The Government's right to limit civil liberties in crisis situations

Background Information

Crisis situations, including public health crises and environmental crises, place a large amount of pressure on governments which in many situations consequently causes rights to be infringed in order to see the country through the crisis. The UN recognises that when human rights have been disregarded, barbaric acts have been performed on the people; it is a “common standard of achievement” that respect for the rights of the people is remembered in all circumstances. This issue is important because in times of emergency or crisis civil liberties are undermined; however, this sometimes becomes permanent and the civil liberties are never fully recovered. Furthermore, the countries of the United Nations seek a balance between distributing and exercising civil liberties, and the security of the country (e.g. in cases of terrorism). The debate over maintaining civil liberties or ensuring the security of the country has become a prominent issue following the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, as governments worldwide were faced with the question of whether they limited the civil liberties of the people, or improved the nation’s health. 

Definition of key terms 

• Derogability - whether a human right may be infringed in certain circumstances.

• Derogable - linking to a human right that may be infringed in certain circumstances.

• Civil liberties - Civil liberties are rights and freedoms given to residents and citizens of a country through the country’s legal system, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religious worship. This essentially means that we all have the right to live a safe life, free from harassment based on who we are.

• Crisis situations - A crisis situation means any natural or man-made disaster, accident, humanitarian or political crisis, or any other serious situation occurring at, along, or in the proximity of, the external borders, which may have a significant impact on the control of the external borders. 

Relevant UN Treaties, Resolutions and Reports

1. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism on the human rights challenge of states of emergency in the context of countering terrorism (2018) https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Terrorism/A_HRC_37_52.pdf

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in December 1966 https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights 

3. UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Previous Attempts to Solve the Issue 

There have been attempts to solve this issue, such as protecting people during the COVID-19 pandemic, where very little was done as in the USA; the people were given the Government’s Coronavirus Act and its various accompanying laws and regulations. 

Possible Solutions

1. Recognising the will of the majority: although this is something that seems obvious, we are debating this issue for a reason, the reason being that ‘pleasing the majority’ is often not really considered when making government decisions. In crisis situations, governments, as a last resort, may be required to limit or adapt civil liberties to maintain the security of the country. Therefore the government should only have the right to limit civil liberties in crisis situations when a majority of the population recognises the issue that the government is trying to solve, and agrees with the solutions that the government poses. If a majority of the population does not feel happy or safe in the situation that their government has put them under, the government should have no right to limit their civil liberties and should then consider other solutions. 

2. Temporarily limiting civil liberties: in situations where, as a last resort, the government must limit civil liberties, then the population should be promised by their government that their civil liberties will only temporarily be limited and will be fully restored when the crisis situation has been ameliorated and the country has returned to a state of normality. In all circumstances when a promise of restoring civil liberties is made, the promise of that government must be fulfilled as soon as it is safe to do so; no excuses or delaying should be made - promises should be fulfilled as and when appropriate. 

Bibliography

https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-intergovernmental-cooperation/cddh-scr-presentation#{%22114943343%22:[]}

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Terrorism/A_HRC_37_52.pdf

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

https://www.venice.coe.int/SACJF/2006_08_MOZ%20Maputo/Hamilton_delicate_balance.htm#_ftn4

https://histecon.fas.harvard.edu/climate-loss/civil_liberties/index.html

https://friendsoftheearth.uk/system-change/what-are-civil-liberties

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/crisis-situation

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/fundamental/coronavirus/

Ensuring freedom of speech in a digital age

Introduction

While freedom of speech is indeed fundamental in a democratic society, it is not untrue that many use their freedom of speech as a means to justify hate speech. However, this freedom is not absolute, as there are several categories of unprotected speech: harassment, defamatory speech, false advertising, child pornography, obscenity, fighting words, true threats and non-expressive conduct. By classifying areas of unprotected speech, the US government aims to prevent hate speech in order to protect minority groups. Due to this, many groups feel as if they are subject to censorship, thus depriving them of their right to freedom of speech. In a digital age where words become immortalised, leaving a traceable digital footprint which can impair the perpetrator’s opportunities in education and employment, the ramifications of using hate speech are increasingly severe. Considering these laws, the debate is clear: is the censorship of ideas oppressive to the public, and furthermore, should freedom of speech be limited?

Definition of key terms

• Freedom of speech: the concept of the ability to express one’s personal beliefs, ideas or values

• Democratic: a government where decisions are made by the public

• Hate speech: abusive speech expressing prejudice against gender, religion, sexual orientation or race

• Defamatory speech: speech which injures the reputation of another person

• Censorship: suppression of ideas found to be dangerous or harmful by groups (such as government officials)

• Digital footprint: a trail of data left behind when using the internet

Background information

 The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution is as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” In summary, the 1st Amendment protects the human right to freedom of speech. Similarly, under Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act established in 1998, it is stated that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression”, in other words, the right to criticise, to make assumptions or value judgments and the right to have opinions is protected in the UK, though this right “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society." Furthermore, it is an offence to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress”. 

Under the 2003 Communications act, it became an offence to send “any public electronic communications network a message or other content that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”

In June 2021, English cricket player Ollie Robinson was suspended from all international cricket for 

8 matches due to a number of offensive tweets which he had posted between 2012-2014 coming to light. This shows that the freedom of speech does not extend to hate speech or bigotry.

On the 1st August 2023 a four-count grand jury indictment was filed by the Justice Department against Donald Trump, charging him with mounting several illegal efforts to stay in office. His lawyer, John Lauro, stated that the claims were “an attack on free speech, and political advocacy”. On the 3rd august, Trump claimed that “the Radical Left wants to Criminalise Free Speech!” Donald Ayer, a deputy attorney general, confirmed that “Trump is deliberately distorting the critical difference between just saying things and actively doing things that have criminal consequences.”

It is important to debate this issue as internet usage for expression of opinion becomes increasingly more prevalent in our society, and the consequences of sending hate speech online can put jobs and careers at risk (as shown with Ollie Robinson’s case). This has caused many to argue whether or not our ‘freedom of speech’ is too regulated, as many believe that absolute freedom of speech is necessary for change and innovation within society, and the restriction of hateful language is thought by some to be a violation of their right to freely express their thoughts (although these negative ideals can directly target minority groups)

Stakeholders

• Access info Europe (Madrid, Spain): HR organisation who promote and protect the right of access to information

• Article 19 (NGO)- promotes freedom of expression, media regulation and press freedom

• European Digital Rights network- defends and advances digital rights

Relevant UN treaties, Resolutions and Reports

• GA resolution 71/199 December 2016 https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N16/455/32/PDF/N1645532.pdf?OpenElement 

• HRC resolution 34/7 March 2017 https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/086/31/PDF/G1708631.pdf?OpenElement 

• GA resolutions 75/176 December 2020 https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N20/371/75/PDF/N2037175.pdf?OpenElement 

Possible solutions

Currently, there have been many attempts to solve this issue, however, no solutions have been found.

Bibliography

• https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ 

• https://care.org.uk/cause/religious-liberty/free-speech-law#:~:text=Under%20Article%2010%20of%20the,of%20expression%E2%80%9D%20in%20the%20UK. 

• https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship#:~:text=Only%20that%20expression%20that%20is,true%20threats%2C%20and%20fighting%20words. 

• https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-freedom-expression-human-right 

• https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-versus-freedom-of-speech 

• https://care.org.uk/cause/religious-liberty/free-speech-law 

• https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57697159#:~:text=England%20fast%20bowler%20Ollie%20Robinson,historical%20racist%20and%20sexist%20tweets. 

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump