to establish offices in China and send resident 

journalists.15 After being approved, such foreign media offices and resident journalists must 

register with the Chinese foreign affairs authority and obtain relevant certificates. 16 The 

Regulation does not appear to differentiate broadcasters working on behalf of foreign 

governments from other foreign media and journalists. 

Foreign journalists also need “foreign journalist cards” in order to report China’s “Two 

Sessions”—the meetings of the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political 

Consultative Conference. 17 Compared with journalists working for China’s state-controlled 

media, foreign journalists appear to have less opportunities to be called on at the press 

conferences of the Two Sessions.18

 

12 Regulation on Radio and Television Administration (promulgated by the State Council on Aug. 1, 1997, 

effective Sept. 1, 1997) art. 32, http://www.gov.cn/banshi/2005-08/21/content_25111.htm (in Chinese), 

archived at https://perma.cc/AS2J-LES6, English translation available at http://www.asianlii.org/ 

cn/legis/cen/laws/robata546/, archived at https://perma.cc/3F8C-GXG4. 

13 Id. art. 49. 

14 Regulations on Reporting Activities of Permanent Offices of Foreign Media Organizations and Foreign 

Journalists (promulgated by the State Council on Oct. 17, 2008, effective on the same day), 

http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2008-10/17/content_1124261.htm, archived at https://perma.cc/JC5E-R3YL, 

English translation available at https://www.cecc.gov/resources/legal-provisions/regulations-of-thepeople%E2%80%99s-republic-of-china-concerning-reporting, archived at https://perma.cc/Z7AJ-6586. 

15 Id. arts. 6, 7 & 9. 

16 Id. arts 8 & 10. 

17 Ministry of Foreign Affairs International Press Center, 关于领取 2019 年全国两会外国记者证、外国驻华使馆

新闻官旁听证和车证的通知 (Feb. 28, 2019), http://ipc.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/gdxw/t1641680.htm, archived at

https://perma.cc/V2JF-ZYS6. 

18 Rose Yu & Olivia Geng, Will the Real Foreign Reporter Please Stand Up?, WALL ST. J. (Mar. 11, 2014), 

https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/03/11/will-the-real-foreign-reporter-please-stand-up/, archived at

https://perma.cc/6X6Q-STZP. 
The Law Library of Congress 24 

France 

Nicolas Boring 

Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY Freedom of speech is considered an “essential freedom” in France. It is protected by 

the 1789 Declaration of Human and Civic Rights, which is incorporated by reference 

into the French Constitution. It is also protected by the European Convention on 

Human Rights, to which France is a party. Yet, while French law considers free speech 

to be an essential component of a democratic society, it is not seen as absolute. French 

legislators, and French courts, seek to balance freedom of speech with other 

imperatives, such as other freedoms and rights, and public order. Thus, freedom of 

expression may be limited for the sake of protecting privacy, protecting the 

presumption of innocence, and preventing defamation and insults. Freedom of 

expression may also be limited for the sake of protecting public order. It is therefore 

illegal to incite others to commit a crime, even when no crime ends up being actually 

committed. French law also prohibits hate speech, and speech denying or justifying the 

Holocaust and other crimes against humanity. Additionally, French law prohibits 

defamation against government institutions and office-holders, as well as disrespecting 

the national anthem and flag in the context of public events organized or regulated by 

public authorities. 

 Television and radio broadcasting used to be state monopolies, but were liberalized in 

the 1980s. Freedom of broadcasting is the main legal principle for television and radio. 

Nevertheless, broadcasters must abide by laws that protect and promote human 

dignity, freedom, the property of others, pluralism of views and opinions, children and 

adolescents, public order, and national defense. Furthermore, broadcasters that rely on 

radio waves must be authorized by the Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA) 

(Superior Council on Audiovisual) to use specific bandwidths. The CSA attributes 

bandwidths on the basis of technical criteria and also with the goal of promoting the 

public interest and pluralism. Additionally, the CSA monitors broadcasts to ensure 

respect for French laws. The CSA does not censure broadcasts beforehand, but may 

sanction broadcasters engaging in illegal speech after the fact. First offenses lead to an 

order to cease and desist, but subsequent offenses may lead to fines and even the 

suspension or withdrawal of broadcasting authorizations. Recent legislation also 

allows the CSA to withdraw the broadcasting authorization of an operator controlled 

by a foreign state if it broadcasts content that harms a fundamental national interest of 

France. This legislation specifically mentions the dissemination of false information to 

interfere with the proper functioning of institutions as an example of a broadcast 

harmful to a fundamental national interest. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: France

The Law Library of Congress 25 

I. Freedom of Speech 

A. An Essential Freedom 

Freedom of expression is considered an “essential freedom” in France.1 It is protected by the 

French Constitution, which incorporates the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789.2 

Articles 10 and 11 of the Declaration protect freedoms of opinion and expression, describing the 

“free communication of ideas and of opinions” as “one of the most precious rights of man.”3 

Similarly, the European Convention on Human Rights, by which France is bound, provides that 

“[e]veryone has the right to freedom of expression,” including “freedom to hold opinions and to 

receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless 

of frontiers.”4 

Consequently, courts have repeatedly recognized freedom of speech as a foundational right. The 

Constitutional Council, which judges the constitutionality of French legislation, considers that 

“the freedom of expression and of communication is that much more precious because its exercise 

is a condition of democracy and among the guarantees that other rights and freedoms will be 

respected.”5 Consequently, the right to free speech should apply broadly. The European Court 

of Human Rights declared that freedom of speech “is applicable not only to ‘information’ or 

‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but 

also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.”6

B. Freedom of Speech Is Not Absolute 

Despite its foundational importance, freedom of speech was never intended to be absolute. In 

contrast to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the 1789 Declaration of Human 

and Civic Rights provided limits to freedom of expression in its very definition. Article 10 

declares that “[n]o one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long 

 

1 XAVIER DUPRÉ DE BOULOIS, DROIT DES LIBERTÉS FONDAMENTALES [LAW OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS] 360 (2018). 

2 CONSTITUTION DU 4 OCTOBRE 1958 [CONSTITUTION OF 4 OCTOBER 1958] (2009), Preamble, https://www.legi 

france.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071194, archived at https://perma.cc/95S6-F4KX, 

English translation available at https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/en/constitution-of-4-october-1958, 

archived at https://perma.cc/MPL8-K9PA. 

3 DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DE L’HOMME ET DU CITOYEN DE 1789 [DECLARATION OF HUMAN AND CIVIC RIGHTS OF 

1789], art. 11, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/Droit-francais/Constitution/Declaration-des-Droits-de-lHomme-et-du-Citoyen-de-1789, archived at https://perma.cc/G3K5-CBGQ, English translation available at

https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/anglais/cst2.pdf, archived at

https://perma.cc/K6FB-WUUQ. 

4 European Convention on Human Rights art. 10, Nov. 4, 1950, https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/ 

Convention_ENG.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/BFR2-WU6M. 

5 Conseil constitutionnel [Constitutional Council], 10 June 2009, Décision n° 2009-580 DC, 

https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2009/2009580DC.htm, archived at https://perma.cc/7D2KSK5T. 

6 Case of Handyside v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72 (Eur. Ct. H.R., Dec. 7, 1976), http://hudoc.echr. 

coe.int/eng?i=001-57499, archived at https://perma.cc/4UPF-94RF. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: France

The Law Library of Congress 26 

as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order.”7 

Article 11 provides that “[a]ny citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, except what 

is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by Law.”8 Similarly, the 

European Convention on Human Rights declares that 

[t]he exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be 

subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law 

and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial 

integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of 

health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the 

disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and 

impartiality of the judiciary.9

Thus, French law seeks to balance freedom of speech with other imperatives, as shown by 

extensive jurisprudence on this topic. The Cour de cassation, France’s highest court for civil and 

criminal matters, established the general principle that “restrictions to freedom of expression 

should be interpreted narrowly.”10 They must also be proportional to the expected harm, as 

shown by a 1933 decision by the Council of State, which is the highest French jurisdiction for 

matters of administrative law. In that case, the mayor of the City of Nevers prohibited the 

plaintiff from holding a public meeting, in response to protests from teachers’ unions (the plaintiff 

had a history of mocking teachers in his speeches).11 The Council of State struck down the 

mayor’s order prohibiting the meeting on the grounds that it was disproportional to the risk of 

public disorder that the meeting presented.12 While this decision was, strictly speaking, a 

freedom of assembly case, its principle of proportionality applies to freedom of expression as 

well. For example, it was cited in a 2014 decision in which the Council of State upheld the 

prohibition of a public performance by controversial comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, 

because it was justified by the high risk that he would disturb public order by engaging in illegal 

hate speech.13

 

7 DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DE L'HOMME ET DU CITOYEN DE 1789 art. 10. 

8 Id. art. 11. 

9 Id. 

10 Cour de Cassation, Crim., Feb. 14, 2006, No. 05-81932, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuri 

Judi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000007069481, archived at https://perma.cc/NJE9-HEEK. 

11 Conseil d’Etat [Council of State], Conseil d'État, 19 mai 1933, Benjamin [Council of State, 19 May 1933, Benjamin], 

Contrôle des atteintes portées par le pouvoir de police à la liberté de réunion [Controls on Violations of Freedom of 

Assembly by Police Powers] (May 19, 2017), https://www.conseil-etat.fr/ressources/decisionscontentieuses/les-grandes-decisions-du-conseil-d-etat/conseil-d-etat-19-mai-1933-benjamin, archived at

https://perma.cc/AE3H-V7SX. 

12 Conseil d’Etat, 19 May 1933, No. 17413, 17520, Arrêt Benjamin [Benjamin Decision], https://www.legifrance. 

gouv.fr/affichJuriAdmin.do?idTexte=CETATEXT000007636694, archived at https://perma.cc/8MYJ-2FWJ. 

13 Conseil d’Etat9 Jan. 2014, No. 374508, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriAdmin.do?id 

Texte=CETATEXT000028460200, archived at https://perma.cc/G7JK-L55C. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: France

The Law Library of Congress 27 

The balance that French courts seek between freedom of expression and other imperatives is very 

fact-dependent. Nonetheless, it appears that proper limits on speech can be separated into two 

broad categories: limits related to the rights of others, and limits related to public order.14 

II. Limits Related to the Rights of Others 

The 1789 Declaration of Human and Civic Rights defines freedom in general as “being able to do 

anything that does not harm others.”15 Consistent with that definition, freedom of speech in 

France is limited by the right to privacy, the presumption of innocence, the right to “human 

dignity,” and by rules prohibiting defamation and insult.16 

The right to privacy is protected by the Penal Code,17 the Civil Code,18 and the European 

Convention on Human Rights.19 Additionally, the Civil Code aims to protect the presumption of 

innocence of criminal defendants by prohibiting the media from presenting a person who has not 

yet been convicted of a crime as being guilty of that crime.20

Furthermore, the Law of 29 July 1881 on Freedom of the Press, which is still in force (although it 

has been amended numerous times since its original adoption), prohibits defamation and insults, 

both written and verbal. The Law of 29 July 1881 defines “defamation” as “any allegation or 

imputation of a fact which harms the honor or consideration of the person or group to which the 

fact is imputed.”21 The same provision defines “insult” as “any offensive expression, term of 

contempt, or invective which does not contain the imputation of any fact.”22 The legislators have 

tried to find a balance between freedom of speech and the prohibitions against defamation and 

insult. Thus, speech may not be considered defamation if it can be shown to have been expressed 

in good faith, or if it is true—although the “exception of truth” is itself limited by the right to 

 

14 Patrick Wachsmann, La liberté d’expression [Freedom of Expression], in LIBERTÉS ET DROITS FONDAMENTAUX 

[FREEDOMS AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS] 496, 506 (Rémy Cabrillac ed., 2013), bibliographical information at

https://lccn.loc.gov/2013479325. 

15 DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DE L'HOMME ET DU CITOYEN DE 1789 art. 4. 

16 Wachsmann, supra note 14, at 497; DUPRÉ DE BOULOIS, supra note 1, at 363-66. 

17 CODE PÉNAL [C. PÉNAL] [PENAL CODE] arts. 226-1 to 226-2-1, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode. 

do;jsessionid=C50ABCA9B7BF412A2B73E353FBED9BE2.tplgfr23s_3?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006165309&ci

dTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&dateTexte=20190607, archived at https://perma.cc/Q597-7BYC. 

18 CODE CIVIL [C. CIV.] [CIVIL CODE] art. 9, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid= 

C50ABCA9B7BF412A2B73E353FBED9BE2.tplgfr23s_3?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006117610&cidTexte=LEGI

TEXT000006070721&dateTexte=20190607, archived at https://perma.cc/G9KA-Q99G. 

19 European Convention on Human Rights, supra note 4, art. 8. 

20 C. CIV. art. 9-1. 

21 Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse [Law of 29 July 1881 on Freedom of the Press] art. 29, 

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070722, archived at 

https://perma.cc/SG4X-A4LJ. 

22 Id.
Limits on Freedom of Expression: France

The Law Library of Congress 28 

privacy, meaning that a true statement may still be considered defaming if it concerns a person’s 

private life.23

III. Limits Related to Public Order 

A. Prohibitions on Inciting Criminal Acts 

Speech may be limited to protect the community in general. Thus, speech that incites the 

commission of a criminal offense can be prosecuted as complicity in that offense.24 Incitation of 

homicide, physical or sexual assault, theft, extortion, destruction of property, and other 

intentional degradations that put others in danger is punishable by up to five years in prison and 

a fine of €45,000 (approximately US$50,500) even if the crime in question was never actually 

committed.25 The same punishment applies to inciting criminal offenses against a fundamental 

national interest, and defending or justifying slavery, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.26 

Inciting or justifying acts of terrorism is punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of 

€75,000 (approximately US$84,160).27 These sanctions are increased to seven years in prison and 

a fine of €100,000 (approximately US$112,200) if the incitation or justification was done via a 

public online service.28

B. Prohibitions on Hate Speech and Denial of Crimes against Humanity 

Similarly, French law prohibits “hate speech,” defined as “inciting discrimination, hatred or 

violence against a person or group of persons because of their origins or because they belong or 

do not belong to a certain ethnicity, nation, race or religion,” as well as “inciting hatred or violence 

against a person or group of persons because of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or 

disability.”29 Hate speech is punishable by up to a year in prison and a fine of €45,000, as is the 

denial or minimization of recognized crimes against humanity, in particular the Holocaust.30 In 

the case of these prohibitions against hate speech and denial of crimes against humanity, freedom 

of speech is limited for the sake of protecting human dignity.31 

 

23 Wachsmann, supra note 14, at 498-49. 

24 Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse art. 23. 

25 Id. art. 24. 

26 Id.

27 C. PÉNAL art. 421-2-5, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI00002 

9755573&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719, archived at https://perma.cc/GS3X-3ECE. 

28 Id. 

29 Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse art. 24. 

30 Id. arts. 24, 24 bis. 

31 DUPRÉ DE BOULOIS, supra note 1, at 363-65. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: France

The Law Library of Congress 29 

C. Limits on Speech against Institutions and Officeholders 

Speech may also be limited to protect, to a certain extent, the country’s institutions. The Law of 

29 July 1881 provides that “defamation . . . against the courts, the tribunals, the army, navy or air 

force, the state bodies and public administrations, shall be punished by a fine of 45,000 Euros).”32 

The same sanction applies to defamation against government officials in their official capacity, 

from the President and members of Parliament all the way to local officials.33 Jurors and 

witnesses at trials are also protected by the same provision.34 The Law of 29 July 1881 explicitly 

exempts good-faith reporting of parliamentary or judicial proceedings from prosecution for 

defamation.35 Furthermore, the Cour de cassation has declared that criticism of the manner in 

which institutions function is a valid exercise of freedom of expression.36 Nevertheless, 

defamation prosecutions do occur, and are often difficult to defend against.37 

Another limit to free speech that is worth noting is that disrespecting the French national anthem 

or the French flag, in the context of an event organized or regulated by public authorities (such 

as a commemorative ceremony or certain sports events), is punishable by a fine of up to €7,500 

(approximately US$8,400).38 The same act is punishable by a fine of €7,500 and up to six months 

in jail if it is committed by a group of people.39

IV. Regulation of Radio and Television Broadcasting 

A. General Overview 

Radio and television broadcasting were a state monopoly from 1945 to 1981.40 Private radio 

stations were allowed in 1981, and a 1982 law established the principle of broadcasting freedom 

for radio and television.41 This 1982 law was repealed in 1986 to be replaced by the Law of 30 

September 1986 Regarding Freedom of Communication, often referred to as the Loi Léotard (after 

 

32 Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse art. 30. 

33 Id. art. 31. 

34 Id. 

35 Id. art. 41. 

36 Cour de cassation, Crim. Mar. 23, 1978, No. 77-90339, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi. 

do?idTexte=JURITEXT000007060809, archived at https://perma.cc/ZF2K-FRDG. 

37 Wachsmann, supra note 14, at 497-501. 

38 C. PÉNAL art. 433-5-1, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid=4757158D1318F5 

52A0FDF5F30DFC62D6.tplgfr38s_2?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006165369&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719

&dateTexte=20190618, archived at https://perma.cc/U386-WVT2. 

39 Id.

40 Wachsmann, supra note 14, at 492-93. 

41 Id.; Loi n°82-652 du 29 juillet 1982 sur la communication audiovisuelle [Law No. 82-652 of 29 July 1982 on 

Audiovisual Communication] art. 1, 

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jo_pdf.do?id=JORFTEXT000000880222&pageCourante=02431, archived at

https://perma.cc/9BBV-DD9E. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: France

The Law Library of Congress 30 

the name of the law’s main sponsor, Minister of Culture and Communication François Léotard).42 

The Loi Léotard, which was amended several times but remains one of the principal texts 

governing broadcasting in France, retained the general principal of freedom of audiovisual 

broadcasting.43 In its current wording, the Loi Léotard governs “communication to the public via 

electronic means,” which it defines as “broadcasts, transmission or reception of signs, signals, 

written words, images, or sounds, by electromagnetic means,” that do not have the nature of 

private correspondence.44 Freedom of broadcasting 

may not be limited except to the extent necessary . . . to protect human dignity, freedom, 

the property of others, and the pluralistic character of the expression of trends of thought 

and opinions, . . . the protection of children and adolescents, the preservation of public 

order, the necessities of national defense, public service requirements, technical constraints 

inherent to the means of communication, as well as the necessity for audiovisual services 

to develop audiovisual production.45

B. Enforcement 

The main regulatory agency for radio and television broadcasting is the Conseil supérieur de 

l’audiovisuel (CSA) (Superior Council on Audiovisual), an independent agency that was created 

in a 1989 amendment to the Loi Léotard.46

One of the CSA’s missions is to manage the attribution of radio frequencies.47 The criteria by 

which the CSA accepts or denies the applications of private broadcasters include, in addition to 

technical considerations, the promotion of “the public interest and the respect of pluralism.”48 

Broadcasters who do not rely on radio waves, such as cable television, are not subject to 

authorization.49 However, the CSA is also tasked with monitoring broadcasters to ensure that 

they respect French law.50 The CSA does not practice censorship prior to broadcasting, but may 

 

42 Loi n° 86-1067 du 30 septembre 1986 relative à la liberté de communication (Loi Léotard) [Law No. 86-1067 of 

30 September 1986 Regarding Freedom of Communication (Léotard Law)] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ 

affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000512205&dateTexte=20190617, archived at https://perma.cc/67FRKBF6. 

43 Id. art. 1. 

44 Id. art. 2. 

45 Id. art. 1. 

46 Id. art. 3-1; Qu’est-ce que le CSA? [What Is the CSA ?], CONSEIL SUPÉRIEUR DE L’AUDIOVISUEL [SUPERIOR COUNCIL 

ON AUDIOVISUAL], https://www.csa.fr/Informer/Qu-est-ce-que-le-CSA (last visited June 17, 2019), archived at

https://perma.cc/3WZW-FM8N. 

47 Les missions de la régulation audiovisuelle [Missions of Audiovisual Regulation], CONSEIL SUPÉRIEUR DE 

L’AUDIOVISUEL [SUPERIOR COUNCIL ON AUDIOVISUAL], https://www.csa.fr/Informer/Qu-est-ce-que-leCSA/Les-missions-de-la-regulation-aubodiovisuelle (last visited June 17, 2019), archived at

https://perma.cc/TK3N-Y5R8. 

48 Id.

49 Id. 

50 Loi n° 86-1067 du 30 septembre 1986, art. 3-1; La déontologie des programmes [Ethics of Programming], CONSEIL 

SUPÉRIEUR DE L’AUDIOVISUEL [SUPERIOR COUNCIL ON AUDIOVISUAL], https://www.csa.fr/Proteger/Garantie-des-
Limits on Freedom of Expression: France

The Law Library of Congress 31 

apply sanctions after broadcasting if a program violates French law.51 Applicable sanctions range 

from an order to cease and desist, to a fine of up to 3% of the broadcaster’s revenue over the 

previous year, or 5% of the broadcaster’s revenue in the case of recidivism.52 The CSA may also 

suspend or withdraw an authorization to broadcast.53 Additionally, the CSA may require 

operators to broadcast a communiqué, under terms and conditions dictated by the CSA itself, as 

part of a sanction for illegal speech.54

C. Rule Specific to Broadcasters Controlled by Foreign States 

In addition to the enforcement authority mentioned above, an amendment to the Loi Léotard 

adopted in December 2018 specifically addresses the case of media controlled by foreign states. 

Article 42-6 provides that the CSA may, after a first warning, withdraw the broadcasting 

authorization of an operator controlled by or under the influence of a foreign state, if it broadcasts 

content that harms a fundamental national interest of France.55 This provision explicitly states 

that the propagation of false information to interfere with the proper functioning of institutions 

should be considered as harmful to a fundamental national interest.56 This provision also states 

that the CSA may, in deciding to withdraw an authorization, consider content that the 

broadcaster, or its subsidiary or parent organization, published on other communication services, 

but the CSA may not base its decision entirely on that.57

 

droits-et-libertes/La-deontologie-des-programmes (last visited June 17, 2019), archived at

https://perma.cc/CSK2-RU6L. 

51 La déontologie des programmes, supra note 50; Loi n° 86-1067 du 30 septembre 1986, arts. 42 to 42-6. 

52 Loi n° 86-1067 du 30 septembre 1986, arts. 42, 42-1, 42-2. 

53 Id. art. 42-1. 

54 Id. art. 42-4. 

55 Id. art. 42-6. 

56 Id. 

57 Id. 
The Law Library of Congress 32 

Germany 

Jenny Gesley 

Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY The German Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and 

freedom to receive information, among other enumerated communication rights, to 

every person. Disseminating untrue facts or “abusive criticism,” defined as statements 

that are not primarily made to debate a topic, but to defame a person, fall outside the 

scope of protection. 

 The communication rights may only be limited by general laws. In the context of 

heckling, such general laws could be criminal law provisions protecting personal honor 

or civil law norms on undisturbed enjoyment of premises, or other basic rights. 

However, these limitations have to be examined in light of the constitutional 

significance of the basic right they are restricting, meaning the limitations must 

themselves be restricted. 

I. Overview of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press 

Article 5 of the German Basic Law, the country’s constitution, guarantees freedom of speech and 

freedom of the press, among other enumerated communication rights.1 The communication 

rights are not restricted to Germans; they are applicable to “every person.” In addition to all 

natural persons, domestic legal persons may invoke it.2 This also applies to foreign legal persons 

domiciled in the European Union (EU) due to the bans on discrimination under Union law.3

Article 5 states that 

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in 

speech, writing and pictures . . . . Freedom of the press . . . shall be guaranteed. There shall 

be no censorship. 

(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for 

the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour. 

 

1 Grundgesetz [GG] [Basic Law], May 23, 1949, BUNDESGESETZBLATT [BGBL.] [FEDERAL LAW GAZETTE] I at 1, as 

amended, art. 5, paras. 1 & 2, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/GG.pdf, archived at

https://perma.cc/8UJX-HC4T, unofficial English translation available at http://www.gesetze-iminternet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/R94W-YBZ3. 

2 Id. art. 19, para. 3; BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT [BVERFG] [FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT], Apr. 4, 1967, 

docket no. 1 BvR 414/64, para. 34, https://openjur.de/u/194306.html, archived at https://perma.cc/Y6GZ2875. 

3 BVerfG, July 19, 2011, docket no. 1 BvR 1916/09, ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2011:rs20110719.1bvr191609, paras. 56 & 57, 

http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20110719_1bvr191609.html, archived at https://perma.cc/U4BD-MCW4, English 

translation available at https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/ 

EN/2011/07/rs20110719_1bvr191609en.html, archived at https://perma.cc/ZNW4-3AYT. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Germany 

The Law Library of Congress 33 

Unlike the US Constitution, which codifies a prohibition for Congress to make laws abridging 

free speech, the rights codified in the German Basic Law additionally have a “radiating effect” on 

private law, meaning that private parties are indirectly bound by them.4 

II. Scope of Protection 

A. Freedom of Speech 

The Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG) in its landmark Lüth 

decision stated that 

freedom of opinion, as the most immediate expression of the human personality living in 

society, is one of the noblest of human rights (un des droits les plus precieux de l'homme

according to article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789). It 

is absolutely essential to a liberal-democratic constitutional order, because it alone makes 

possible the constant intellectual exchange and the contest among opinions that form the 

lifeblood of such an order; indeed, it is ‘the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly 

every other form of freedom’ (Cardozo).5 

Freedom of speech covers value judgments and statements of facts, if those statements of facts 

form the basis for an opinion. The term “opinion” is understood broadly. Expressions of a 

viewpoint, the taking of a position, or the holding of an opinion within the framework of 

intellectual dispute fall within its scope. If the statement “contributes to the intellectual battle of 

opinions on an issue of public concern,” there is a presumption in favor of its admissibility. 

Untrue facts fall outside the scope of freedom of expression. The Federal Constitutional Court 

held that 

this basic right [freedom of opinion] guarantees to all persons the right to freedom of 

expression without expressly distinguishing between a value judgement and a statement 

of facts. Everyone is at liberty to speak his or her mind freely whether or not he or she is 

able to furnish verifiable reasons for his or her judgement. (42 BVerfGE 163, 170 et seq.); at 

the same time, the purpose of free speech is to form opinions, persuade, and exert an 

intellectual influence over other persons. This is why value judgements, always meant to 

convince others, are protected by article 5, para. 1, sentence 1 of the Basic Law. The basic 

right is primarily designed to protect the speaker’s personal opinion. (7 BVerfGE 198, 210). 

It is irrelevant whether an opinion is valuable or worthless, correct or false, or justified 

emotionally or rationally. (33 BVerfGE 1, 14 et seq.). If the opinion in question contributes 

to the intellectual battle of opinions on an issue of public concern, there is a presumption 

in favor of the admissibility of that free speech. (7 BVerfGE 198, 212). Even harsh and 

exaggerated statements, in particular in the political battle of opinion, generally fall within 

the scope of Article 5, paragraph 1, first sentence of the Basic Law (54 BVerfGE 129, 139); 

the question can only be whether and to what extent the provisions of the general laws and 

the right to personal honor (article 5, para. 2 Basic Law) may draw limits here. 

 

4 BVerfG, 7 ENTSCHEIDUNGEN DES BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHTS [BVERFGE] [DECISIONS OF THE FEDERAL 

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT] 198 (Lüth decision), para. 31, http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv007198.html, 

archived at https://perma.cc/2QZ5-5AWS, unofficial English translation available at

https://germanlawarchive.iuscomp.org/?p=51, archived at https://perma.cc/5M6Y-GRVX. 

5 Id. at 33 (citing Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 327 (1937) (Cardozo, J.)). 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Germany 

The Law Library of Congress 34 

This does not apply in the same way to assertions of facts. False information is not an object 

worthy of protection from the viewpoint of freedom of opinion (54 BVerfGE 208, 219). The 

deliberate assertion of untrue facts is not protected by article 5, paragraph 1 of the Basic 

Law; the same applies to wrong quotations (BVerfG, loc.cit.). . . . The communication of a 

fact is protected by freedom of opinion because and insofar as it forms the basis for an 

opinion. . . . From all this, the term “opinion” in article 5, paragraph 1, first sentence of the 

Basic Law must in principle be understood broadly: where an utterance is characterized as 

an expression of a viewpoint, the taking of a position, or the holding of an opinion within 

the framework of intellectual dispute, it falls within the scope protected by the 

fundamental right.6

Asking questions is also protected by freedom of speech, because questions play “an important 

role in the process of opinion formation.”7 They are treated like value judgments.8 Rhetorical 

questions, on the other hand, are not actually questions as they do not require an answer. The 

Federal Constitutional Court therefore treats them like value judgments or assertions of facts, 

depending on the content.9 However, the overall context always has to be taken into account, so 

that something that at first sight looks like a question, actually qualifies as a false assertion of 

a fact.10

Not protected by freedom of opinion is “abusive criticism” (Schmähkritik). The Federal 

Constitutional Court defines abusive criticism as statements that are “no longer primarily aimed 

at addressing a debate in a matter-of-fact way, but at the defamation of a person. In addition to 

polemical and exaggerated criticism, it must include a degradation of the person.”11 Such abusive 

criticism is not included in the scope of protection. 

B. Freedom of the Press 

Freedom of the press is not just a subcategory of freedom of expression; it is an independent and 

separate freedom under article 5 of the Basic Law. In addition to expressing and disseminating 

an opinion using the press, the basic right guarantees the “institutional independence of the press 

that extends from the acquisition of information to the dissemination of news and opinion; [...] 

 

6 BVerfG, 61 BVerfGE 1, paras. 13-16, http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv061001.html, archived at 

https://perma.cc/7B2V-44EQ, unofficial English translation available at https://law.utexas.edu/ 

transnational/foreign-law-translations/german/case.php?id=639, archived at https://perma.cc/JU43-L7BC. 

7 BVerfG, 85 BVerfGE 23, para. 43, https://www.jurion.de/urteile/bverfg/1991-10-09/1-bvr-221_90/, archived 

at https://perma.cc/ARE9-5EDD, unofficial English translation available at https://law.utexas.edu/ 

transnational/foreign-law-translations/german/case.php?id=624, archived at https://perma.cc/8NBG-CTXW. 

8 Id. at 44. 

9 Id. at 45. 

10 BUNDESGERICHTSHOF [BGH] [FEDERAL COURT OF JUSTICE], Dec. 9, 2003, docket no. VI ZR 38/03, at 6, 

http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art= 

en&nr=28184&pos=0&anz=1, archived at https://perma.cc/5Y6M-B73R. 

11 BVerfG, 82 BVerfGE 272, para. 41, http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv082272.html, archived at 

https://perma.cc/H9AU-SXVK, unofficial English translation available at https://law.utexas. 

edu/transnational/foreign-law-translations/german/case.php?id=629, archived at https://perma.cc/GVJ4-

43LX. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Germany 

The Law Library of Congress 35 

this includes the right of persons working for the press to express their opinion as freely and 

unrestricted as every other citizen.”12 

III. Limits on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press 

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are limited by general laws, provisions for the 

protection of young persons, and the right to personal honor.13 The last two categories are 

generally seen as included in the category “general laws.”14 The Federal Constitutional Court 

defines “general laws” as laws that “do not prohibit or target the expression of an opinion as 

such”, but rather “aim to protect a legal interest per se without regard to a specific opinion.“15

Examples of general laws that might be relevant in the context of heckling are, among others, the 

Criminal Code, in particular the provisions on insult or on the dissemination of ideas that violate 

human dignity,16 police law, and civil law provisions. However, these general laws have to be 

examined in light of the constitutional significance of the basic right they are restricting, meaning 

the limitations must themselves be interpreted restrictively in order to preserve the substance of 

the basic right (balancing of interests).17

With regard to heckling and confronting speakers, the Federal Constitutional Court has held that, 

for example, the right of the owner to undisturbed enjoyment of the premises that derives from 

section 903, sentence one and section 1004 of the German Civil Code is a general law that may 

limit the communication rights codified in article 5, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law.18 Restrictions 

to prevent disturbances are not generally excluded. However, the state, unlike private citizens, 

may not use such a right to enforce its own interests and may only use it to prevent expressions 

of opinion if this serves the public interest.19 The Court stated that 

 

12 BVerfG, 10 BVerfGE 118, para. 14, http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv010118.html, archived at

https://perma.cc/MM74-37DA. 

13 Basic Law, art. 5, para. 2. 

14 BVerfG, Nov. 4, 2009, docket no. 1 BvR 2150/08, ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2009:rs20091104.1bvr215008, para. 63, 

http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20091104_1bvr215008.html, archived at https://perma.cc/TXA9-4V97, English 

translation (extract only) available at http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20091104_1bvr215008en.html, archived at 

https://perma.cc/K5TL-D3DN. 

15 BVerfG, supra note 4, para. 36. 

16 STRAFGESETZBUCH [STGB] [CRIMINAL CODE], Nov. 13, 1998, BGBL. I at 3322, as amended, §§ 185 et seq., § 130, 

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/StGB.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/PA8M-E2ZU, unofficial 

English translation available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.pdf (English 

version updated through Oct. 10, 2013), archived at https://perma.cc/RQ57-7ALQ. 

17 BVerfG, supra note 4, para. 34. 

18 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB] [Civil Code], Jan.2, 2002, BGBL. I at 42, 2909; corrected in BGBL. 2003 I at 738, 

as amended, §§ 903, sentence 1, § 1004, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/BGB.pdf, archived at

https://perma.cc/BRN4-P7U4 unofficial English translation available at http://www.gesetze-iminternet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.pdf, (English version updated through Oct. 1, 2013), archived at

https://perma.cc/77EX-38MM. 

19 BVerfG, Feb. 22, 2011, docket no. 1 BvR 699/06, ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2011:rs20110222.1bvr069906, para. 102, 

http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20110222_1bvr069906.html, archived at https://perma.cc/8Z22-76ZH, English 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Germany 

The Law Library of Congress 36 

Therefore, in particular the wish to create a “feel-good atmosphere” in a sphere which is 

strictly reserved for consumer purposes and which remains free from political discussions 

and social conflicts cannot be used as the basis for prohibiting the distribution of leaflets. 

The state may not restrict fundamental rights in order to ensure that the carefree mood of 

citizens is not disturbed by the misery of the world (see BVerfGE 102, 347 <364>). 

Consequently, the fact that third parties are annoyed by being confronted with topics 

which they find unpleasant is irrelevant. What is particularly out of the question are bans 

which serve the purpose of preventing certain expressions of opinion for the sole reason 

that the defendant does not share them, disapproves of their content or regards them as 

discrediting the business of an enterprise because of the critical statements it contains. 

On the other hand, the defendant is not prevented from using its right as the owner of 

premises to undisturbed possession to restrict the distribution of leaflets and other forms 

of expression of opinion to the extent necessary to guarantee the safety and functioning of 

airport operations. . . . [T]his is . . . an important common interest which can justify 

encroachment on fundamental rights. 

The restrictions on freedom of expression must be suitable, necessary and appropriate for 

achieving the purpose. This excludes in any event the possibility of a general ban. . . . On 

the other hand, restrictions which relate to certain types of expressions of opinion or places 

or times for expressions of opinion in order to prevent disturbances are not excluded 

in principle.20

As an exception to the rule that communications rights may only be restricted by general laws, 

the Federal Constitutional Court allows a restriction of freedom of speech by section 130, 

paragraph 4 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes “disturb[ing] the public peace in a manner 

that violates the dignity of the victims [of the Nazi regime] by approving of, glorifying, or 

justifying the National Socialist rule of arbitrary force.”21 Even though the provision targets 

specific statements in relation to National Socialism and is not a general law, the Federal 

Constitutional Court held that the restriction is justified by “the injustice and the horror which 

National Socialist rule inflicted on Europe and large parts of the world, defying general 

categories, and of the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany which was understood 

as an antithesis of this . . .”.22 However, such an exception “does not justify a general ban on the 

dissemination of right-wing radical or indeed National Socialist ideas.”23

In addition to general laws, freedom of speech and freedom of the press can also be limited by 

other basic rights inherent in the German Basic Law. However, expressions of an opinion cannot 

be prohibited simply because they violate the constitutional order.24 The constitutional 

restrictions inherent in the Basic Law must be defined by the legislature. The public order 

 

translation available at http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20110222_1bvr069906en.html, archived at

https://perma.cc/5A5S-S9DC. 

20 Id. paras. 103-105. 

21 BVerfG, supra note 14; Criminal Code, § 130, para. 4. 

22 BVerfG, supra note 14, para. 52. 

23 Id. at 67. 

24 Id. para. 50. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Germany 

The Law Library of Congress 37 

reservation of section 15 of the Act on Assemblies as defined by the courts, for example, is 

insufficient to limit freedom of speech.25

IV. Availability of Mechanism to Control Foreign Broadcasters Working on Behalf of 

Foreign Governments 

Article 5 of the Basic Law also protects the right of every person to receive information from 

generally accessible sources.26 The right to receive information has to be seen in light of the 

experiences of the National Socialist Regime where access to information was restricted, the state 

controlled opinions, and state prohibitions on the reception of foreign radio broadcasts and 

literature and art were in place.27

All types of sources are included in the right as long as they are generally accessible. The Federal 

Constitutional Court defines “generally accessible sources” as such that “are suitable and 

intended to inform the general public, understood as an indeterminate group of persons.”28 This 

includes mass communication, in particular radio and TV broadcasts. It is irrelevant whether the 

source is located in Germany or abroad.29 The Basic Law does not differentiate between national 

and foreign sources.30 In particular, foreign nationals who permanently reside in Germany have 

a right to receive information from sources from their home country to keep abreast of current 

events and to maintain a cultural and linguistic connection.31 The right to receive information 

includes the decision from which type of generally accessible source a person would like to 

get information.32

The Federal Constitutional Court has stated that 

[a]rticle 5 paragraph 1, sentence one of the Basic Law GG protects not only the active 

process of procuring information but also the simple receipt of information. The Basic Law 

seeks to guarantee that the individual is informed as comprehensively as possible. An 

individual can also be ‘informed’ from sources that come to his or her attention without 

the participation of the recipient. Only the possession of information enables an 

 

25 BVerfG, June 23, 2004, docket no. 1 BvQ 19/04, ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2004:qs20040623a.1bvq001904, paras. 24 

&26, http://www.bverfg.de/e/qs20040623a_1bvq001904.html, archived at https://perma.cc/L8UH-BY9E; 

Versammlungsgesetz [VersG] [Act on Assemblies], Nov. 15, 1978, BGBL. I at 1789, as amended, § 15, 

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/versammlg/VersammlG.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/Q2P3-U2V6. 

26 Basic Law, art. 5, para. 1, sentence 1. 

27 BVerfG, 27 BVerfGE 71, para. 35, https://openjur.de/u/193099.html, archived at https://perma.cc/YUV3-

VBXN, unofficial English translation available at https://law.utexas.edu/transnational/foreign-lawtranslations/german/case.php?id=649, archived at https://perma.cc/9NTV-5W3P. 

28 BVerfG, Feb. 9, 1994, docket no. 1 BvR 1687/92, ECLI:DE:BVerfG:1994:rs19940209.1bvr168792, para. 13, 

http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs19940209_1bvr168792.html, archived at https://perma.cc/85PQ-LY2T, providing 

further references. 

29 Id. para. 14. 

30 Id. 

31 Id. para. 27. 

32 Id. para. 34. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Germany 

The Law Library of Congress 38 

independent selection. Being able to select between sources is the fundamental definitional 

element of every piece of information. If freedom of information did not guarantee that 

sources of information reach the individual, then he or she would be prevented from 

selecting among them through active participation. ‘To inform himself’ therefore also 

means the purely intellectual process of taking information in.33

In addition, as already mentioned, the right to free speech applies to every person, meaning that 

persons working for foreign broadcasters located in Germany can invoke it.34

However, all communications rights, including the right to receive information, are limited by 

general laws as outlined above.35 If information from generally accessible sources from foreign 

broadcasters violates criminal law norms for example, it can be restricted. 

Another limitation can be found in the Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting.36 It provides that private 

broadcasters in Germany need a license to operate.37 No license is needed for internet radio.38 A 

license will only be granted if several enumerated requirements are fulfilled, among them, 

residence or seat in Germany, another EU Member State, or another Member State of the 

European Economic Area (EEA). Foreign broadcasters must therefore establish a seat in 

Germany, the EU, or the EEA. A license will not be granted to legal persons under public law or 

institutions that are government funded. This prohibition also applies to foreign public or state 

institutions.39 It was reported that the German Commission on Licensing and Supervision 

revoked the radio license of Megaradio SNA because it allegedly uses too much content that is 

financed by the Russian government, thereby making it a de facto state organization.40 The 

broadcaster has lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court of Kassel.41

 

33 BVerfG, supra note 27, para. 42. 

34 Basic Law, art. 5, para. 1. 

35 Basic Law, art. 5, para. 2. 

36 Staatsvertrag für Rundfunk und Telemedien [Rundfunkstaatsvertrag] [RStV] [Interstate Treaty on 

Broadcasting and Telemedia] [Interstate Broadcasting Treaty], Aug. 31, 1991, in the version in force since 

May 1, 2019, https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Rechtsgrundlagen/ 

Gesetze_Staatsvertraege/Rundfunkstaatsvertrag_RStV.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/L42Q-KDMU, 

English translation available at https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ 

Rechtsgrundlagen/Gesetze_Staatsvertraege/RStV_22_english_version_clean.pdf, archived at 

https://perma.cc/WP62-5KGS. 

37 Id. § 20, para. 1. 

38 Id. § 20b. 

39 Id. § 20a, para. 3. 

40 Ludger Fittkau, Wer darf senden, wer nicht? [Who can broadcast, who cannot?], Deutschlandfunk, June 5, 2018, 

https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/aufsicht-der-landesmedienanstalten-wer-darf-senden-wernicht.2907.de.html?dram:article_id=419672, archived at https://perma.cc/PWA7-B6BX. 

41 Id. 
The Law Library of Congress 39 

Israel 

Ruth Levush 

Senior Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY Israeli law recognizes protection of freedom of speech as a constitutional principle. 

Protection extends to all forms and content of expression including freedom of the press 

and freedom to make a political speech. Freedom of speech, however, is not absolute 

and may be restricted under limited circumstances where there is “near certainty” that 

an expression would cause “real harm” to public safety. 

 The right to freedom of speech may also be limited in circumstances where it conflicts 

with the right to human dignity protected under a basic law. Speech may also be 

restricted based on statutory law containing prohibitions on incitement for racism; 

terrorism and violence; denial of the Holocaust and praise for atrocities committed by 

the Nazis; as well as insult to a public servant and defamation; among others. 

 In balancing freedom of speech against other principles recognized under the legal 

system, the courts have applied relevant balancing formulas. Recognizing the 

significance of protecting speech, the Supreme Court applied a narrow interpretation 

to restrictions that may limit it. The Supreme Court has further determined that 

freedom of political expression should enjoy a particularly broad protection as 

compared with other types of expression. Such protection, however, does not extend to 

false factual expressions made maliciously against a public figure, as they do not 

constitute protected expressions of opinion or criticism. 

 To extend broad protection to speech, the Court has also applied a narrow 

interpretation to the elements of the offense of insult to a public servant. The offense, 

the Court held, exists only in rare cases where the expression “harm[s] the core of 

human dignity and involve[s] a substantive and severe violation of the value-moral 

nucleus from which the public servant draws the source of his/her power and 

authority.“ Moreover, the prohibition will only apply where it is almost certain that the 

anticipated harm will harm the public employee as an individual as well as the public 

service system and the public trust in it. 

 Recognizing a “defense of responsible journalism” against defamation suits, the Court 

extended the defense to circumstances where the publication was made in good faith, 

even if the information it contained ultimately turned out false. This defense will apply 

when there was an obligation to publish, no malicious intent, and when the publication 

complied with standards of responsible, cautious and fair journalism, and the publisher 

took steps to prevent unnecessary harm to the object of the publication. 

 There appears to be no control of content disseminated by foreign broadcasters, 

including television, radio and social media, working on behalf of foreign governments. 

Television and radio broadcasting companies, however, are required to be registered in 

Israel. Broadcasters that receive funding directly or indirectly from foreign 

governments are subject to disclosure requirements. 

 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Israel 

The Law Library of Congress 40 

I. Introduction 

This report addresses limits to freedom of speech that may apply under Israeli law in situations 

where the speech is perceived to purposely undermine the right of a public servant or a politician 

for free speech. This includes circumstances where individuals, the press, including a blogger or 

group of individual bloggers, “harass” a speaker or “misinform” the public on issues of 

public interest. 

The report further discusses the availability of a mechanism to control foreign broadcasters 

working on behalf of foreign governments, to enable dissemination of misinformation thereby 

impacting public opinion in Israel. 

The terms “freedom of speech” and “freedom of expression” in this report are interchangeable. 

II. Scope of Protection of Freedom of Speech and the Right to Interrupt 

Public Speech 

A. Normative Status of Protection of Freedom of Speech 

Freedom of expression had been recognized by Israel’s Supreme Court as a basic constitutional 

right since the early days of the State. Judicial recognition of the constitutional protection of 

speech in Israel derived from the Declaration of Independence that provides for the democratic 

character of the state.1 

Although freedom of speech has not been expressly guaranteed under a basic law, it has been 

opined that its normative status has been elevated following the adoption of Basic Law: Human 

Dignity and Liberty in 1992, as “freedom of speech is an essential component of human’s dignity 

and liberty.”2 

B. General Scope of Protection 

Israeli courts have recognized the principle of freedom of speech as applying to all forms of 

expression as well as types of content. It therefore applies to freedom of the press and freedom to 

make a political speech.3 The courts determined that freedom of speech includes the right to 

receive information and to react to it; the right to speak and to listen as well as to demonstrate. 

Freedom of expression, it was held, is not only the freedom to express accepted opinions, it is also 

the freedom to express divergent opinions that are disliked by the majority; the freedom to praise 

but also to criticize the government.4 

 

1 2 AMNON RUBINSTEIN, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL 1001 (5th ed., 1996) (in Hebrew). 

2 Id. at 1010. 

3 Id. at 1002. 

4 2 AHARON BARAK, INTERPRETATION IN LAW 461-62 (1993) (in Hebrew). 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Israel 

The Law Library of Congress 41 

Although freedom of expression extends to a wide range of contents and formats, Israeli courts 

have recognized that an expression may be restricted under circumstances where there is “near 

certainty” that it would cause “real harm” to public safety.5 

C. Balancing Freedom of Expression with Other Competing Principles 

Israeli law recognizes additional protections that may conflict with the right to free speech. Basic 

Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, e.g., expressly prohibits harm to human dignity.6 The Basic 

Law provides that 

[t]here shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the 

values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than 

is required. . . .7

A number of laws include provisions that authorize restrictions on freedom of speech by 

criminalizing, among others, speech that constitutes incitement for racism, terrorism and 

violence; outrage to religious feelings; publication of false news causing fear and alarm; as well 

as expression of denial of the holocaust and praise for atrocities committed by the Nazis.8 

When evaluating the right to freedom of expression against competing interests reflected under 

legislation authorizing limitations on such freedom, Israeli courts have applied various balancing 

formulas, including by limiting the scope of freedom of expression “by time, space, frequency, 

etc., to achieve proper balancing, without having one of the [protected] interests 

completely withdrawn.”9 

Israel’s Supreme Court has balanced competing interests in a number of cases including when 

freedom of expression conflicted with public safety, judicial ethics, public morality, and a 

person’s right to a good name.10

D. Implementation of Statutory Limits on Freedom of Speech Relating to Public Servants, 

Journalists and Political Speech 

Speech by a public servant or by a political figure may be limited under legislation prohibiting 

inflicting an insult to a public servant and under defamation law. The extent to which freedom of 

 

5 RUBINSTEIN, supra note 1, at 1005. 

6 Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty § 4, SEFER HAHUKIM [SH] [BOOK OF LAWS] (official gazette) 5752 No. 

1391 p. 150, as amended, unofficial translation available on the Knesset Website at https://www.knesset. 

gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic3_eng.htm (last visited June 11, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/AXJ4-

QETK. 

7 Id. § 8. 

8 Counterterrorism Law, 5776-2016, § 24, SH 5776 No. 2556 p. 898; Penal Law, 5737-1977, §§ 144, 159 & 173, SH 

5737 No. 864 p. 226; Prohibition on Denial of the Holocaust Law, 5746-1986, SH 5746 No. 1187, p. 196; all 

as amended. 

9 RUBINSTEIN, supra note 1. 

10 Id. at 1005-06; BARAK, supra note 4, at 462 (including citations to a number of court decisions). 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Israel 

The Law Library of Congress 42 

speech will be restricted in relevant cases has been defined by Israeli courts. The following is a 

discussion of the application of balancing formulas that apply when the legislative objective in 

prohibiting insult and defamation under the laws conflicts with the constitutional principle of 

freedom of speech. 

1. Insult to Public Servant and Freedom of Speech

In accordance with the Penal Law, 5737-1977, 

[a] person who by gestures, words or acts insults a public servant or a Judge or officer of a 

religious court or a member of a commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry 

Law, 5729-1968, whilst engaged in the discharge of his duties or in connection with the 

same is liable to imprisonment for six months.11

a. Balancing of Freedom of Speech and Proper Functioning of Government 

A 2011 decision of the Supreme Court in the Ungarfeld case by an extended bench of nine justices 

analyzed the scope of the offense in view of its impact on the principle of freedom of expression.12

The petitioner in the case was convicted of the offense of insult to public servant (insult offense) 

for hanging a poster across from the police station, stating that a named police officer should be 

fired “because [he had] cooperated with criminals against those who complained against them, 

[and that] the police did not need ’rotten apples’.”13

Rejecting the request for an additional hearing in the case, Justice Ayala Procaccia for the majority 

recognized the significance of freedom of expression in a democratic regime. The criminal 

prohibition on insulting a public servant, however, was intended to protect the proper 

functioning of public service in the state as an important foundation of a democratic government. 

According to Procaccia, a proper balance should be identified to achieve the objective of the 

criminal offense while inflicting a minimal negative impact on the constitutional right to freedom 

of expression. This requires a narrow interpretation of the insult offense, she opined. To constitute 

an “insult” in the meaning of the offense, the expression must pass a high bar composed of a 

“qualitative test” as well as a “probability test.” According to the former, the expression must 

“harm the core of human dignity and involve a substantive and severe violation of the valuemoral nucleus from which the public servant draws the source of his/her power and authority.”14 

Commenting on the probability test, Procaccia stated, 

“[i]nsulting” within the normative meaning of the prohibition will therefore be devoted to 

irregular and extreme cases in which it is almost certain that the anticipated harm derived 

from it will not only harm the public employee as an individual, but also cause serious and 

 

11 Penal Law, 5737-1977, §288, LAWS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, Special Volume (1977). 

12 Additional Hearing, Crim 7383/08 Ungarfeld v. State of Israel (July 11, 2011), https://supremedecisions. 

court.gov.il/Home/Download?path=HebrewVerdicts\08\830\073\p12&fileName=08073830_p12.txt&type=4

(in Hebrew), archived at https://perma.cc/67CR-HPND. 

13 Id., Decision by Justice Eliezer Rivlin, ¶ 2. 

14 Id., Decision by Justice Ayala Procaccia, ¶ 26. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Israel 

The Law Library of Congress 43 

severe harm to the fulfillment of his public function, thereby harming the public service 

system and the public trust in it.15

 

The Court rejected the request for an additional hearing and confirmed the petitioner’s conviction 

in the offense of insulting a public servant.16

b. Political Expression 

Further narrowing down the tests established in the Ungarfeld decision, the Supreme Court 

reached a different conclusion in a 2017 decision accepting an appeal of a conviction for the insult 

offense. The petitioner in that case was an editor of an internet site who had published an article 

criticizing the job performance of a former military rabbi, in view of the military’s alleged 

handling of issues including joint military service of women and men and violation of the Sabbath 

and the Jewish dietary laws in military bases.17 

Restating the high bar set under the Ungarfeld decision, Justice Miriam Naor, writing the majority 

opinion, held that implementation of the insult offense must be restricted only to cases where the 

insult may result in a serious and severe injury to a public servant’s dignity. In cases involving a 

“political expression,” she opined, the bar will be even higher.18 Accordingly, 

[p]olitical expression is a means of realizing the individual’s liberty and virtues, and 

incorporates a significant social value. It allows, perhaps more than any other expression, 

to fulfill the democratic component of freedom of expression. Political expression is a 

necessary condition for the exchange of ideas, the flow of information and the existence of 

a free discourse without which it is not possible to formulate a position on issues that are 

on the public agenda and to take part in the democratic process. Without political 

expression it will not be possible to have an effective oversight over the government . . . 

Because of all these political expression may not please the government, and therefore it 

needs a special protection against harassment on its [government] part . . . . 

Moreover, the political expression is important not only as a right of an independent value, 

but also as a means of securing additional basic rights. Against this background, a series 

of judgments determined that freedom of political expression should enjoy a particularly 

broad protection as compared with other types of expressions.19

The decision whether a particular statement constitutes “a political expression” should be made 

according to the relevant circumstances and context. The distinction between a political 

expression and a commercial one, according to Naor, depends primarily on the content of the 

 

15 Id. ¶ 32. 

16 Id., verdict, p. 01. 

17 CrimA 5991/13 Segal v. State of Israel (Nov. 2, 2017), https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/ 

Home/Download?path=HebrewVerdicts\13\910\059\c14&fileName=13059910.c14&type=4, archived at

https://perma.cc/B2P5-JVNC. 

18 Id. ¶ 32. 

19 Id. ¶ 34. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Israel 

The Law Library of Congress 44 

expression, but also on the identity of its maker, and objectives.20 The more the expression deals 

with a public matter, such as a political or social issue, or with a public figure, the higher the 

tendency to classify it as a political expression. The Court has previously held in other cases that 

criticism of public officials, for example, criticism of the police commissioner due to the conduct 

of the police, will be considered a political expression.21 

Naor determined that, 

[s]ince political expression stands at the top of the pyramid of expressions and fulfills 

the objectives of freedom of expression to the highest degree, it should be provided 

with the maximum possible protection . . . Accordingly, I believe that expressions 

should almost always be protected from the application of the insult offense . . . This 

means that in the vast majority of cases, if not in all of them, protection of political 

expression will be preferred over the protected value at the basis of the insult offense. 

At the same time, and for the sake of caution, I am prepared to leave a very narrow 

opening for the application of the offense in the rarest of cases, in which there is a 

disproportional and exceptional harm to the dignity of the public servant and at the 

moral nucleus from which . . . [the public servant] draws his/her power and 

authority . . . .22

Addressing the “probability test” established in the Ungarfeld decision, Naor made some 

additional determinations. In her view the higher the position of the public servant the higher the 

level of tolerance expected from him/her for offensive expressions.23 Other considerations for 

recognizing liability for the insult offense include the extent of public exposure enjoyed by the 

offensive publication.24 

2. Defamation Law and the ”Defense of Responsible Journalism” 

Freedom of expression may be restricted when a publication constitutes defamation. A 

defamatory publication is one that may 

(1) Humiliate a person or make that person a target of hatred, contempt or ridicule; 

(2) Degrade a person for acts, behavior or traits attributed to that person; 

(3) Harms a person’s position, whether public office or other position, business, 

occupation, or profession; [or] 

(4) Degrade a person because of race, origin, religion, place of residence, age, sex, sexual 

orientation or disability, including permanent or temporary physical or 

mental impairment.25

 

20 Id. ¶ 35. 

21 Id. ¶ 36. 

22 Id. ¶ 38. 

23 Id. ¶ 48. 

24 Id. ¶ 52. 

25 Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965, §1, SH 5725 No. 464, p. 240, as amended (translated by author). 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Israel 

The Law Library of Congress 45 

Under section 15 of the Defamation Law, 5725-1965 (Defamation Law) it would be a good defense 

from criminal prosecution or a civil suit if the defendant or respondent made the publication in 

good faith circumstances including that 

(1) . . . what was published was true and that the publication was of public interest . . . ; 

[or when] 

(2) [t]he relationship between him/her and the person to whom the advertisement is 

directed has placed upon him/her a legal, moral or social duty to make such publication.26

a. Defense of Responsible Journalism 

A 2014 decision by nine justices of the Supreme Court centered on the application defenses under 

the Defamation Law to a journalist for a report regarding the responsibility of a commander of a 

unit that manned an Israel Defense Force post for the death of a girl from shooting. The petitioner 

sued the journalist and the broadcaster for defamation after he had been exonerated. The petition 

centers on the determination that the report dealt with an issue of significant public interest, and 

that the conditions of good faith were fulfilled, including meeting the criteria of responsible and 

cautious journalism.27

The main decision was given by Court President Asher Grunis. Rejecting the petition, Grunis 

determined that the publication was defamatory and did not reflect truth based on the evidence 

presented. Based on section 15(2) of the Law, however, Grunis recognized a defense of 

“protection of responsible journalism.” This protection will only apply to publications made in 

good faith, based on an obligation to publish, without malicious intent, and in accordance with 

the standard of responsible, cautious and fair journalism. In order to meet this standard, Grunis 

determined, the publisher will be required to take steps to prevent unnecessary harm to the 

publication object.28 

The defense of protection of responsible journalism, according to Grunis, is not limited to 

professional journalists. He notes as follows: 

From a practical point of view, it is difficult to define the term ”journalist“ in a sweeping 

and exhaustive manner, especially in the present era, in which the characteristics and the 

spheres of activity of journalism have expanded beyond the traditional media. As stated, 

it is doubtful whether it is desirable to do so in the context before us.29

 

 

26 Id. § 15(2). 

27 Additional Hearing Civil 2121/12 Anonymous v. Ilana Dayan, 67(1) PISKE DIN [PD] [DECISIONS OF THE 

SUPREME COURT] 667 (Sept. 18, 2014), also available at https://supremedecisions.court.gov.il/ 

Home/Download?path=PediVerdicts\67\1&fileName=SZ1_11_2121-12.pdf&type=4, archived at

https://perma.cc/87SA-FQ2Y. 

28 Id. ¶ 81. 

29 Id., Grunis Opinion ¶ 62. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Israel 

The Law Library of Congress 46 

b. Journalism Silencing Law Defense 

A 2018 decision by the Tel Aviv District Court rejected a lower court decision in a defamation suit 

filed by Prime Minister Netanyahu and his wife against the appellant, a journalist and novelist, 

in connection with publication of two posts on his Facebook page. In the first post the appellant 

described as “an event that happened” an event where the prime minister’s convoy which 

included “four black vehicles and more and more security guards and vehicles” stopped and the 

Prime Minister supposedly exited shouting because of his wife’s demands. The second post 

contained a demeaning caricature of the Prime Minister in the middle of the road.30

Rejecting the appeal District Court Judge Avigail Cohen held that Israeli law did not recognize 

the term “silencing suit.” Previous attempts to pass legislation in this regard, she noted, have 

failed (one bill’s explanatory notes stated that it was inspired by the US ANTI SLAPP [Strategic 

Lawsuit against Public Participation] legislation adopted in 25 states). The circumstances of the 

case, however, she noted, would not qualify for a silencing suit defense, even if such a defense 

were recognized. This is because it centered on a publication that purported to be factual, not an 

expression of criticism or an opinion. 

Under the Defamation Law, proving that a publication was true or that it was made in good faith 

may serve as a defense against liability. In this case, however, the truthfulness of the publication 

had not been proved. As the content that was the subject of the suit was factual rather than an 

expression of opinion or criticism, the judge determined, the appellant could not enjoy a defense 

of good faith.31 

The Court held as follows: 

In the notice of appeal, the Appellant stated that he wishes to end the tenure of the Plaintiff 

as Prime Minister of Israel and that this wish cannot be an "intent to harm" . . .. Except that 

for the purpose of awarding compensation . . . , we are definitely dealing with a wish that 

shows that there is a desire to harm the plaintiff - in his public office . . . 

It is a democratic country and one can criticize a prime minister. It is also possible to want 

to change the government and the court does not serve as a thoughts police. 

However, when we deal with defamation, we examine for the purpose of determining 

compensation whether the publication was intended to harm the subject of the publication, 

and indeed, on the basis of the language of the publication and the testimonies of the 

parties, the factual conclusion that there is intent to harm is the correct conclusion.32

 

 

30 CA (TA) 15267-09-17 Serna v. Binyamin & Sara Netanyahu (decision by Judge Avigail Cohen, Jan. 16, 2019), 

available by subscription in the Nevo Legal Database, http://www.nevo.co.il (in Hebrew; last visited June 

4, 2019). 

31 Id. ¶ 15. 

32 Id. ¶ 16(3). 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Israel 

The Law Library of Congress 47 

III. Availability of Mechanism to Control Foreign Broadcasters Working on Behalf 

of Foreign Governments 

Israeli law requires television and radio broadcasting companies to be registered in Israel and 

subjects their operations to licensing requirements. Israeli television and radio broadcasters 

working on behalf of or who receive funding from foreign governments are subject to 

disclosure requirements. 

There appear to be no restrictions on content disseminated by social media such as Yahoo, 

Facebook, Twitter, etc. 

A. Registration Requirements for Television and Radio Broadcasting Corporations 

In accordance with the Law for the Second Authority for TV and Radio (Authority), 5790-1990, 

broadcasters are required to obtain a license.33 The Authority is a corporate body that is subject 

to audit by the State Comptroller.34 A license will be granted in a public tender published by the 

Authority.35 Applicants must, among other requirements, be a corporation registered in Israel. 

The Law requires that the ability to direct the corporation’s operation and at least twenty-six 

percent of all the means of its control should be with Israeli citizens and residents of Israel or by 

registered corporations in Israel.36 

The Authority may disqualify an applicant if, in its opinion, granting the applicant a license may 

be contrary to the public interest or constitute a risk to state security. An applicant may also be 

disqualified if, in the Authority’s opinion, the applicant is a party or a representative of a party 

or of another body that may use the broadcasts to promote the special objectives of such a party 

or body.37

B. Duty to Disclose Support by a Foreign Political Entity

Under the Duty of Disclosure [for a Body] Supported by a Foreign Political Entity 5771-2011 Law 

(Disclosure Law), foreign political entities (FPEs) are subject to disclosure requirements. FPEs 

consist of the Palestinian Authority and foreign countries and organizations.38

The Disclosure requirements also apply to a corporation established by an FPEs law or one in 

which an FPE has more than half of a certain type of control in the corporation or which was 

 

33 Second Authority for TV and Radio, 5790-1990, SH 5770 No. 1304 p. 59, as amended. 

34 Id. § 3. 

35 Id. § 38. 

36 Id. § 41(a)(1). 

37 Id. § 42(a). 

38 Duty of Disclosure [for a Body] Supported by a Foreign Political Entity, 5771-2011, SH 5771 No. 2279, p. 362; 

Amutot [Non-Profit Organizations] Law, 5740-1980, SH 5740 No. 983 p. 210 (Amutot Law), both as amended; 

see also RUTH LEVUSH, Israel: Disclosure Requirements for Organizations Funded by Foreign Political Entities, GLOBAL 

LEGAL MONITOR (July 19, 2016), http://loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/israel-disclosure-requirements-fororganizations-funded-by-foreign-political-entities/, archived at https://perma.cc/AYA9-C2XW. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Israel 

The Law Library of Congress 48 

appointed by the FPE to act on its behalf. A foreign corporation whose financial report for the last 

fiscal year indicates it was funded mainly by bodies specified above is also subject to 

disclosure requirements.39 

Any media company receiving funding directly from FPEs, or indirectly from amutot (nonprofit 

organizations) paid by FPEs, will be subject to quarterly financial reporting requirements as to 

the identity of donors, the amount and objectives of the donations, and the conditions for their 

receipt.40 The information submitted to the registrar of amutot will be published on the website 

of the Ministry of Justice and by the funded body if it has a website, and in any other way selected 

by the Registrar. Additionally, an amuta that received a donation from a foreign entity for the 

purpose of funding a special advertising campaign must publish, as part of its campaign, the fact 

that it has received the donation.41 

Violation of the disclosure requirements provided under the Disclosure Law carry a fine of ILS 

29,200 (about US$8,067).42 

 

39 Disclosure Law § 1; Amutot Law § 36A(a). 

40 Disclosure Law § 2. 

41 Id. §§ 4-5. 

42 Id. § 5(2 (b); Amutot Law § 64A(a)(9).
The Law Library of Congress 49 

Japan 

Sayuri Umeda 

Senior Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY The Constitution of Japan guarantees freedom of expression and the Supreme Court 

has stated that freedom of expression is particularly important in a democratic nation 

such as Japan. However, this freedom may be restricted for the sake of public welfare 

to a reasonable and unavoidably necessary extent. 

The issue of interrupting general public speech has not yet been discussed in Japan, but 

disrupting campaign speeches is a criminal offense. 

There is no mechanism to specifically control broadcasters working on behalf of foreign 

governments. All broadcasters are required by the Broadcasting Act to be politically 

fair and not distort the facts. 

I. Protection of Freedom of Speech 

The Constitution of Japan guarantees freedom of assembly and association as well as freedom of 

speech, the press, and all other forms of expression.1 Freedom of expression relating to public 

matters is regarded “as a particularly important constitutional right in a democratic nation” 

because it is critical to form a majority opinion of the constituents.2 However, the Constitution 

also states that people “shall refrain from any abuse of these freedoms and rights and shall always 

be responsible for utilizing them for the public welfare.”3 

While constitutionally protected, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that freedom of 

expression has limits and may be restricted. For example, the Court explained in dicta as follows: 

[F]reedom of expression under Article 21, paragraph (1) of the Constitution is not 

guaranteed without restriction but it may be restricted for the sake of public welfare to a 

reasonable and unavoidably necessary extent. Whether or not a restriction on a particular 

type of freedom is acceptable within such extent should be determined by comparing 

various factors including the degree of necessity to restrict the freedom, the content and 

nature of the freedom to be restricted, and the manner and level of the specific restriction 

imposed on the freedom.4

 

1 CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN, 1946, art. 21, para. 1. 

2 Sup. Ct., June 11, 1986, 1981 (O) 609, 40 MINSHU 872, summary in English available at

http://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=82, archived at https://perma.cc/6YEG-R8T3. 

3 Id. art. 12. 

4 Sup. Ct., Mar. 6, 1993, 1986 (O) 1428, 47 MINSHU 3483, summary in English available at

http://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=1434, archived at https://perma.cc/2FT3-PLQ4. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Japan 

The Law Library of Congress 50 

There are criminal provisions that punish acts of expression that harm another, such as 

defamation, insult, and intimidation. 5 In addition, if an expression constitutes a tort, civil 

remedies are available.6

Other than interruptions of political campaign speeches, the interruption of public speech has not 

become an issue in Japan. The interruption of political campaign speeches is prohibited by the 

Public Office Election Act and is punishable by imprisonment for not more than four years or a 

fine of not more than one million yen (approximately US$9,000).7 In 1948, the Supreme Court 

stated that, even if the campaign speech continued after the disruption, the person who disrupted 

the speech by heckling and arguing with and hitting a campaign staffer could be punished.8 The 

Court also stated that actions to make it impossible or difficult for other members of the audience 

to hear a speech could constitute actionable disruption of a campaign speech.9 

When Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s campaign speech on behalf of a candidate in the Tokyo 

metropolitan government election was greatly interrupted by a group of people in July 2017, the 

problem of interruption of campaign speeches by heckling gained people’s attention.10 At the 

following election campaign for the House of Representatives in October 2018, some attendees of 

a campaign speech voluntarily started to scold hecklers.11 Some observers claim that hecklers 

infringe other attendees’ right to know.12 

II. Foreign Broadcasters Control 

There is no mechanism to specifically control foreign broadcasters working on behalf of foreign 

governments. However, when any broadcaster edits a domestic or domestic and international 

broadcast program, it must comply with the following: 

 

5 PENAL CODE, Act No. 45 of 1907, amended by Act No. 72 of 2017, arts .222, 230 & 231. 

6 CIVIL CODE, Act No. 89 of 1896, amended by Act No. 72 of 2018, arts. 709 & 723. 

7 Public Office Election Act, Act No. 100 of 1950, amended by Act No. 75 of 2018, art. 225. 

8 Sup. Ct., Dec. 24, 1948, 1948 (re) 1324, 2 KEISHU 1910, http://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_jp/ 

detail2?id=55281, archived at https://perma.cc/89CE-5LAA. 

9 Id. 

10 Abe ‘Immature’ to Raise Voice against Protesting Voters in Akihabara: Expert, MAINICHI NEWSPAPER (July 4, 2017), 

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20170704/p2a/00m/0na/016000c, archived at https://perma.cc/9F8LREW6. 

11 [安倍政権考] 街頭演説とヤジ [[Observing Abe Administration] Street Speeches and Hecklings], SANKEI (Oct. 

31, 2017), https://www.sankei.com/premium/photos/171031/prm1710310006-p2.html, archived at

https://perma.cc/T8X6-MZ5S. 

12 演説にヤジ・抗議だめ? メディアは首相演説をどう報じたか [Heckling & Demonstration at Campaign Speech, Not Okay? 

How Media Reported Primem Minister’s Speech], ASAHI SHIMBUN (Oct. 18, 2017), https://www.asahi.com/ 

articles/DA3S13185064.html, archived at https://perma.cc/U59E-F8UN. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Japan 

The Law Library of Congress 51 

 The program must not negatively influence public safety or good morals; 

 The program must be politically fair; 

 Reporting must not distort the facts; and 

 The program must clarify the points at issue from as many angles as possible where 

there are conflicting opinions concerning an issue.13

Under the Radio Act, when a broadcaster who is a licensee of a radio station has violated the 

Radio Act or the Broadcast Act, the Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications may order 

suspension of operations of the radio station for a specified period not exceeding three months 

or impose a limitation on the permitted operating hours, frequencies, or antenna power for a 

specified period.14

 

13 放送法 [Broadcasting Act], Act No. 132 of 1950, amended by Act No. 96 of 2014, art. 4, para. 1 (translation 

by author). 

14 電波法 [Radio Act], Act No. 131 of 1950, amended by Act No. 27 of 2017, art. 76, para. 1. 
The Law Library of Congress 52 

Netherlands 

Jenny Gesley 

Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY Freedom of expression in the Netherlands is protected by article 7 of the Dutch 

Constitution and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The 

scope of protection generally covers every type of expression from any individual, 

group, or type of media, notwithstanding its content, with the exception of expressions 

that negate the fundamental values of the ECHR or hate speech. Limitations of freedom 

of expression in the ECHR must be prescribed by law, be necessary in a democratic 

society, and be for one of the enumerated legitimate aims. Freedom of expression in the 

Dutch Constitution can only be limited by a formal law or regulation. In the context of 

heckling, relevant limitations in the Dutch Criminal Code are defamation, slander, and 

insult; lèse-majesté; and the prohibition against incitement to religious hatred and 

discrimination (“hate speech”). 

 The Dutch Media Act 2008 contains quotas for European and Dutch-Frisian 

programming of public and private broadcasters, thereby excluding or limiting the 

participation of foreign, non-European Union broadcasters. Under the ECHR, states are 

free to regulate broadcasting with a licensing system, but they may not impose any 

restriction on the means of reception. 

I. Overview of Freedom of Expression 

Freedom of expression in the Netherlands is protected by article 7 of the Dutch Constitution 

(Grondwet) and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).1 The 

Netherlands follows the doctrine of monism, meaning that rights contained in international 

treaties like the ECHR are automatically incorporated into national law without the need for a 

domestic implementing law and can be invoked by everyone.2 All the case law of the European 

Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on a certain article of the ECHR must be taken into account by 

the Dutch judges when they apply the respective ECHR provision (incorporation theory), not 

 



 At present there are no Law Library of Congress research staff members versed in Dutch. This report of the 

law of the Netherlands has been prepared by the author’s reliance on practiced legal research methods and on 

the basis of relevant legal resources, chiefly in English, currently available in the Law Library and online. 

1 Grondwet [Constitution], Aug. 24, 1815, STAATSBLAD VAN HET KONINKRIJK DER NEDERLANDEN [STB.] [OFFICIAL 

GAZETTE OF THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS] 1815, No. 45, https://wetten.overheid.nl/ 

BWBR0001840/2018-12-21, archived at https://perma.cc/M7FU-84AW, English translation available at 

https://www.government.nl/binaries/government/documents/regulations/ 2012/10/18/ the-constitutionof-the-kingdom-of-the-netherlands-2008/the-constitution-of-the-kingdom-of-the-netherlands-2008.pdf, archived 

at https://perma.cc/WQ43-BGCG; European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR], Nov. 4, 1950, 213 

U.N.T.S. 221, http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/Z23FRW5C. 

2 Constitution, art. 93; HOGE RAAD [HR] [DUTCH SUPREME COURT], Mar. 3, 1919, NEDERLANDSE JURISPRUDENTIE 

[NJ] 1919, No. 371 (Grenstractaat Aken). 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Netherlands 

The Law Library of Congress 53 

only from cases that involved the Netherlands.3 It should also be noted that international law 

norms that are binding on everyone prevail over constitutional provisions and statutes.4 Freedom 

of expression is among those rights.5 Lastly, the legislature interprets the Constitution as the 

courts are prohibited from reviewing the constitutionality of acts of Parliament and treaties.6

Some authors have pointed out that, due to that system, referring to the fundamental rights 

codified in the Dutch Constitution has become obsolete, and that it makes more sense to refer to 

the rights codified in the ECHR.7

Article 7 of the Dutch Constitution states that 

1. No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, 

without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law. 

2. Rules concerning radio and television shall be laid down by Act of Parliament. There 

shall be no prior supervision of the content of a radio or television broadcast. 

3. No one shall be required to submit thoughts or opinions for prior approval in order to 

disseminate them by means other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, 

without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law. The holding of 

performances open to persons younger than sixteen years of age may be regulated by Act 

of Parliament in order to protect good morals. 

4. The preceding paragraphs do not apply to commercial advertising. 

Article 10 of the ECHR reads 

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold 

opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public 

authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring 

the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be 

subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law 

and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial 

integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of 

health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the 

disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and 

impartiality of the judiciary. 

 

3 HR, Nov. 10, 1989, NJ 1990, No. 628. 

4 Constitution, art. 94. 

5 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF THE NETHERLANDS 149 (LEONARD BESSELINK ED., 2004). 

6 Id. art. 120. 

7 See, for example, Ingrid Leitjen, A Hole in the Dike? Dignity, Rights and the Dutch Constitution, in THE DUTCH 

CONSTITUTION BEYOND 200 YEARS 127, 136 (GUISEPPE FRANCE FERRARI ET AL. EDS. 2018). 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Netherlands 

The Law Library of Congress 54 

II. Scope of Protection 

A. ECHR 

Freedom of expression protects natural and legal persons.8 It encompasses the freedom to hold 

opinions, the freedom to receive information and ideas, and the freedom to impart information 

and ideas. In general, every type of expression from any individual, group, or type of media is 

included in the scope of protection, notwithstanding its content. The ECtHR has stated that the 

protection of article 10 is “applicable not only to ’information‘ or ’ideas‘ that are favourably 

received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, 

shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, 

tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ’democratic society’.”9 However, if an 

expression negates the fundamental values of the ECHR, such as a denial of the Holocaust or hate 

speech, it is excluded from the scope of protection.10

B. Dutch Constitution 

The Dutch Constitution divides freedom of expression into several categories: freedom of the 

press, freedom of the media, and freedom of expression by other means. Freedom of expression 

by other means includes, among others, speeches, theater, music, film, video, CD and CD-ROM, 

and expressions or communication via the internet.11

Dutch courts in their description of the scope of freedom of expression oftentimes use language 

similar or identical to the language used by the ECtHR. In a recent widely-reported case against 

the politician Geert Wilders for statements on race that were found to be hate speech, the Hague 

Court of First Instance in its preliminary remarks stated that “freedom of expression is one of the 

foundations of our democratic society . . . [which] is characterized by pluralism, tolerance and 

open-mindedness and therefore requires that there is room for the dissemination of information, 

ideas and views that shock, hurt or disturb the State or a large part of the population. However, 

restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of this freedom, including to protect the rights and 

freedoms of others.”12 It further held that “even a democratically elected representative such as 

the defendant is not above the law . . . [a]nd for him too, freedom of expression is limited. When 

 

8 Autronic AG v. Switzerland, App. No. 12726/87 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1990), para. 47, 

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57630, archived at https://perma.cc/2FW6-CDKN. 

9 Handyside v. the United Kingdom, App. No.5493/72, (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1976), para. 49, 

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57499, archived at https://perma.cc/U5T9-3JUR. 

10 ECHR, art. 17; Garaudy v. France, App. No. 65831/01, (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2003), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int 

/eng?i=001-44357, archived at https://perma.cc/TW29-EM37, English extract available at

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-23829, archived at https://perma.cc/SZ39-K93R; Erbakan v. Turkey, App. 

No.59405/00 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2006), para. 56, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-76232, archived at

https://perma.cc/B3AF-5YVS. 

11 D.E. Bunschoten, Hoofdstuk 1. Article 7 [Chapter 1. Article 7], in GRONDWET EN STATUUT : TEKST & COMMENTAAR 

[CONSTITUTION AND STATUTE. TEXT AND COMMENTARY] 29, 31 (P.P.T. BOVEND’EERT ET AL. 2018). 

12 Rechtbank Den Haag [The Hague Court of First Instance], Dec. 9, 2016, docket no. 09/837304-15, 

ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2016:15014, https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument 

?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2016:15014, archived at https://perma.cc/XDC7-U8A4. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Netherlands 

The Law Library of Congress 55 

. . . he makes statements that go beyond that boundary, in the sense that his behavior constitutes 

a criminal offense . . . These are statements that have not been protected by freedom of expression 

from the outset.”13 Like the ECtHR, the Dutch courts generally exclude hate speech from the scope 

of protection of freedom of expression. The decision in the Wilders case has been appealed by the 

defendant.14 A ruling is expected in October 2019.15 

III. Limits on Freedom of Expression 

A. Dutch Constitution 

The Dutch Constitution does not contain a general limitations clause; instead, every right sets out 

whether and how it can be limited, either by an act of parliament or pursuant to an act of 

parliament (delegated authority) and occasionally just for specific purposes, such as public safety 

or protection of morals. Freedom of expression in the Dutch Constitution can only be limited by 

an act of parliament (“without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law”). 

The Dutch Constitution varies the level of protection and possibilities to limit the different 

components of freedom of expression. Whereas the prohibition of censure for freedom of the 

press is absolute (paragraph 1), performances open to persons younger than sixteen years of age 

that fall under freedom of expression by other means can be regulated by act of Parliament in 

order to protect good morals (paragraph 3). The Dutch Criminal Code contains several provisions 

that limit freedom of expression and are relevant in the context of heckling, among them 

defamation, slander, and insult;16 lèse-majesté;17 and the prohibition against incitement to 

religious hatred and discrimination (“hate speech”).18 

 

13 Id. 

14 Strafzaak Wilders. De stand van zaken [Criminal Case Wilders. State of Affairs], Het Rechtspraak Servicecentrum 

[Netherlands Council for the Judiciary], https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Bekende-rechtszaken/StrafzaakWilders/Paginas/default.aspx (last visited June 7, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/X4FK-9CPM. 

15 Id. 

16 Wetboek van Strafrecht [Criminal Code], Mar. 3, 1881, Stb. 1881, No. 35, as amended, art. 261, 

https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2019-04-01, unofficial English translation available at

http://www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/6533/2014%20seminars/Omsenie/WetboekvanStrafrecht_ENG_PV.pdf

(updated through Jan. 1, 2012), archived at https://perma.cc/KZK3-LE8V. 

17 Id. arts.111-113, 118. It should be noted that there is a proposal pending in Parliament to abolish these 

provisions from the Criminal Code, see Initiatiefvoorstel-Verhoeven. Vervallen enkele bijzondere bepalingen 

over belediging staatshoofden en andere publieke personen en instellingen, Kamerstukken no. 34456, 

https://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/34456_initiatiefvoorstel_verhoeven, archived at

https://perma.cc/GR4U-2HYF. 

18 Id. arts. 137c, 137d. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Netherlands 

The Law Library of Congress 56 

B. ECHR 

Article 10 of the ECHR provides that any limitation of freedom of expression must be prescribed 

by law. Furthermore, the interference must be “necessary in a democratic society” and be aimed 

at certain enumerated objectives.19” The legitimate aims are “interests of national security, 

territorial integrity or public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health 

or morals, the protection of the reputation or rights of others, the prevention of the disclosure of 

information received in confidence, or the maintenance of the authority and impartiality of the 

judiciary.” The term “law,” however, is much broader than in the Dutch Constitution and must 

not be a formal act of parliament; instead, it can refer to any rule of law that is accessible 

and foreseeable.20 

Relevant in the context of heckling is the prevention of disorder or crime. The ECtHR has held, 

however, that “ill feelings or even outrage, in the absence of intimidation, cannot represent a 

pressing social need [for limiting freedom of expression] . . . To hold otherwise would mean that 

freedom of speech and opinion is subjected to the heckler’s veto.”21 

IV. Availability of Mechanism to Control Foreign Broadcasters Working on Behalf of 

Foreign Governments 

As mentioned, article 7, paragraph 2 of the Dutch Constitution provides that there is no prior 

censure of broadcasting and that the freedom of broadcasting may only be limited by an act of 

parliament. In 2008, the Dutch parliament passed the Media Act 2008 (Mediawet 2008), which 

sets out rules for public and commercial broadcasters, short-term broadcasters, and commercial 

on-demand media service providers.22 The Media Act 2008 replaced the outdated Media Act from 

1987.23 The Dutch Media Authority (Commissariaat voor de Media) supervises the media service 

providers; for example, it grants broadcasting licenses, monitors compliance with the rules of the 

Media Act 2008, and imposes penalties for non-compliance.24 However, the Media Act also states 

that the government does not interfere with the form and content of the programming of the 

public and private broadcasters.25

There are, however, rules in the Media Act 2008 that limit the participation of foreign broadcasters 

to a certain extent. The Media Act 2008 contains quotas for European and Dutch-Frisian 

 

19 ECHR, art. 10, para. 2. 

20 Constitutional Law of the Netherlands, supra note 5, at 157. 

21 Fáber v. Hungary, App. No.40721/08 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2012), paras. 56 & 57, 

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-112446, archived at https://perma.cc/N2TD-5ZHF. 

22 Mediawet 2008 [Media Act 2008], Dec. 29, 2008, STB. 2008, No. 583, as amended, 

https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0025028/2018-05-30, archived at https://perma.cc/N6SC-8PC3. 

23 Mediawet [Media Act], Apr. 21, 1987, STB. 1987, No. 249, https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0004149/2007-

07-01, archived at https://perma.cc/DR4M-TPAT. 

24 Home, COMMISSARIAAT VOOR DE MEDIA [DUTCH MEDIA AUTHORITY], https://www.cvdm.nl/english/ (last 

visited June 4, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/3XA3-XB5W. 

25 Media Act 2008, art. 2.88, para. 1; art. 3.5, para. 1. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Netherlands 

The Law Library of Congress 57 

programming of public and private broadcasters, thereby excluding foreign, non-European 

Union (EU) broadcasters. Fifty percent of the programming of public media corporations must 

consist of European works as defined in the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive.26 Another 

50% must consist of Dutch-Frisian programming.27 For private broadcasters, there is also a 

requirement that 50% of the programming consist of European works; however, the Dutch Media 

Authority can lower that percentage to 10% in special cases.28 With regard to Dutch-Frisian 

programming, the Media Act 2008 requires a 40% quota, but the Dutch Media Authority may 

partially or fully exempt a private broadcaster from that requirement in special cases.29 Special 

cases may include broadcasters that are focused on a specific group of people, for 

example foreigners.30

Under the ECHR, as mentioned above, freedom of expression also covers the freedom to receive 

information. States are free to regulate broadcasting with a licensing system, but they may only 

exercise that power for technical purposes.31 The ECtHR has held that “any restriction imposed 

on the means [of reception] necessarily interferes with the right to receive and 

impart information.”32

 

26 Id. art. 2.115; Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the 

coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States 

concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive, art. 1, 2010 O.J. 

(L 95) 1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010L0013&from=EN, archived 

at https://perma.cc/KR7V-HHX9. 

27 Media Act 2008, art. 2.122, para. 1. 

28 Id. art. 3.20. 

29 Id. art. 3.24. 

30 Beleidsregel programmaquota 2019 [Policy Rule for Program Quota 2019], STAATSCOURANT VAN HET 

KONINKRIJK DER NEDERLANDEN [STCRT.] [GOVERNMENT GAZETTE] 2019, p. 10657, 

https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0041959/2019-02-28, archived at https://perma.cc/5TA5-BSJL. 

31 ECHR, art. 10, para. 1, sentence 3; Groppera Radio AG and Others v. Switzerland, App. No. 10890/8 

(Eur.Ct.H.R. 1990), para. 61, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57623, archived at https://perma.cc/82CMVML8. 

32 Autronic AG v. Switzerland, supra note 8, para. 47. 
The Law Library of Congress 58 

New Zealand 

Kelly Buchanan 

Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY The right to freedom of expression, as enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 

1990, may be subject to reasonable limits, prescribed by law, that can be “demonstrably 

justified in a free and just society.” The courts do not have the ability to strike down 

legislative provisions that unduly limit the right to freedom of expression. Limitations 

on the right can be found in several statutes, with some of the provisions potentially 

relevant to situations involving “heckling” or to the broadcasting of foreign 

propaganda. These include certain offenses against public order in the Summary 

Offences Act 1981; provisions related to racist “hate speech” in the Human Rights Act 

1993; standards and complaint processes established under the Broadcasting Act 1989; 

prohibitions on possessing or dealing with “objectionable” publications under the 

Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 2003; and the availability of 

procedures to address harmful information posted online under the Harmful Digital 

Communications Act 2015. In addition, media entities and advertising are subject to 

complaint processes in accordance with established systems of self-regulation. 

 The issue of legal restrictions on “hate speech” has emerged in public debate related to 

various events over the past two years. The government is currently undertaking a 

review of existing provisions, including those in the Human Rights Act and the 

Harmful Digital Communications Act. 

I. Right to Freedom of Expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) is one of several statutes that form part of 

New Zealand’s constitution; the country does not have a single, codified constitutional 

document.1 It applies to any acts done by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the 

New Zealand government, or “by any person or body in the performance of any public function, 

power, or duty” conferred or imposed on it by law.2 Section 14 provides protection for “freedom 

of expression,” stating that “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of expression, including the 

freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind.”3

The rights contained in the NZBORA may be subject to “justified limitations.” The relevant 

provision states that “the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only 

to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and 

 

1 See Kenneth Keith, On the Constitution of New Zealand: An Introduction to the Foundations of the Current Form of 

Government (1990, updated 2008 & 2017), https://dpmc.govt.nz/our-business-units/cabinetoffice/supporting-work-cabinet/cabinet-manual/introduction, archived at https://perma.cc/GE6A-MQYW. 

2 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s 3, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/ 

whole.html, archived at https://perma.cc/X4PE-HA24. 

3 Id. s 14. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 59 

democratic society.”4 The legislation does not allow the courts to strike down or otherwise decide 

not to apply a provision of another law by reason only of its inconsistency with any provision in 

the NZBORA.5 However, the courts must, whenever possible, interpret any law in a manner that 

is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in the NZBORA.6

When new legislation is introduced in the Parliament, the Attorney-General must “bring to the 

attention of the House of Representatives any provision in the Bill that appears to be inconsistent 

with any of the rights and freedoms” contained in the NZBORA.7 

II. Legislative Limitations on the Right to Freedom of Expression 

In addition to the civil defamation law8 and various criminal law provisions (e.g., provisions on 

threats and intimate visual recordings in the Crimes Act 19619), the following legislative 

provisions contain limits on the right to freedom of expression in New Zealand, including 

potentially where “heckling” or broadcasting of foreign propaganda rise to the level of breaching 

the relevant provisions. 

 

A. Summary Offences Act 1981 

The Summary Offences Act 1981 contains several offenses under the heading “offences against 

public order,” including the following: 

3 Disorderly behaviour 

Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not 

exceeding $2,000 who, in or within view of any public place, behaves, or incites or 

encourages any person to behave, in a riotous, offensive, threatening, insulting, or 

disorderly manner that is likely in the circumstances to cause violence against persons or 

property to start or continue. 

4 Offensive behaviour or language 

(1) Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who,— 

(a) In or within view of any public place, behaves in an offensive or disorderly 

manner; or 

(b) In any public place, addresses any words to any person intending to threaten, 

alarm, insult, or offend that person; or 

(c) In or within hearing of a public place,— 

 

4 Id. s 5. 

5 Id. s 4. 

6 Id. s 6. 

7 Id. s 7. 

8 Defamation Act 1992, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1992/0105/latest/whole.html, archived at

https://perma.cc/29UA-VXHU. 

9 Crimes Act 1961 ss 216G–216N, 306–308, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/ 

whole.html, archived at https://perma.cc/BZ6T-WCAT. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 60 

(i) Uses any threatening or insulting words and is reckless whether any person 

is alarmed or insulted by those words; or 

(ii) Addresses any indecent or obscene words to any person. 

(2) Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $500 who, in or within hearing of any 

public place, uses any indecent or obscene words. 

(3) In determining for the purposes of a prosecution under this section whether any 

words were indecent or obscene, the Court shall have regard to all the circumstances 

pertaining at the material time, including whether the defendant had reasonable 

grounds for believing that the person to whom the words were addressed, or any 

person by whom they might be overheard, would not be offended. 

(4) It is a defence in a prosecution under subsection (2) of this section if the defendant 

proves that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his words would not be 

overheard. 

(5) Nothing in this section shall apply with respect to any publication within the meaning 

of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, whether the publication 

is objectionable within the meaning of that Act or not.10

Other offenses in this part of the Act include “disorderly behaviour on private premises” and 

“disorderly assembly.”11 A further offense, under the category of “offences resembling nuisance,” 

provides that “[e]very person is liable to a fine not exceeding $200 who, in any public place, 

unreasonably disrupts any meeting, congregation, or audience.”12

In a 2011 decision, the Supreme Court of New Zealand overturned a woman’s conviction under 

section 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 that had arisen from her burning a New Zealand 

flag at a protest during an annual ceremony to commemorate servicemen and servicewomen.13

A summary of the decision released by the Court states that 

[t]he Court has held, unanimously, that offensive behaviour within the meaning of s 4(1)(a) 

must be behaviour which gives rise to a disturbance of public order. Although agreed that 

disturbance of public order is a necessary element of offensive behaviour under s 4(1)(a), 

the Judges differed as to the meaning of “offensive” behaviour. The majority (with the 

Chief Justice dissenting and Justice Anderson not entirely concurring on this point) 

considered that offensive behaviour must be capable of wounding feelings or arousing real 

anger, resentment, disgust or outrage, objectively assessed, provided that it is to an extent 

 

10 Summary Offences Act 1981 ss 3 & 4, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/ 

whole.html, archived at https://perma.cc/4DBB-WTEK. 

11 Id. ss 5 & 5A. 

12 Id. s 37. 

13 Morse v Police [2011] NZSC 45, https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/valerie-morse-v-thequeen/@@images/fileDecision, archived at https://perma.cc/MZ2D-PV8R. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 61 

which impacts on public order and is more than those subjected to it should have 

to tolerate.14

In his judgment, Tipping J. held that 

[f]or me the word “offensive”, in context, means that to contravene s 4(1)(a) a person must 

behave in a manner that causes offence to those affected to such an extent, or in such a 

manner, as disturbs public order. It cannot, however, be right that the unreasonable 

reactions of those who are affected by the behaviour can be invoked as indicative of a threat 

to public order. Hence those affected by the behaviour must be prepared to tolerate some 

degree of offence on account of the rights and freedoms being exercised by those 

responsible for the behaviour. It is only when the behaviour of those charged under s 

4(1)(a) causes greater offence than those affected can be expected to tolerate that an offence 

under s 4(1)(a) will have been committed. And it is always necessary for the prosecution 

to demonstrate a sufficient disturbance of public order. 

In this context public order is sufficiently disturbed if the behaviour in question causes 

offence of such a kind or to such an extent that those affected are substantially inhibited in 

carrying out the purpose of their presence at the place where the impugned behaviour is 

taking place. Only if the effect of the behaviour reaches that level of interference with the 

activity in which those affected are engaged is it appropriate for the law to hold that their 

rights and interests should prevail over the right to freedom of expression of those whose 

behaviour is in contention. That is the appropriate touchstone.15

McGrath J. also considered that the rights of those affected should be taken into account, 

holding that 

[i]t must be borne in mind that under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act, all rights and freedoms 

may be made subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be justified in a 

free and democratic society. In order to be such a limit on freedom of expression, 

proscribed offensive behaviour must be confined to sufficiently serious and reprehensible 

interferences with rights of others. Such conduct is objectively intolerable. The court’s 

analysis must assess the impact of the exercise of the right in the circumstances, as well as 

the importance of other interests affected. Consideration must also be given to whether 

there are other methods of addressing the conflict with free speech rights than the offence 

provision in question or its ordinary meaning. 

To this end, a balancing of the conflicting interests must be undertaken by the court as a 

basis for reaching a reasoned conclusion on whether the summary offence of offensive 

behaviour is a justified limitation on freedom of speech.16

 

14 Press Release, Supreme Court of New Zealand, Valerie Morse v The Police (SC 10/2010; [2011] NZSC 45: 

Press Summary (May 6, 2011), https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/valerie-morse-v-thequeen/at_download/fileMediaNotes, archived at https://perma.cc/678Z-W2P2. 

15 Morse v Police [2011] NZSC 45, paras. 71-72 (per Tipping J). 

16 Id. paras. 106-107 (per McGrath J). 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 62 

B. Human Rights Act 1993 

Section 61 of the Human Rights Act 1993 makes it unlawful for any person 

(a) to publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or 

to broadcast by means of radio or television or other electronic communication words 

which are threatening, abusive, or insulting; or 

(b) to use in any public place as defined in section 2(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1981, 

or within the hearing of persons in any such public place, or at any meeting to which 

the public are invited or have access, words which are threatening, abusive, or 

insulting; or 

(c) to use in any place words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting if the person 

using the words knew or ought to have known that the words were reasonably likely 

to be published in a newspaper, magazine, or periodical or broadcast by means of 

radio or television,— 

being matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group 

of persons in or who may be coming to New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or 

ethnic or national origins of that group of persons.17

Racial and sexual harassment are also unlawful under the Act, including when the use of relevant 

language or other behavior takes place in the context of a person’s “participation in fora for the 

exchange of ideas and information.”18

The Act establishes dispute resolution procedures through which persons can make complaints 

about breaches of the above provisions and other provisions in part 2 of the Act, and also provides 

for civil proceedings arising from such complaints.19

In addition, the Act contains an offense of inciting racial disharmony, providing as follows: 

Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term 

not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $7,000 who, with intent to excite hostility 

or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any group of persons in New Zealand 

on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons,— 

(a) publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or 

broadcasts by means of radio or television words which are threatening, abusive, or 

insulting; or 

(b) uses in any public place (as defined in section 2(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1981), 

or within the hearing of persons in any such public place, or at any meeting to which 

the public are invited or have access, words which are threatening, abusive, 

or insulting,— 

 

17 Human Rights Act 1993 s 61, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/63.0/whole.html, 

archived at https://perma.cc/22BU-FNCP. 

18 Id. ss 62(3)(k) & 63(2)(k). 

19 Id. pt. 3. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 63 

being matter or words likely to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or 

ridicule, any such group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or 

ethnic or national origins of that group of persons.20

It is also an offense under the Act to refuse to allow any other person access to or use of any place 

or vehicle which members of the public are entitled or allowed to enter or use, where that refusal 

is a breach of any of the provisions related to unlawful discrimination under part 2 of the Act.21 

Section 61 of the Act was considered by the High Court for the first time in February 2018 in the 

context of an appeal from a determination of the Human Rights Review Tribunal dismissing a 

complaint about two cartoons published in newspapers that featured negative depictions of 

Māori and Pasifika people. The High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Tribunal that 

section 61 “established a high threshold and was targeted to racist speech at the serious end of 

the spectrum.”22 It found that, while the parties agreed that the cartoons met the first part of the 

test in section 61 (in that they were “insulting”), they did not meet the second limb of the test 

(being likely to “excite hostility” against or “bring into contempt” a group of people based on 

their race or ethnicity).23

C. Broadcasting Act 1989 

The Broadcasting Act 1989 establishes the responsibility of every New Zealand television and 

radio broadcaster for “maintaining in its programmes and their presentation, standards that are 

consistent with” the following: 

(a) the observance of good taste and decency; and 

(b) the maintenance of law and order; and 

(c) the privacy of the individual; and 

(d) the principle that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed, 

reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities are given, to present 

significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes 

within the period of current interest; and 

(e) any approved code of broadcasting practice applying to the programmes.24

The Act sets out principles and processes applicable to complaints about programs25 and 

establishes the Broadcasting Standards Authority, an independent Crown entity with 

 

20 Id. s 131(1). 

21 Id. s 134. 

22 Wall v Fairfax New Zealand Ltd [2018] NZHC 104, paras. 42, 52, http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/ 

2018/104.html, archived at https://perma.cc/V3TM-829K. 

23 See Jessica Wotton, Human Rights Case Summaries: New Zealand High Court Finds Insulting Cartoons Did Not 

Breach Hate Speech Legislation, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CENTRE (Feb. 12, 2018), https://www.hrlc.org.au/humanrights-case-summaries/2018/6/1/new-zealand-high-court-finds-insulting-cartoons-did-not-breach-hatespeech-legislation, archived at https://perma.cc/4WM9-8ZTH. 

24 Broadcasting Act 1989 s 4(1), http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0025/latest/whole.html, 

archived at https://perma.cc/QZ4F-DYRZ. 

25 Id. pt. 2. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 64 

responsibility for receiving and determining complaints “from persons who are dissatisfied with 

the outcomes of complaints made to broadcasters,” among other functions.26 Its other functions 

include encouraging the development by broadcasters of, or issuing its own, codes of 

broadcasting practice relating to 

(i) the protection of children: 

(ii) the portrayal of violence: 

(iii) fair and accurate programmes and procedures for correcting factual errors and 

redressing unfairness: 

(iv) safeguards against the portrayal of persons in programmes in a manner that 

encourages denigration of, or discrimination against, sections of the community on 

account of sex, race, age, disability, or occupational status or as a consequence of 

legitimate expression of religious, cultural, or political beliefs: 

(v) restrictions on the promotion of alcohol: 

(vi) presentation of appropriate warnings in respect of programmes, including 

programmes that have been classified as suitable only for particular audiences: 

(vii) the privacy of the individual:27

The Broadcasting Standards Authority has issued codes of practice related to radio, free-to-air 

television, and pay television, as well as a code on election programs.28 With respect to foreign 

channels, the Authority notes that 

pay television broadcasters may offer channels over which they have no (or little) editorial 

control (for example, foreign pass-through channels). This limited control of the 

broadcaster will be an important consideration when assessing whether a programme has 

breached standards. However, it is expected that generally a pay television broadcaster 

will be mindful of the standards and exercise appropriate discretion and judgement when 

determining which channels should be allowed to pass through its platform.29

D. Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 

New Zealand’s censorship legislation, the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993, 

enables the Chief Censor and Deputy Chief Censor to classify a publication as unrestricted, 

restricted, or objectionable.30 It is an offense under the Act to make, copy, import, supply or 

 

26 Id. s 21. 

27 Id. s 21(1)(e) & (f). 

28 Broadcasting Standards, BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY, https://bsa.govt.nz/broadcasting-standards/

(last visited May 16, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/K8D9-XVZ9. 

29 BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY, BROADCASTING STANDARDS IN NEW ZEALAND: CODEBOOK FOR RADIO,

FREE-TO-AIR TELEVISION & PAY TELEVISION 8 (Apr. 2016), https://bsa.govt.nz/assets/BroadcastingStandards/Broadcasting-Standards-Codebook/15bed03633/160304_12_BSA_CODE_OF 

_CONDUCT_BOOK_FINAL.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/92WZ-EJYR. 

30 Films, Videos and Publication Act 1993 s 23, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0094/latest/ 

whole.html, archived at https://perma.cc/9E6T-7K6Q. “Publication” is defined in section 2 of the Act as 

meaning 

(a) any film, book, sound recording, picture, newspaper, photograph, photographic negative, 

photographic plate, or photographic slide: 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 65 

distribute, or display or exhibit an objectionable publication.31 It is also an offense to possess such 

a publication.32 A publication is “objectionable” if it “describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise 

deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the 

availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.”33

Recent examples of publications deemed objectionable under the Act are the video footage and 

“manifesto” produced by the man accused of attacking two mosques in Christchurch on March 

15, 2019.34 

E. Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 

The purpose of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 is to 

(a) deter, prevent, and mitigate harm caused to individuals by digital communications; 

and 

(b) provide victims of harmful digital communications with a quick and efficient means 

of redress.35

The Act sets out a list of ten “communication principles” that must be taken into account by the 

agency designated to receive complaints under the Act and by the courts.36 These entities must 

also act consistently with the rights and freedoms contained in the NZBORA.37 In addition to 

complaint procedures, the Act establishes an ability for an affected individual or other relevant 

people to bring civil proceedings in relation to alleged harm resulting from a digital 

communication, and sets out the procedures applicable in such proceedings.38 It also creates an 

offense of causing harm by posting a digital communication. The relevant provision states that 

 (b) any print or writing: 

(c) a paper or other thing that has printed or impressed upon it, or otherwise shown upon it, 1 

or more (or a combination of 1 or more) images, representations, signs, statements, or words: 

(d) a thing (including, but not limited to, a disc, or an electronic or computer file) on which is 

recorded or stored information that, by the use of a computer or other electronic device, is 

capable of being reproduced or shown as 1 or more (or a combination of 1 or more) images, 

representations, signs, statements, or words 

31 Id. ss 123, 124, 127 & 129. 

32 Id. ss 131 & 131A. 

33 Id. s 3(1). 

34 See Christchurch Attacks Classification Information, OFFICE OF FILM & LITERATURE CLASSIFICATION (Mar. 23, 2019), 

https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-news/christchurch-attacks-press-releases/, archived at

https://perma.cc/GU8D-D4T8. 

35 Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 s 3, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/ 

latest/whole.html, archived at https://perma.cc/9BJX-NXC5. 

36 Id. s 6. 

37 Id. s 6(2)(b). 

38 Id. ss 11–20. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 66 

(1) [a] person commits an offence if— 

(a) the person posts a digital communication with the intention that it cause harm to 

a victim; and 

(b) posting the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person 

in the position of the victim; and 

(c) posting the communication causes harm to the victim. 

(2) In determining whether a post would cause harm, the court may take into account any 

factors it considers relevant, including— 

(a) the extremity of the language used: 

(b) the age and characteristics of the victim: 

(c) whether the digital communication was anonymous: 

(d) whether the digital communication was repeated: 

(e) the extent of circulation of the digital communication: 

(f) whether the digital communication is true or false: 

(g) the context in which the digital communication appeared. 

(3) A person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction to,— 

(a) in the case of a natural person, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or 

a fine not exceeding $50,000: 

(b) in the case of a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $200,000. 

(4) In this section, victim means the individual who is the target of a posted digital 

communication.39

III. Industry Self-Regulation 

A. New Zealand Media Council 

The New Zealand Media Council (formerly the New Zealand Press Council) is a self-regulatory, 

industry-funded body that provides an independent forum for resolving complaints related to 

“published material in newspapers, magazines and their websites, including audio and video 

streams, as well as to digital sites with news content, or blogs characterised by their new 

commentary.”40 It has published a list of principles that complainants may use as the basis for 

their complaints, and lists the organizations and publications that have agreed to abide by these 

principles. These include organizations that provide video-on-demand services and broadcasters 

that provide online news content.41

 

 

39 Id. s 22. For more information on this legislation, see KELLY BUCHANAN, ERASURE OF ONLINE INFORMATION:

NEW ZEALAND (Law Library of Congress, Nov. 2017), https://www.loc.gov/law/help/erasure-onlineinfo/newzealand.php; Kelly Buchanan, New Zealand: Legislation Aimed at Preventing and Punishing Cyber 

Bullying Passed, GLOBAL LEGAL MONITOR (July 6, 2015), http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/newzealand-legislation-aimed-at-preventing-and-punishing-cyberbullying-passed/. 

40 Statement of Principles, NEW ZEALAND MEDIA COUNCIL, https://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/principles (last 

visited May 16, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/5ABN-3PJJ. 

41 Id.
Limits on Freedom of Expression: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 67 

B. Advertising Standards Authority 

The Advertising Standards Authority has established advertising codes42 and complaint 

processes regarding the content and placement of advertisements.43 It works within the legal 

framework provided by various laws that restrict advertising in New Zealand, which provide “a 

legal backstop to deal with more serious advertising breaches.”44 The three main objectives of the 

Authority are as follows: 

1. To seek to maintain at all times and in all media a proper and generally acceptable 

standard of advertising and to ensure that advertising is not misleading or deceptive, 

either by statement or by implication. 

2. To establish and promote an effective system of voluntary self-regulation in respect to 

advertising standards. 

3. To establish and fund an Advertising Standards Complaints Board.45

IV. Debate Regarding Regulation of “Hate Speech” 

There is currently debate in New Zealand regarding the regulation of “hate speech” and the 

implications for freedom of expression.46 This follows various events, including two “alt-right” 

figures from Canada being denied access to council-owned speaking venues in Auckland in 

2018,47 ongoing discussions about freedom of speech at universities,48 as well as discussions 

 

42 Codes, ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY, https://www.asa.co.nz/codes/codes/ (last visited May 16, 

2019), archived at https://perma.cc/8RBR-TPPY. 

43 Complaints, ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY, https://www.asa.co.nz/complaints/ (last visited May 16, 

2019), archived at https://perma.cc/UV86-MT43. 

44 Our Jurisdiction, ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY, https://www.asa.co.nz/about-us/our-jurisdiction/

(last visited May 16, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/2PB8-FJP5. 

45 About Us, ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY, https://www.asa.co.nz/about-us/ (last visited May 20, 

2019), archived at https://perma.cc/6ZD7-48U4. 

46 See Thomas Coughlan, What Will Happen to Our Hate Speech Laws?, NEWSROOM (Apr. 8, 2019), 

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/04/08/524142/what-will-happen-to-hate-speech-laws, archived at

https://perma.cc/EAY9-EXZ3; Graham Adams, Religion the Flashpoint in Free Speech Debate, NOTED (Apr. 9, 

2019), https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/politics/religion-the-flashpoint-in-free-speech-debate/, archived at 

https://perma.cc/9BCY-QU5S; Moana Jackson, Moana Jackson: No One’s Exercise of Free Speech Should Make 

Another Feel Less Free, E-TANGATA (May 6, 2018), https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/moanajackson-no-ones-exercise-of-free-speech-should-make-another-feel-less-free/, archived at

https://perma.cc/KE89-JLMT. 

47 See, e.g., Anna Bracewell-Worrall, Auckland ‘Alt-Right’ Event Cancelled Due to ‘Health and Safety’, NEWSHUB

(July 6, 2018), https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/07/group-urges-govt-to-refuse-entry-to-altright-speakers.html, archived at https://perma.cc/W6CG-2AE2; Auckland Council Faces Legal Action: Free Speech 

Campaign Raises $50k After Ban of Far-Right Speakers, NZ HERALD (July 10, 2018), https://www.nzherald.co.nz 

/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12086540, archived at https://perma.cc/L5ZL-WXMJ. 

48 See, e.g., Analysis: NZ Politics Daily: Freedom of Speech v PC Culture, NATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW (Apr. 13, 2017),

https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/nz-politics-daily-freedom-speech-v-pc-culture, archived at 

https://perma.cc/PC5B-SLLZ. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: New Zealand 

The Law Library of Congress 68 

relating to white supremacy and Islamophobia following the Christchurch mosque attacks,49 and 

homophobia in relation to comments made by a prominent sports player.50

The Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, stated in March 2019 that the government would fast-track 

a review of existing legislative provisions related to hate speech, particularly those in the Human 

Rights Act and the Harmful Digital Communications Act, as well as sections of the Crimes Act.51

He also did not rule out the establishment of “hate crime” as a separate offense.52 There is 

currently no specific “hate crime” offense in New Zealand, but the Sentencing Act 2002 includes 

hostility towards groups of people “who have an enduring common characteristic” as an 

aggravating factor to be taken into account when sentencing offenders.53

 

49 Saziah Bashir, Words Matter: It’s Time to Rethink Hate Speech Laws, RADIO NEW ZEALAND (Apr. 2, 2019), 

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/386174/words-matter-it-s-time-to-rethink-hate-speech-laws, 

archived at https://perma.cc/EQD3-DQP2; Scott Palmer, Free Speech Debate Reignites After Christchurch Terror 

Attack, NEWSHUB (Apr. 17, 2019), https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/04/free-speechdebate-reignites-after-christchurch-terror-attack.html, archived at https://perma.cc/KU37-QJVE. 

50 See, e.g., MPs David Seymour and Louisa Wall Clash Over Israel Folau Case During Hate Speech Debate, 

1NEWSNOW (May 20, 2019), https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/mps-david-seymour-andlouisa-wall-clash-over-israel-folau-case-during-hate-speech-debate, archived at https://perma.cc/CPW2-7FHP; 

Dan Satherley, Israel Folau Fallout: No Need for Stronger Hate Speech Laws – Paula Bennet, NEWSHUB (Apr. 23, 

2014), https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/04/israel-folau-fallout-no-need-for-stronger-hatespeech-laws-paula-bennett.html, archived at https://perma.cc/E5F6-KUFX. 

51 Sam Hurley, Concerns Raised Over Protection from Hate Speech in NZ’s Legislation, NZ HERALD (June 3, 2018), 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12062311, archived at 

https://perma.cc/CM3C-53T7. 

52 Michelle Duff, Criminalising Hate Speech: New Zealand Considers Policing Hateful Expression, STUFF (Apr. 28, 

2019), https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/112264302/criminalising-hate-speech-newzealand-considers-policing-hateful-expression, archived at https://perma.cc/H3T4-GMVR. 

53 Sentencing Act 2002 s 9(1)(h), http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0009/latest/whole.html, 

archived at https://perma.cc/Q8TT-KWVN. 
The Law Library of Congress 69 

Sweden 

Elin Hofverberg 

Foreign Law Specialist

SUMMARY Sweden protects free speech in its Constitution. However, freedom of the press and 

freedom of expression may be limited by law. For example, Sweden criminalizes a 

number of behaviors aimed at groups and individuals, including hate speech (racial 

agitation), enticement, and defamation. 

 Disruption of certain public gatherings, such as public deliberations in the Swedish 

Parliament and religious ceremonies, is also criminalized. In addition, disorderly 

conduct aimed at aggravating others is criminalized. 

 Public speech (such as at town halls and demonstrations) may be limited by law. 

Demonstrations require a prior permit. Police may break up public speeches or other 

groupings of people if there is a risk to human life or of a disruption to traffic or the 

immediate surroundings. 

 All Swedish broadcasters must apply for a permit to broadcast in Sweden. Broadcaster 

licenses may be revoked and broadcasters may be fined for violating regulations 

applicable to them. While foreign media may operate in Sweden, Sweden does not 

oversee foreign broadcasters that broadcast from abroad to a Swedish audience. For 

instance, several channels are offered to Swedish viewers from the United Kingdom. 

 Foreign journalists may receive accreditation from individual institutions and events 

and may have the same accreditations revoked for misuse. 

I. Scope of Protection of Freedom of Speech and the Right to Interrupt Public Speech 

A. Constitutional Protection of Free Speech 

Sweden protects freedom of speech in its Constitution (Instrument of Government).1 Freedom of 

speech is further protected and regulated in two separate constitutional acts—the Freedom of the 

Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression.2 In addition, freedom of speech 

 

1 REGERINGSFORMEN [RF] [INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT] (Svensk författningssamling (SFS) 1974:152), 

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/kungorelse-1974152-

om-beslutad-ny-regeringsform_sfs-1974-152, archived at https://perma.cc/2L66-LWKR. 

2 TRYCKFRIHETSGRUNDLAG [TF] [FREEDOM OF THE PRESS ACT] [CONSTITUTION] (SFS 1949:105), https://www.riks 

dagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/tryckfrihetsforordning-1949105_sfs1949-105, archived at https://perma.cc/63C5-89AU; YTTRANDEFRIHETSGRUNDLAGEN [YGL] [FUNDAMENTAL LAW 

ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION] (SFS 1991:1469), https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/ 

svensk-forfattningssamling/yttrandefrihetsgrundlag-19911469_sfs-1991-1469, archived at 

https://perma.cc/GB6Q-DLKC. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Sweden 

The Law Library of Congress 70 

is protected in the European Convention on Human Rights.3 Sweden introduced its first freedom 

of the press legislation in 1766.4 The document was adopted by Royal acclamation, and removed 

the need for publishers to attain preapproval from the King prior to publication.5 A special 

Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression covering non-print media was adopted in 1991.6 

While Swedish law generally protects freedom of expression, there are limits that may be 

imposed. For example, the Freedom of the Press Act allows the legislature to regulate press 

freedom, such as by adopting laws that limit the use of advertisements and criminalize 

child pornography.7

B. Civil Ordinance Rules and Use of Freedom of Speech at Public Gatherings 

Peace and order in public places is regulated in the Swedish Civil Ordinance Act.8 The Civil 

Ordinance Act applies to public gatherings and seeks to guarantee the safety and security of those 

present.9 Public gatherings may not be held in Sweden without a prior permit.10 In addition, 

certain gatherings may be prohibited, either based the gathering’s geographical location or 

content.11 Public gatherings may be dissolved if they are disruptive.12 Previous disruptions at 

similar events may also be a reason to deny the issuance of a permit for a public event.13

 

 

3 European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR], Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, http://www.echr.coe.int/ 

Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/Y584-N9KT. 

4 Kongl. Maj:ts Nådige Förordning, Angående Skrif- och Tryck-friheten. Gifwen Stockholm i Råd-Cammaren 

then 2. December 1766 [Royal Acclamation Regarding the Freedom of the Press. Delivered in Stockholm in the 

Council on December 2, 1766], available at http://weburn.kb.se/eod/2840/NLS12A002840.pdf. 

5 Id. 1 §. For more information on the 1766 law see Elin Hofverberg, 250 Years of Press Freedom in Sweden, IN 

CUSTODIA LEGIS (Dec. 19, 2016), https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2016/12/250-years-of-press-freedom-in-sweden/. 

6 For legislative background see Proposition [Prop.] 1990/91:64 om yttrandefrihetsgrundlag m.m. [on Freedom 

of Expression etc.], https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/0D68E9CF-62E1-4DD8-A184-6ECB103081D0, archived at 

https://perma.cc/X878-7W3X. 

7 1 kap. 12-14 §§ TF. 

8 ORDNINGSLAG [CIVIL ORDINANCE ACT] (SFS 1993:1617), https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/ 

dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/ordningslag-19931617_sfs-1993-1617, archived at

https://perma.cc/SP3Z-ETHK. 

9 Id. 1 kap. 1 §. 

10 Id. 2 kap. 4 §. 

11 Id. 2 kap. 14-15 §§. For example, pornographic displays (content), or at military locations (geographical 

locations). 

12 Id. 2 kap. 23 §. 

13 Id. 2 kap. 25 §. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Sweden 

The Law Library of Congress 71 

1. Application and Permit Requirement 

Public gatherings may not be held in Sweden without a prior permit.14 Applications must be 

made to the Swedish police.15 The Police may request that the applicant provide additional 

information with regard to the event before issuing a permit.16 

2. Police Rights to Break Up Public Speech Events 

The police may dissolve gatherings held without a permit17 or that are disruptive.18 The fact that 

a specific gathering was previously disruptive may be a reason to refuse a permit for a public 

event.19 In addition, a public gathering to perform an artistic production or a public event may be 

dissolved “if the gathering [in itself, or by] the use of sound or in any other way entails 

considerable disruption of the public order in its immediate surroundings. This does not, 

however, apply when the gathering is conducted in accordance with an issued permit.”20 Public 

gatherings may only be dissolved if a less invasive measure is found ineffective.21

C. Criminalized Speech 

1. Disruption of Public Deliberation or Public Gatherings 

Noise disruption (such as heckling) at a “religious service, marital ceremony, funeral, court 

proceeding, or other state or municipal meeting, or public deliberation” is a separate crime in 

Sweden.22 An example of a disruption of a public deliberation includes hecklers at the Swedish 

Parliament. Such disruptions are punishable with a fine (böter) or up to six months 

of imprisonment.23

2. Disorderly Conduct 

In addition, disorderly conduct (förargelseväckande beteende) intended to aggravate (förarga) people 

is also criminalized, and punishable with monetary fines.24 The disorderly conduct provision 

 

14 Id. 2 kap. 4 §. 

15 2 kap. 6 §. Public gatherings include demonstrations, meetings with a public or political agenda, religious 

meetings, lectures, cinematic events, concerts, or events where artistic performances are displayed, and all 

other meetings where the freedom of assembly is exercised. Id. 2 kap. 1 §. 

16 Id. 2 kap. 9 §. 

17 Id. 2 kap. 22 §. 

18 Id. 2 kap. 23 §. 

19 Id. 2 kap. 25 §. 

20 Id. 2 kap. 23 § 2 st. (all translations by author). 

21 2 kap. 21 § RF. 

22 16 kap. 4 § BrB. 

23 Id. 

24 Id. 16 kap. 16 § (in Swedish, Förargelseväckande beteende). 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Sweden 

The Law Library of Congress 72 

explicitly includes noise disruptions.25 To be punishable the person must “make noise in a public 

place or behave in public in a way that is intended to arouse public anger.”26 

Disorderly conduct may include expressive conduct like waving a flag with offensive symbols.27

The crime has a long history and was included in the Criminal Code as early as 1734.28 As recently 

as the early 1900s it was also used to sentence persons who voiced opinions that were 

controversial.29 This changed when an explicit prohibition on punishing opinions in the 1940s 

was included in the legislative history to the amendment of the Penal Code, where the legislators 

explained that it was the behavior not the content of what was said that should be punished.30

Examples of behavior that has led to convictions include a person who sang and played music in 

his private home with the windows open in order to disrupt a political meeting that was being 

held outside his property.31 Thus, heckling a political group is likely to fall within the constraints 

of disorderly conduct even if it does not specifically meet the requirements to be deemed 

disruption of public deliberations and gatherings mentioned above. 

3. Racial Agitation 

Sweden has criminalized “hate speech” when it amounts to “racial agitation” (hets mot folkgrupp), 

defined as ”a statement or other message that is spread and disseminated that threatens, or 

expresses condescension against, an ethnic group or another group of persons based on race, skin 

color, national or ethnic origin, faith, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity or 

expression.”32 The provision only protects the enumerated groups of people, and publication of 

untrue statements in itself is not considered hate speech. It was first introduced in a government 

bill in 1944 as a response to racial agitation against Jews.33

 

 

25 Id. 

26 Id. 

27 Hovrätten för Övre Norrland [Appeals Court for Nothern Norrland] RH 1997:24, available at https://lagen. 

nu/dom/rh/1997:24, archived at https://perma.cc/Y3CD-R2WF; Nytt Juridiskt Arkiv [Supreme Court 

Reporter] [NJA] 1981:1010, available at https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/1981s1010, archived at 

https://perma.cc/759B-KCFG. See also Thomas Bull & Anders Heiborn, Förargelseväckande yttrandefrihet?, SVJT

1999/568, https://svjt.se/svjt/1999/568, archived at https://perma.cc/8SAE-WCKR. 

28 Bull & Heiborn, supra note 27. 

29 Id. at 568. 

30 Id. at 569; Statens Offentliga Utredningar [SOU] [Government Official Report] 1944:69, Lagstiftning om brott 

mot staten och allmänheten [Crimes against the State and the Public] at 235 f, available at https://lagen.nu/ 

sou/1944:69?attachment=index.pdf&repo=soukb&dir=downloaded. 

31 NJA 1935 s. 409 (discussed in SOU 1944:69 at 235). 

32 16 kap. 8 § BrB. 

33 SOU 1944:69, supra note 30, at 228. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Sweden 

The Law Library of Congress 73 

4. Enticement 

Sweden criminalizes enticement (Uppvigling), defined as “orally in front of a public gathering, [or 

by other means in writing], [trying] to entice others to commit a criminal act, betray a citizenship 

duty, or disobey a government agency.”34

5. Offenses against Individuals 

In addition to the specific crimes mentioned above, which target behavior against groups of 

people, crimes directed at individuals, such as threats (hot),35 defamation (förtal),36 and insults 

(förolämpning)37 are also criminalized. 

The truthfulness or accuracy of an insulting or defamatory statement is generally not a legitimate 

defense against prosecution for such crimes under Swedish law.38 Thus, if a truthful statement 

(e.g., person A has been convicted of rape) is spread with the intent of causing that person harm, 

or harming his or her standing in society, it is still defamation.39 However, statements made by 

the press without the intent to cause another person harm may be excused because they are true 

if the publication (for instance, of the person’s name) was necessary.40 These crimes are 

punishable with a fine or imprisonment of up to six months for insults, and two years for 

defamatory statements.41 These crimes can also be committed against a deceased person, 

provided that it is hurtful to his or her family, or because of the short period of the time that has 

elapsed since the person’s death.42 

II. Control of Foreign Broadcasters Working on Behalf of Foreign Governments 

A. Regulation of Broadcasts from and to Sweden 

1. Swedish Broadcasters 

Swedish TV and radio broadcasters are subject to different rules compared to the printed press 

(including information published on the internet). Whereas the printed press is governed by the 

Freedom of the Press Act, broadcasters are covered by the Fundamental Law on Freedom of 

Expression.43 According to the Fundamental Law every Swedish citizen has the right to broadcast 

 

34 16 kap. 5 § BrB. 

35 7 kap. 2 § TF; 4 kap. 5 § BrB. 

36 7 kap. 3 § TF; 5 kap. 1 § BrB. 

37 7 kap. 4 § TF; 5 kap. 3 § BrB. 

38 5 kap 1. § BrB. 

39 5 kap. 3 § BrB. 

40 7 kap. 3 § 3 st TF. 

41 7 kap. 2-4 §§ TF; 5 kap. 1-3 §§ BrB. 

42 7 kap. 3 § 2 st. TF; 5 kap. 4 § BrB. 

43 1 kap. 1 § YGL. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Sweden 

The Law Library of Congress 74 

and that right may only be limited as further provided for in the Law.44 The Constitution further 

provides that such limits may not go beyond what is necessary in a democratic society, and “may 

never exceed what is necessary in relation to the purpose” nor “extend so far that it constitutes a 

threat to the free formation of opinion (åsiktsbildningen),” nor may it be “based on political, 

religious, cultural or other beliefs.”45 

Radio and TV broadcasts are further regulated in the Radio and TV Act.46 All broadcasters in 

Sweden must be registered47 and those who do not register are subject to a fine.48 The Swedish 

Government must approve any sound recording (radio) that wants to be sent abroad.49 

Compliance with the Radio and TV Act is overseen by the Swedish Press and Broadcasting 

Authority (Myndigheten för Press, TV, och Radio, MPTR).50 The MPTR does not regulate 

broadcasts made from abroad. The current allocation of permits to broadcast in Sweden using the 

Swedish ground network will expire on March 31, 2020; new application procedures are expected 

to be announced in the fall of 2019.51

2. EU Broadcasters 

In accordance with the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive,52 broadcasters located in 

another EU Member State may broadcast programs to Swedish viewers.53 Broadcasts made from 

another EU Member State are not covered by the Swedish regulations on broadcasting, but the 

 

44 1 kap. 1 § YGL. 

45 2 kap. 21 § RF. 

46 RADIO- OCH TV-LAG [RADIO AND TV ACT] (SFS 2010:696), https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokumentlagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/radio--och-tv-lag-2010696_sfs-2010-696, archived at 

https://perma.cc/K2EK-7LVY. 

47 1 kap 2 § RADIO-OCH TV-LAGEN.

48 Id. 17 kap. 3 §. 

49 Id. 11 kap. 1 §. 

50 Id. 16 kap. 3 §. 

51 MYNDIGHETEN FÖR PRESS RADIO OCH TV (MPRT), MEDIEUTVECKLING MEDIEPOLITIK [MEDIA DEVELOPMETNS 

MEDIA POLITICS] (2019), https://www.mprt.se/Documents/Publikationer/Medieutveckling/ 

Mediepolitik/Mediepoltik%202019.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/DJM4-H678. 

52 Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the Coordination 

of Certain Provisions Laid Down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States Concerning 

the Provision of Audiovisual Media Services (Audiovisual Media Services [AMS] Directive), 2010 O.J. (L 95) 1, 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010L0013&from=EN, archived at

https://perma.cc/S97F-TT9X. Sweden is currently reviewing implementation of the amendments to the 

Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Kommittédirektiv [Committee Directive] 2018:55, Genomförande av 

ändringar i AV-direktivet och översyn av radio- och tv-lagen i vissa andra delar [Implementation of the 

Amendments to the AMS Directive and Review of the Radio-and TV Act in Certain Other Respects], 

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/kommittedirektiv/genomforande-av-andringar-iav-direktivet-och_H6B155, archived at https://perma.cc/7GQY-M3Z6. 

53 Id. (transposed into Swedish law through 1 kap. 2 § RADIO- OCH TV-LAGEN). 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Sweden 

The Law Library of Congress 75 

laws of the country in which the broadcast originated.54 There are in total six channels in Sweden 

that are broadcast from abroad (all from the UK), and any complaints against these channels 

should therefore be lodged with the UK authority Ofcom (Office of Communication).55 

In addition to EU broadcasts mentioned above, other international broadcasts may be viewed in 

Sweden using satellite services.56 The content of these shows is likewise not regulated by the 

Swedish authorities.57 Within the EU framework Sweden has been pushing for a change in the 

regulation that would give it the right to regulate and oversee programs that are sent from 

another EU country but are meant for a Swedish audience (for example, when broadcast in the 

Swedish language).58 However, under current legislation, programs that are filmed in Sweden 

and then sent to another EU country for broadcast from that EU country are not considered 

broadcast from Sweden.59 Thus, the determinative factor is not the location where a program is 

filmed, but “where the regulation of the broadcast” is conducted.60 For programs broadcast from 

abroad, the regulation of the broadcast occurs where the editorial decisions regarding the 

programs are made, as well as where the broadcaster is headquartered.61 

3. European Content Quotas 

The Swedish Radio and TV Act requires at least 50% of the content broadcast in Sweden to be 

produced in Europe.62 In addition, at least 10% of the content should be self-produced by the 

broadcaster in Europe.63 Moreover, a significant part of the programs broadcast should be 

produced in the Swedish language.64 “Significant part” is not defined. 

 

54 1 kap. 3 & 5 §§ RADIO- OCH TV-LAGEN.

55 Vad kan anmälas, MPRT (Nov. 14, 2018), https://www.mprt.se/att-anmala/anmal-program/vad-kananmalas/, archived at https://perma.cc/5ASD-SWP2; see also Prop. 2013/14:47 Några ändringar på tryck-och 

yttrandefrihetens område [Some Amendments to the Press Freedoms and Fundamental Freedoms opf 

Expression], https://www.regeringen.se/49bb7d/contentassets/9be090884fa4439f87ef5ea956452b5e/nagraandringar-pa-tryck--och-yttrandefrihetens-omrade-prop.-20131447, archived at https://perma.cc/S89Q-F55V. 

For more information on regulation of UK broadcasters see the UK survey contained in this report. 

56 MPRT, supra note 56. 

57 Id. 

58 SOU 2006:92 Ett nytt grundlagsskydd för tryck- och yttrandefriheten? [A New Constitutional Protection for 

Press Freedoms and the Freedom of Expression?] at 82, https://www.regeringen.se/49bb90/contentassets/ 

e577d9a2fca749df9f03deda75b5b0f2/ett-nytt-grundlagsskydd-for-tryck--och-yttrandefriheten-del-1-av-2-sou200696, archived at https://perma.cc/L72M-CPAG. 

59 NJA 2002 s. 314, https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2002s314, archived at https://perma.cc/X2GK-D4AJ. 

60 Id. 

61 Id. 

62 5 kap. 7 § RADIO- OCH TV-LAGEN.

63 Id. 

64 Id. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Sweden 

The Law Library of Congress 76 

4. List of Foreign Journalists Operating in Sweden 

Sweden keeps a list of foreign journalists and broadcasters that work in Sweden.65 To be listed a 

journalist must provide contact information and work samples to his or her publisher.66

5. Issuance of Press Credentials in Sweden 

Individual events or public institutions may have special rules for media accreditation. For 

example the Stockholsmässa (Sweden’s largest exhibition center) requires that foreign journalists 

must have international press credentials, present a current letter or certificate from their 

employer or principal, and provide three articles or posts on the relevant topic from the prior 

year to be granted press access to their event.67 Also, the Swedish Parliament requires press 

credentials to be applied for directly with the Parliament.68 Only persons who are devoting at 

least 50% of their full-time employment to journalism may be issued credentials.69 

Press credentials may be revoked if they were obtained using false or misleading information, 

the journalistic assignment has ended, the journalist has not complied with Swedish rules and 

regulations, or other extraordinary circumstances warrant revocation.70

6. Fines against Broadcasters 

Broadcasters who violate the Radio and TV Act may be criminally fined (böter), imprisoned, or 

receive monetary sanctions (särskila avgifter).71 Fines and prison sentences may be imposed for 

either broadcasting without a permit or not meeting the registration requirement.72 Monetary 

sanctions are issued for other violations of the Radio and TV Act—for instance, violating the rules 

on advertisements for public media or on broadcasting sponsored content outside of 

advertisements for private broadcasters.73 In addition, programs that are broadcast via satellite 

in Sweden may be sanctioned in certain cases, including when they contain sponsored, 

 

65 UTRIKESDEPARTEMENTET, URIKESKORRESPODENTER VERKSAMMA I SVERIGE (2018), https://www.regeringen.se/ 

4a6c92/contentassets/448fc913587c40cda4a584c7a7e0e97d/utrikeskorrespondenter-verksamma-i-sverige.pdf, 

archived at https://perma.cc/LJ6J-YKT5. 

66 Id. at 2. 

67 Press Service, STOCKHOLMSMÄSSAN, https://www.stockholmsmassan.se/press/press-services? 

sc_lang=en#press-accreditation (last visited June 10, 2019), archived at https://perma.cc/RW3R-SYRJ.

68 Accreditation, SVERIGES RIKSDAG (May 29, 2019), https://www.riksdagen.se/en/media/accreditation/, 

archived at https://perma.cc/AJR6-FK5M. 

69 Id. 

70 Id. 

71 17 kap. 1 , 3, 5 §§ RADIO- OCH TV-LAGEN. 

72 Id. 17 kap. 1 & 3 §§. 

73 Id. 17 kap. 5 §. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Sweden 

The Law Library of Congress 77 

pornographic, or violent content.74 In these cases it is the satellite entrepreneur or its principal 

that is sanctioned.75 All fines and sanctions are paid to the Swedish state.76

7. Revocation of Broadcasting Permits 

The MPRT or the Swedish courts may revoke permits for gross violations of the Radio and TV 

Act.77 The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman (Justitieombudsmannen, JO) may request 

revocation of a broadcaster’s permit by lodging a complaint in Swedish court for violations with 

regard to the content of the broadcast program—for instance, in cases of violations of the 

prohibition and limitation on pornography and violence applicable to all broadcasters, or for bias 

or undemocratic content broadcast by public media.78 The MPRT determines revocations based 

on all other violations.79 

B. Threat from Foreign Media 

Sweden recognizes that foreign media has the potential to become a threat to its 

national security.80 For example, Sweden’s Defense Policy Strategy notes with concern that 

Sweden, as well as its neighbor countries, are already subject to information campaigns from 

individuals and foreign sources, with the goal of influencing its security policy.81 

 

74 Id. 17 kap. 14 §. 

75 Id. 17 kap. 14 § 2 st. 

76 Id. 17 kap. 5 § 3 st. 

77 Id. 18 kap. 2 § and 19 kap. 1 §. 

78 Id. 19 kap. 1 §. 

79 Id. 

80 Prop. 2014/2015:109 Försvarspolitisk inriktning–Sveriges försvar 2016–2020 [Defense Policy Strategy 2016-

2020] at 25, 40, and 41, https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/D7F6A914-0016-4DA6-9C1D-7FA559F67F17, archived at 

https://perma.cc/B8MK-ALZZ. 81 Id. at 40. 
The Law Library of Congress 78 

Ukraine 

Astghik Grigoryan 

Legal Research Analyst

SUMMARY Article 34 of the Constitution of Ukraine guarantees freedom of speech and expression. 

The main international instruments to which Ukraine is signatory guaranteeing 

freedom of speech and expression are the European Convention on Human Rights and 

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Limitations of freedom of 

speech and expression are found in the Constitution, Civil Code, Criminal Code, and 

the Law on Recognizing Ukrainian as a State Language. 

The Euromaidan Revolution in 2014 and conflict with the Russian Federation impacted 

Ukraine’s legal and regulatory framework for freedom of speech and freedom of 

expression. The Russian Federation and Ukraine have been engaged in information 

warfare. In order to protect its information security, Ukraine adopted several laws 

aimed at countering foreign interference in broadcasting and securing the information 

sovereignty of Ukraine. The Ministry of Information Policy (created in 2014) is the main 

government body responsible for policymaking and implementation in the field of 

information sovereignty. 

I. Overview 

The Euromaidan Revolution in 2014 and subsequent conflict with the Russian Federation over its 

annexation of Crimea and support of the separatists in the Eastern regions of Ukraine impacted 

Ukraine’s legal and regulatory framework for freedom of speech and freedom of expression. 

Hybrid information warfare between the two countries resulted in Ukraine’s adoption of 

legislation aimed at protecting Ukraine’s information security and guarding its information 

dissemination space from the outside influences.1 

These laws, which are discussed in more detail below, are as follows: 

 Law of Ukraine on Amending Certain Laws of Ukraine Concerning Restricted Access of AntiUkrainian Content to the Ukrainian Market for Foreign Printed Products.2 

 

1 Michael Kofman & Matthew Rojanski, A Closer Look at Russia’s “Hybrid War,” KENNAN CABLE, WILSON CENTER,

(Apr. 2015), https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/190090/5-KENNAN%20CABLE-ROJANSKY%20KOFMAN.pdf, 

archived at https://perma.cc/F4XN-7AGE.

2 Law of Ukraine on Amending Certain Laws of Ukraine Concerning Restricted Access of Anti-Ukrainian 

Content to the Ukrainian Market for Foreign Printed Products, 2016, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/ 

laws/show/1780-19, archived at https://perma.cc/5GRV-TJ8Z. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Ukraine 

The Law Library of Congress 79 

 Law of Ukraine on Amending Some Laws of Ukraine on the Protection of the Information 

Television and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine.3

 Law of Ukraine on Amending Article 15-1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Cinematography.”4

Enforcement of these laws faced criticism, as they are viewed by nongovernmental organizations 

as imposing restrictions on freedom of expression and speech.5 

Ukraine ranks 102nd in the 2019 World Press Freedom Index, generated by Reporters Without 

Borders.6 According to human rights organizations, 235 cases of violations of freedom of speech 

were reported in nonoccupied territories of Ukraine in 2018.7 The majority of these cases (175) 

were physical attacks against journalists, which remains the main challenge in the area of freedom 

of speech.8 

Censorship and self-censorship pose another major constraint on freedom of speech and press. 

The Law on Transparency of Ownership of Mass Media, adopted in 2015, mandates disclosure of 

information about end-beneficiary owners (controllers), and in their absence - about all owners 

and participants of the broadcasting organization or service provider.”9 Enforcement of this law 

remains weak, as documented by observers.10 According to a 2018 State Department report, 

“privately owned media, the most successful of which is owned by wealthy and influential 

oligarchs, often presents readers and viewers with a ’biased pluralism, ’representing the views of 

their owners, favorable coverage of their allies, and criticism of political and business rivals.”11 A 

 

3 Law of Ukraine on Amending Some Laws of Ukraine on the Protection of the Information Television and 

Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine, 2015, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/159-19?lang=en, archived at

https://perma.cc/2DPM-CLCC. 

4 Law of Ukraine on Amending Article 15-1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Cinematography”, 2019, 

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1046-viii, archived at https://perma.cc/WS6K-4BPT.

5 USPISHNA VARTA (UKRAINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS PLATFORM), THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OPINION IN 

UKRAINE: THREATS AND OPPORTUNITIES (Sept. 11, 2018) (report prepared for the Organization for Security and 

Cooperation in Europe), https://www.osce.org/odihr/393431?download=true, archived at 

https://perma.cc/L6ML-8F9K. 

6 2019 World Press Freedom Index, REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS, https://rsf.org/en/ranking, archived at 

https://perma.cc/V3RS-L829. 

7 235 Violations of Freedom of Press Were Registered in Ukraine in 2018 – IMI Research, INSTITUTE OF MASS 

INFORMATION (Jan. 22, 2019), https://imi.org.ua/en/monitorings/235-violations-of-freedom-of-press-wereregistered-in-ukraine-in-2018-imi-research/, archived at https://perma.cc/CM38-8N69. 

8 Id. 

9 Law on Amending Certain Laws of Ukraine on Transparency of Ownership of the Mass Media and 

Implementation of the Principles of State Policy in the Sphere of Television and Radio Broadcasting, 2015, 

https://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/674-viii, archived at https://perma.cc/N8VX-LDKS. 

10 Media Ownership Monitor, Ukraine, REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS, https://www.momrsf.org/en/countries/ukraine/ (last modified Nov. 21, 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/ZY4W-5878. 

11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 2018 COUNTRY REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES: UKRAINE 21,

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/UKRAINE-2018-HUMAN-RIGHTS-REPORT.pdf,

archived at https://perma.cc/66NV-63VG. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Ukraine 

The Law Library of Congress 80 

practice of producing favorable and (or) one-sided news coverage for monetary reward is 

widespread in Ukraine. 12 

Ukraine’s legislation does not contain specific anti-heckling provisions. 

II. Legislative Framework 

The Constitution of Ukraine contains guarantees for free speech and freedom of expression.13 As 

stated in Article 3 of the Constitution, “human rights and freedoms, and guarantees shall 

determine the essence and course of activities of the State.”14 Article 34 of the Constitution 

provides that 

[e]veryone shall be guaranteed the right to freedom of thought and speech, and to free 

expression of his views and beliefs. 

Everyone shall have the right to freely collect, store, use, and disseminate information by 

oral, written, or other means at his discretion.15

Article 300 of the Civil Code provides for the right to “freely collect, store, use and disseminate 

information.” According to same article, a physical person, who distributes information is 

responsible for the verification of authenticity (except in the cases when the information is 

obtained from the official sources).16

Ukraine is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 10 of the 

Convention guarantees freedom of expression.17 Additionally, Ukraine ratified the International 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.18

 

12 Id. at 22. 

13 CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE, 1996, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-

%D0%B2%D1%80, archived at https://perma.cc/8DY9-FA3R.

14 Id. art. 3. 

15 Id. art. 34. 

16 CIVIL CODE OF UKRAINE, 2004, art. 300. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/435-15, archived at 

https://perma.cc/QPL3-BVAF.

17 Council of Europe, European Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 4, 1950, https://www.echr.coe.int/ 

Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/YU4B-TUYX.

18 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 19, Dec. 19, 1966, https://treaties.un.org/doc/ 

Treaties/1976/03/19760323%2006-17%20AM/Ch_IV_04.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/9F9V-MGVK.
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Ukraine 

The Law Library of Congress 81 

III. Limits on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press 

The Constitution prescribes the following instances where the right of freedom of expression and 

speech can be limited: 

 in the interest of national security, territorial integrity, or public order, 

 for the purposes of preventing disturbances or crimes, 

 for protecting the health of the population, 

 for protecting the reputation or rights of other persons, 

 for preventing the publication of information received confidentially, or 

 for supporting the authority and impartiality of justice.19

The Civil Code of Ukraine contains provisions providing for a ban on publishing or broadcasting 

information that violates personal non-property rights. 20

In 2019, Ukraine passed a law on strengthening the role of the Ukrainian language as the state 

language, which contains language quotas for broadcast, print, and publishing media.21

According to the Language Law, only 10% of total film screenings can be in a language other than 

Ukrainian.22 Additionally, the Language Law requires that at least 50% of books published and 

distributed in Ukraine should be in Ukrainian.23 According to assessments, the linguistic quota 

system presents a considerable challenge for freedom of expression and speech for the segment 

of the population that does not speak Ukrainian and for media outlets that publish or broadcast 

in languages other than Ukrainian.24

Several provisions of the Criminal Code punish incitement of hate speech.25 Thus, Article 161 of 

the Criminal Code states that 

[i]ntentional acts aimed at incitement to national, racial or religious hatred or to humiliate 

national honor and dignity or the image of feelings of citizens in connection with their 

religious beliefs, as well as the direct or indirect restriction of rights or the establishment 

of direct or indirect privileges for citizens on the grounds of race, color, political, religious 

and other beliefs, sex, disability, ethnic or social origin, property status, place of residence, 

language or other characteristics - shall be punishable by a fine of two hundred to five 

hundred times the tax-free minimum incomes, or restraint of liberty for a term up to five 

 

19 CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE art. 34. 

20 CIVIL CODE OF UKRAINE, 2004, art. 278,, 

21 Law on Ensuring the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as a State Language, 2019, 

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2704-viii, archived at https://perma.cc/N5MN-YZ5S. 

22 Id. art. 23. 

23 Id. art. 26. 

24 Josh Cohen, Ukraine’s Language Bill Misses the Point, ATLANTIC COUNCIL (Nov. 6, 2018),

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-s-language-law-misses-the-point, archived at 

https://perma.cc/X4N4-T8DK. 

25 CRIMINAL CODE OF UKRAINE, as amended, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2341-14, archived at 

https://perma.cc/FG22-J5P3. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Ukraine 

The Law Library of Congress 82 

years, with the deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain 

activities for a term up to three years or without such.26

Article 300 of the Criminal Code provides for punishment for importing into, manufacturing, and 

distributing in Ukraine works (including film and video products) promoting a “cult of violence 

and cruelty, racial, national or religious intolerance and discrimination.”27 Article 300 stipulates 

fees and deprivation of liberty as a punishment for these offenses. 28 

IV. Laws Restricting Foreign Broadcasters Working on Behalf of Foreign 

Governments 

Ukraine adopted several laws in the information management sphere in order to counter foreign 

influence and propaganda. These laws are discussed below. 

A. The Law of Ukraine Amends Ukrainian Law on the Protection of Information in Ukrainian 

Television and Radio Broadcasting 

The Law established that an executive body can refuse issuance of a state certificate for 

distribution and showing of materials if the materials (statements, actions, etc.) 

promote war, violence, cruelty, fascism and neo-fascism, aimed at the elimination of 

Ukraine’s independence, incitement to interethnic, racial, religious hatred, humiliation of 

the nation, disrespect for national and religious shrines, humiliation of the individual, 

propagandizing ignorance, disrespect for parents, as well as drug addiction, substance 

abuse, alcoholism and other harmful habits; films of a pornographic nature, confirmed by 

the conclusion of the expert commission on distribution and demonstration of films.29

The Law prohibits copying and showing films containing the propaganda of an “aggressor state,” 

including positive images of the workers of an aggressor state, Soviet state security bodies, films 

justifying violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The ban also includes films produced 

by individuals and entities of an aggressor state.30 The ban applies to any films with the abovedescribed content produced after August 1, 1991, regardless of country of origin. The ban on 

movies produced by individuals or legal entities of the aggressor state in the absence of 

propaganda applies to movies and films produced after January 1, 2014. 31

 

26 Id. art. 161. 

27 Id. art. 300. 

28 Id. 

29 Id. art. 1, § 3. 

30 Id. art. 1, § 4. 

31 Id. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Ukraine 

The Law Library of Congress 83 

B. The Law of Ukraine Amends Certain Laws Concerning Restricted Access of AntiUkrainian Content to the Ukrainian Market for Foreign Printed Products 

In 2016, Verkhovna Rada adopted a law aimed at limiting access to the Ukrainian market of 

foreign printed products with certain content. The definition of the restricted content provided 

for in the Law was similar to that of the Law on Protecting Information in Television and Radio 

Broadcasting of Ukraine.32

According to the Law, importing of the print media products to the Ukrainian market from the 

territory of an aggressor state is subject to obtaining a permit, with the exception of up to 10 copies 

of products imported by individuals in their personal luggage.33 The Law provides for the expert 

assessment and analysis of the printed products subject to the importation ban.34 In order to 

obtain a permit, a distributor of printed and publishing goods should submit an exhaustive list 

of documents (including linguistic evaluation of the products) to the central executive body. 

Based on the recommendations of an expert, the central executive body can choose to issue, 

refuse, or renew a permit.35 The central executive body also has a right to revoke a permit. 

Revocation of a permit can be appealed in court.36 

The state executive body responsible for implementing the policy in the information sphere 

maintains on its website a registry of the publishing and printing products from the territory of 

an aggressor state or “occupied territories” of Ukraine that were granted a permit. 37 

Distributing printed products and publishing products in Ukraine without a permit are subject 

to a fine between ten to fifty times the minimum monthly wage, with ensuing removal from 

circulation of said products. 38

According to an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe report, during the period 

from January 1, 2017, to February 14, 2018, the State Committee banned 30 books published in 

the Russian Federation.39

 

 

32 Law of Ukraine on Amending Certain Laws of Ukraine Concerning Restricted Access of Anti-Ukrainian 

Content to the Ukrainian Market for Foreign Printed Products art. 1. 

33 Id. art. 1, § 2. 

34 Id. 

35 Id. 

36 Id.

37 Id.

38 Id. 

39 THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OPINION IN UKRAINE, supra note 5, at 5. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Ukraine 

The Law Library of Congress 84 

C. Law of Ukraine on Amending Article 15-1 of the Law of Ukraine on Cinematography 

The Law established content-specific restrictions for distributing and showing films 

 that contain promotion or propaganda of the aggressor state, regardless of the country of 

origin, that were produced after August 1, 1999; and 

 that were produced by individuals and legal entities of an aggressor state that do not contain 

the promotion or propaganda of the aggressor state and its legal entities and were produced 

or released after January 1, 2014.40

According to monitoring reports, around five hundred films were banned from 2015 to 2018.41 

D. Government Policies 

In 2014, Verkhovna Rada approved composition of the new Government of Ukraine, which also 

included the Ministry of Information Policy.42 The Government of Ukraine subsequently issued 

a Regulation on the Ministry of Information Policy.43 According to the regulation, the Ministry of 

Information Policy is a central executive body authorized to “ensure Ukraine’s informational 

sovereignty, in particular regarding the dissemination of publicly important information in 

Ukraine and beyond, as well as ensuring the functioning of state information resources.”44 

The Ministry of Information Security was also tasked with carrying out the implementation of 

mass media reforms concerning the dissemination of publicly important information.45 

Enforcement of the legislation in the information management sphere is also in the purview of 

the Ministry of Information Security. 

According to a 2018 progress report issued by the Ministry of Information Policy, the Ministry 

was engaged in the following areas of information policy: 

 Developing the information space of Ukraine, which includes deregulation, demonopolization and de-oligarchization of the regulatory framework. 

 Establishing the system of state strategic communications, which includes reforms of 

government and strategic communications, as well as providing communication support for 

the carrying out of the reforms. 

 

40 Law of Ukraine on Amending art. 15-1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Cinematography”. 

41 THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OPINION IN UKRAINE, supra note 5, at 5. 

42 Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine “On the Formation of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine,” 

Dec. 2, 2014, http://mip.gov.ua/en/documents/11.html, archived at https://perma.cc/TC4F-X3PA. 

43 Regulation on the Ministry of Information Policy of Ukraine, Jan. 14, 2015, http://mip.gov.ua/en/ 

documents/7.html, archived at https://perma.cc/XBM7-8UCE.

44 Id. art. 3, § 1. 

45 Id. art. 3, § 2. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: Ukraine 

The Law Library of Congress 85 

 Information reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of Crimea and uncontrolled 

territories of Luhansk and Donetsk regions.46

In 2017, the President of Ukraine signed an order imposing sanctions on legal and physical 

persons, which included blocking access to Russian media and social networks, as well as search 

engines and electronic mail services and domains.47 The same order also blocked individual 

journalists or broadcasters (foreign and domestic) who were deemed to be a threat to national 

security.48 Among the affected social networks were VKontakte and Odnoklassniki, internet 

search engine Yandex and email service provider Mail.ru.49 According to estimates, banned social 

medial networks (Odnoklassniki and VKontakte) have twenty-five million subscribers in 

Ukraine.50 Nongovernmental organizations see these sanctions as restrictive of the freedom of 

press and speech.51

 

46 January-June 2018 Progress Report, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION POLICY OF UKRAINE, https://mip.gov.ua/files/ 

pdf/MIP_zvit_2018_web_ENG.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/RC4B-7RSQ.

47 Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 139/3017 On the Decision of the National Security and Defense 

Council of Ukraine dated April 28, 2017, “On the Application of Personal Special Economic and Other 

Restrictive Measures (Sanctions),” https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/1332017-21850, archived at

https://perma.cc/8D2N-VQN5. 

48 Id. 

49 Id.; see also Legal Persons Who Are Subject to Restrictive Measures (Sanctions), Annex to the Decree of the 

President of Ukraine No 139/3017 on the Decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, 

from April 28, 2017, https://www.president.gov.ua/storage/j-files-storage/00/40/30/6f76b8df9d0716da 

74bb4ae6a900d483_1494864914.pdf (in Russian), archived at https://perma.cc/V3H5-S7AF.

50 THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OPINION IN UKRAINE, supra note 5. 

51 Id. 
The Law Library of Congress 86 

United Kingdom 

Clare Feikert-Ahalt 

Senior Foreign Law Specialist 

SUMMARY The UK provides for freedom of expression as a qualified right that may be restricted 

in certain circumstances as prescribed by law. For any law restricting an individual’s 

freedom of expression, various criteria must be met. The UK has laws in place that 

operate to prevent people from heckling speakers, but these are not frequently 

implemented. The main laws that appear to be used against hecklers are those aimed 

to preserve public order. 

 Foreign broadcasters operating in the UK and broadcasting to UK audiences must be 

licensed by the UK’s communication regulator, Ofcom. In order to obtain a license, the 

broadcaster must agree to license conditions and to comply with the Broadcasting Code. 

If a broadcaster fails to abide by these conditions or the Code and laws, Ofcom may take 

action, including issuing its findings publicly, imposing a financial penalty, or 

suspending or revoking the broadcaster’s license in the UK. 

I. Introduction 

A number of laws protect freedom of expression across the UK. While freedom of expression is 

protected, it is a qualified right, meaning that there are certain circumstances in which it may be 

overridden, provided a defined set of criteria are met. 

The UK has a number of criminal laws that can be used to stop individuals from heckling speakers 

if the behavior is disruptive, but these do not provide an absolute prohibition on heckling and 

operate in balance with the need to ensure people have the right to express themselves. 

Broadcasters that provide services across the UK, including foreign broadcasters, must be 

licensed by Ofcom, the UK’s regulator for broadcast media. There are a number of criteria that 

must be met by the broadcaster prior to Ofcom issuing a license and, once a license is issued, the 

broadcaster must continue to abide by the conditions of that license. If the broadcaster fails to 

meet these criteria, Ofcom has a number of steps that it may take, including revoking the license 

and thus the ability of the broadcaster to operate across the UK. 

II. Heckling 

A. Freedom of Expression 

The European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into the national law of the United 

Kingdom by the Human Rights Act 1998.1 Article 10 of the European Convention on Human 

 

1 Human Rights Act 1998, c. 42, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42, archived at

https://perma.cc/ZKN8-XVNC. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: United Kingdom 

The Law Library of Congress 87

Rights provides for freedom of expression and grants individuals the right to hold opinions, and 

to receive and share ideas, without state interference. It specifically includes politics and matters 

of public interest: 

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold 

opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public 

authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring 

the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.2

Freedom of expression is a qualified right, which means that it may be restricted in certain 

circumstances provided it is prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society to protect a 

legitimate aim. Article 10(2) specifies as follows: 

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be 

subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law 

and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial 

integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of 

health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the 

disclosure of information received in confidence, and for maintaining the authority and 

impartiality of the judiciary.3

The European Court of Human Rights has determined that whether the restriction on freedom of 

expression is necessary “requires the existence of a pressing social need, and that the restrictions 

should be no more than is proportionate.”4

B. Criminal Legislation 

A number of criminal laws may be used to prevent hecklers if the behavior is disruptive and 

meets additional criteria. The Public Meeting Act 19085 provides that it is an offense to act in a 

disorderly manner at a public meeting if the purpose of the disorderly behavior is “preventing 

the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together.”6 The Act does not 

define “meeting” or “public meeting,” and much of the case law is focused on whether or not the 

meeting is lawful.7 The offense is punishable by up to six months of imprisonment and/or an 

unlimited fine. In cases where the meeting is part of an electoral campaign during the campaign 

period, it is unlawful under the Representation of People Act 1983 for a person to act, or incite 

others to act, in a disorderly manner to prevent the purpose of the meeting from occurring.8 

 

2 Id. sched. 1 art. 10(1). 

3 Id. sched. 1, art. 10(2). 

4 URSULA SMARTT, MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT LAW 64 (3d ed. 2017). 

5 Public Meeting Act 1908, Edw. 7 & 8 c. 66 § 1(1), http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw7/8/66/ 

enacted/data.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/XY5P-UZWR. 

6 BLACKSTONE’S CRIMINAL PRACTICE ¶ B11.126 (David Ormerod et al. eds., 2019). 

7 Id. ¶ B11.126. 

8 Representation of People Act 1983, c. 2 § 97(1), http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/data.pdf, 

archived at https://perma.cc/3HVZ-8ERK. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: United Kingdom 

The Law Library of Congress 88

“Lawful meeting” in this instance is “a political meeting held in any constituency between the 

date of the issue of the writ for the return of a Member of Parliament for the constituency and the 

date at which a return to the writ is made, or a meeting held with reference to a [specified period 

for a] local government election.”9 This offense is punishable with an unlimited fine. 

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 provides it is a criminal offense to “use[] threatening or 

abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour . . . within the hearing . . . of a person likely 

to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”10 This offense is punishable by a fine of up 

to £1,000 (approximately US$1,300). Any of the following three circumstances may constitute a 

defense to this crime, however: 

 The accused did not have any reason to believe there was any person within hearing distance 

that would likely be caused harassment, alarm, or distress; 

 The accused was inside a home and did not believe anyone outside that home could hear; or 

 The conduct was reasonable.11

The law previously included using insulting words as part of the offense but after a campaign to 

repeal this law12 and a government review, the word “insulting” was removed from the offense 

in 2013.13 During the review, campaigners argued that the section inhibited the public from 

speaking openly, and that “[i]n a free and democratic society, insults should not be a 

criminal offence.”14

The common law offense of breach of the peace may also apply in circumstances where hecklers 

cause harm, or are likely to cause harm, to a person or the person’s property in his or her presence, 

or where the behavior causes the person to be “in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, 

riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.”15 This offense has been used against hecklers—

for example, an individual received a deferred sentence for breaching the peace by heckling at a 

memorial service.16

 

9 Id. § 97(2); BLACKSTONE’S CRIMINAL PRACTICE, supra note 6, ¶ B11.128.

10 Public Order Act 1986, c. 64 § 5, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/data.pdf, archived at

https://perma.cc/C47Q-S55C. 

11 Id. § 5(3). 

12 Jon Kelly, How Do You Insult Someone Legally, BBC NEWS (May 18, 2012), https://www.bbc.com/news/ 

magazine-18102815, archived at https://perma.cc/6NG5-Y7CA. 

13 Crime and Courts Act 2013, c. 22 § 57, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/22/data.pdf, archived at

https://perma.cc/CGJ2-QZHS. 

14 Kelly, supra note 12. 

15 BLACKSTONE’S CRIMINAL PRACTICE, supra note 6, ¶ D1.33. 

16 Chhokar Heckler Waits for Sentence, BBC NEWS (Nov. 29, 2002), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/ 

scotland/2527169.stm, archived at https://perma.cc/457E-H2AN. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: United Kingdom 

The Law Library of Congress 89

Additional laws that could feasibly be used against hecklers who are particularly disruptive 

include the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.17 This Act was enacted to protect individuals 

from harassment from stalkers, but it has been argued that it might in some cases be “applied 

against demonstrators whose acts cause harassment to particular individuals.”18 Section 1 of the 

Act prohibits individuals from acting in a manner that amounts to harassment of another person, 

where the perpetrator knows, or ought to know, that the action amounts to harassment. This 

offense is punishable with up to six months of imprisonment.19

An individual was ejected from a conference held by government ministers due to heckling and 

then prevented from re-entering, reportedly pursuant to powers under section 44 of the Terrorism 

Act,20 which at the time provided the police with the ability to stop and search individuals in 

certain scenarios. This incident later resulted in an apology from the political party, which noted 

the way the individual had been treated was “inappropriate.”21

III. Foreign Broadcasters Working on Behalf of Foreign Governments 

Foreign broadcasters working on behalf of foreign governments may be covered under EU and 

UK legislation if they are uploading content to a satellite in the UK, or are broadcasting content 

in the UK from other EU Member States. The EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive provides 

that broadcasters located in other EU states may broadcast into the UK and are covered under the 

laws of the country the broadcast originates from, or the state where the content is uploaded to 

the satellite.22

 

17 Protection from Harassment Act 1997, c. 40 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/data.pdf, 

archived at https://perma.cc/CWP4-QY5P. 

18 STEVE FOSTER, HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 545 (3d ed. 2011). 

19 Protection from Harassment Act 1997, c. 40 §§ 1-2. 

20 Terrorism Act 2000, c. 11 § 44 (repealed), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/pdfs/ 

ukpga_20000011_en.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/8VE6-W2QR. 

21 Andrew Sparrow, Heckler, 82, Who Dared Called Straw a Liar Is Held under Terrorist Law, TELEGRAPH (London) 

(Sept. 29, 2005), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1499466/Heckler-82-who-dared-called-Straw-aliar-is-held-under-terrorist-law.html, archived at https://perma.cc/MZV2-WBSN. 

22 Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the Coordination 

of Certain Provisions Laid Down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States Concerning 

the Provision of Audiovisual Media Services (Audiovisual Media Services [AMS] Directive), 2010 O.J. (L 95) 1, 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010L0013&from=EN, archived at

https://perma.cc/S97F-TT9X. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: United Kingdom 

The Law Library of Congress 90

The Communications Act 200323 and Broadcasting Acts of 199024 and 199625 provide the 

legislative framework within which broadcasters operating in the UK must operate.26 Ofcom was 

established under the Communications Act 2003 and has a number of roles, including enforcing 

content standards across television and radio broadcasters and the UK’s media and 

telecommunications companies.27 When carrying out its statutory functions, Ofcom has a duty 

to ensure that television and radio services have 

. . . standards that provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion 

of offensive and harmful material in such services [and that] provide adequate protection 

to members of the public and all other persons from both: 

(i) unfair treatment in programmes included in such services; and 

(ii) unwarranted infringements of privacy resulting from activities carried on for the 

purposes of such services.28

In order to provide television, radio, or on-demand video services in the UK, broadcasters must 

obtain a license from Ofcom under the Broadcasting Act 1990 and Broadcasting Act 1996. In order 

to grant a license, Ofcom examines the application to determine whether the applicant and the 

proposed programming are “fit and proper.”29 If it considers that these criteria are met it may 

grant the license for a set duration, which may be renewed.30 State-controlled broadcasters that 

are licensed by Ofcom are required along with other broadcasters to comply with the 

Broadcasting Code.31 When granting licenses to state-controlled broadcasters, Ofcom has stated 

the consideration of whether such a broadcaster is fit and proper involves 

different considerations: 

17. . . . States have a unique range of activities, both domestically and internationally, that 

are undertaken within a legal and conventional framework that is intrinsically different 

from that which applies to individual and corporate licensees. 

18. States whose services Ofcom has licensed vary greatly in the extent to which they accept 

and conduct themselves according to UK and generally accepted international values. 

 

23 Communications Act 2003, c. 21, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21, archived at

https://perma.cc/5NAX-VJH7. 

24 Broadcasting Act 1990, c. 42 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/data.pdf, archived at

https://perma.cc/M4B2-RXVP. 

25 Broadcasting Act 1996, c. 55 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/55/data.pdf, archived at

https://perma.cc/R9VN-8ER2. 

26 Web content, even when provided on broadcasters’ websites, is not regulated by Ofcom. MIKE DODD &

MARK HANNA, ESSENTIAL LAW FOR JOURNALISTS ¶ 3.3 (23rd ed. 2016). 

27 Id. 

28 Id. § 3(2). 

29 Broadcasting Act 1990, c. 42 § 3(3); Broadcasting Act 1996, c. 55 § 3(3). 

30 DODD & HANNA, supra note 26, ¶ 3.3. 

31 Ofcom, Update on the Rt Service – New Broadcasting Investigations and Approach to Fit & Proper, ¶ 16, 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/113043/rt-investigations.pdf, archived at 

https://perma.cc/X9WV-CKM7. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: United Kingdom 

The Law Library of Congress 91

States sometimes commit, or will have committed, acts which are contrary to these values. 

In our judgment, it would be inappropriate for Ofcom always to place decisive weight on 

such matters in determining whether state-funded broadcasters were fit and proper to 

hold broadcast licences, independently of their broadcasting record. If we did, many statefunded broadcasters (mostly those from states which may not share UK values) would be 

potentially not fit and proper. This would be a poorer outcome for UK audiences in light 

of our duties on plurality, diversity and freedom of expression.32

Section 3(4)(g) of the Communications Act 2003 requires Ofcom to protect audiences against 

harmful and offensive material “in the manner that best guarantees an appropriate level of 

freedom of expression.”33 Working together, the Communications Act 2003 and the Broadcasting 

Act 1996 place a duty on Ofcom to establish the standards for broadcasts, and compliance with 

these standards is part of the license conditions imposed on broadcasters.34 

The Broadcasting Code contains various rules, including those 

 protecting children under the age of eighteen years of age;35

 prohibiting the broadcast of materials likely to incite crime or disorder;36 

 ensuring that news reports are provided with due accuracy and due impartiality,37 with the 

Broadcasting Code notably specifying that, “[i]n dealing with matters of major political and 

industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide 

range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly 

linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented”;38

 avoiding unfair or unjust treatment of individuals or organizations within programming;39

and 

 ensuring broadcasters maintain editorial independence and control over programing, that 

there is a clear distinction between content and advertising, and that unsuitable sponsorship 

is not permitted.40

There have been instances where the government used licensing conditions to prohibit the voices 

of specific members of a political group from being broadcast across the UK during “the 

 

32 Id. ¶¶ 17-18. 

33 Communications Act 2003, c. 21 § 3(4)(g). 

34 OFCOM, THE OFCOM BROADCASTING CODE (Apr. 2017), https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_ 

file/0005/100103/broadcast-code-april-2017.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/7UAS-MA84. 

35 Communications Act 2003, c. 21 § 319(2)(a). 

36 THE OFCOM BROADCASTING CODE, supra note 34, at 21; Communications Act 2003, c. 21 § 319(2)(b). 

37 THE OFCOM BROADCASTING CODE, supra note 34, at 28; Communications Act 2003, c. 21 §§ 319(2)(c)-(d), 319(8), 

320. 

38 THE OFCOM BROADCASTING CODE, supra note 34, ¶ 5.12. 

39 Id. ¶ 7.1. 

40 Id. ¶ 9.1; Communications Act 2003, c. 21 § 319(2)(j). 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: United Kingdom 

The Law Library of Congress 92

Troubles” in Northern Ireland. The aim of this was to deny terrorists “the oxygen of publicity”41

and it was deemed in the public interest to issue such a ban. On October 19, 1988, the then Home 

Secretary, Douglas Hurd, issued a notice42 under clause 13(4) of the BBC Licence and Agreement 

to the BBC and under section 29(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1981 to the Independent Broadcasting 

Authority prohibiting the broadcast of direct statements by representatives or supporters of 

eleven Irish political and military organizations.43 The statements made by these individuals 

could still be broadcast, just not the individuals’ voices. 

If a broadcaster breaches the Code, Ofcom publishes its findings explaining why the broadcaster 

breached the Code and may direct that the program not be repeated or order the broadcaster to 

air a correction or statement of its findings.44 If a broadcaster breaches the Code in a serious, 

deliberate, or repeated manner, Ofcom may impose statutory sanctions against the broadcaster, 

including fines of up to £250,000 (approximately US$318,000) or 5% of the broadcaster’s revenue, 

and it may shorten, suspend, or revoke the broadcaster’s license.45 Examples of Ofcom findings 

over television shows that it has deemed to breach the Broadcasting Code, and 

investigations, include the following: 

 Fox News Broadcasts, which were found during the 2016 US presidential elections to be 

“largely pro-Trump and did not sufficiently reflect alternative viewpoints,”46 and thus 

violated the Code for not being impartial.47 Fox News ceased broadcasting in the UK prior to 

this decision being published, stating its decision was due to low audience figures making the 

show commercially unviable.48 

 TV Novosti—which is financed by the Russian Federation and was determined by Ofcom to 

be thus controlled by the Russian government—was investigated by Ofcom after the 

poisoning by a nerve agent of two Russian nationals in England saw an influx of programs 

broadcast on the channel that potentially violated the due impartiality requirement of the 

license. As a result, in April 2018, Ofcom opened several investigations into whether news 

programs violated the terms of the license, and these remain ongoing.49

 

41 URSULA SMARTT, MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT LAW 55 (3d ed. 2017). 

42 138 PARL. DEB., H.C. (6th ser.) (1988) 893-903, https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/ 

1988/oct/19/broadcasting-and-terrorism, archived at https://perma.cc/N49Q-6W2N. 

43 Broadcasting Act 1981, c. 68, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/68/data.pdf, archived at

https://perma.cc/V9TW-VTNY. 

44 DODD & HANNA, supra note 26, ¶ 3.3. 

45 Id. 

46 Fox News Broke the UK’s Broadcasting Rules, BBC NEWS (Nov. 6, 2017), https://www.bbc.com/news/ 

entertainment-arts-41887613, archived at https://perma.cc/2TPJ-HDX8. 

47 Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, No. 317 (Nov. 21, 2016), cited in DODD & HANNA, supra note 26, ¶ 3.4.11. 

48 Sky Stops Broadcasting Fox News in UK, BBC NEWS (Aug. 29, 2017), https://www.bbc.com/news/business41087659, archived at https://perma.cc/T8Z4-CW7V. 

49 Update on the Rt Service – New Broadcasting Investigations and Approach to Fit & Proper, OFCOM.ORG.UK, 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/113043/rt-investigations.pdf (last visited June 12, 

2019), archived at https://perma.cc/B4MG-RXW5. 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: United Kingdom 

The Law Library of Congress 93

 Press TV, an Iranian-funded television channel, broadcast shows featuring a British politician. 

Ofcom determined the shows violated the broadcasting code by failing to air alternative 

viewpoints on controversial issues. The content of the show was comprised mainly of proPalestinian viewpoints, with very limited input from individuals with pro-Israeli viewpoints. 

In this case, Ofcom noted that, “where a matter of major political controversy is being 

discussed, as here, the broadcaster must ensure that an appropriately wide range of 

significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly 

linked and timely programmes.”50 It determined that Press TV did not control its editorial 

content and Ofcom used its powers to close the channel. 

 Ariana International, a channel originating in Afghanistan but broadcasting in the UK that 

broadcast a news item with a two-minute video filmed by a terrorist prior to him conducting 

a terrorist attack. Ofcom determined “the programme contained hate speech and was likely 

to encourage or to incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder . . . with no 

surrounding content that sought to challenge, rebut or otherwise contextualise Muhammad 

Riyad’s highly extreme views.”51 It imposed a penalty of £200,000 (approximately 

US$250,000) on the channel. 

 News channels BBC World News and CNN International aired programs funded by foreign 

governments, charities, and other bodies without informing viewers the shows were 

sponsored content. BBC World News stated it obtained some of these programs for low fees 

and Ofcom stated that complex funding arrangements posed an “inherent risk to 

independence and editorial integrity,”52 but determined that the broadcasters had not 

compromised editorial independence. 

Ofcom has the ability to issue an order to proscribe a foreign satellite service53 if it deems the 

service to be of an “unacceptable quality”54 and it is in the public interest to proscribe the service.55 

The offensive subject matter must be “repeatedly contained in programmes included in the 

service” and must offend “good taste or decency or [be] likely to encourage or incite to crime or 

to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling.”56 

 

50 Galloway TV Shows ‘Broke Rules’, BBC NEWS (Aug. 3, 2009), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/ 

politics/8182361.stm, archived at https://perma.cc/8UPU-GEUG. 

51 Ofcom Broadcast and on Demand Bulletin, No. 333, at 6-7 (July 17, 2017), https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__ 

data/assets/pdf_file/0021/104637/Issue-333-of-Ofcoms-Broadcast-and-On-Demand-Bulletin.pdf, archived at

https://perma.cc/4NBE-Y73V. 

52 News Channels Broke Sponsorship Rules, Ofcom Says, BBC NEWS (Aug. 18, 2015), https://www.bbc.com/ 

news/entertainment-arts-33971919, archived at https://perma.cc/3XW5-6RAM. 

53 “ ’Foreign satellite service’ means— (a) a service which is provided by a person who is not for the purposes 

of [the Audiovisual Media Services Directive] under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom and which consists 

wholly or mainly in the transmission by satellite of television programmes which are capable of being received 

in the United Kingdom, or (b) a service which consists wholly or mainly in the transmission by satellite from a 

place outside the United Kingdom of sound programmes which are capable of being received in the United 

Kingdom.” Broadcasting Act 1990, c. 42 § 177(6) (as amended). 

54 MEDIA LAW AND PRACTICE 453 (David Goldberg, Gavin Sutter & Ian Walden eds., 2009). 

55 Broadcasting Act 1990, c. 42, § 177(4). 

56 Id. § 177(3). 
Limits on Freedom of Expression: United Kingdom 

The Law Library of Congress 94

Once a service has been proscribed, it is an offense for a person to engage in conduct in support 

of the foreign satellite service.57 Such actions include supplying program material to be included 

in the service, or arranging or inviting others to do so. Such offenses are punishable with up to 

two years of imprisonment. 

 

57 Id. § 178(2).