freedom of speech

1 BvR 1060/02 Plaintiff v. Ruling of Higher Regional Court Stuttgart 4 U 5/02 – German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht); decision dated May 24, 2006

It is not unconstitutional to consider the aspects summarized by case law under the term "denunciation effect" when balancing the interests of freedom of speech and the protection of personal rights. However, the courts must take into account that this is possible in different forms and intensities for various circumstances.

The plaintiff, a newspaper editor, was convicted under a Virginia law making it illegal for "any person, by publication, lecture, advertisement, or by the sale or circulation of any publication, or in any other manner, [from encouraging] or [prompting] the procuring of abortion or miscarriage." The plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of this law and argued that it violated rights protected by the First Amendment.

A federal statute established in 1873 prohibited the mailing of unsolicited pamphlets regarding contraceptives. Filing a friend-of-the-court brief, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of this statute, alleging that it violated the First Amendment’s protection of commercial speech. Applying the test regarding commercial speech established in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v.

The appellant challenged section 9(2) of the Tasmanian Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Act 2013 which prohibits protests that can be seen or heard within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. The appellant was convicted under the Act after standing on a street corner within the protest zone, holding placards with depictions of fetuses and statements about the “right to life.” He sought review of the conviction on the grounds that the law impermissibly burdens the freedom of communications on governmental and political matters, a right implied in the Australian Constitution.

Article 240 criminalizes discrimination and incitement to hatred and violence based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity, among others. The sentence is imprisonment for one to eight years.

O artigo 240 criminaliza a discriminação e incitamento ao ódio e à violência baseado em raça, gênero, orientação sexual e identidade de gênero, entre outros. A pena é de prisão de um a oito anos.

A Northern Ireland bakery that refused to bake a cake iced with the message “Support Gay Marriage” on the basis of the owners’ religious beliefs, was found in violation of anti-discrimination laws by a county court.  The county court found discrimination both on grounds of sexual orientation and on grounds of religious belief or political opinion.

The plaintiff was a mother whose second and third pregnancies were complicated by medical issues and resulted in her suffering from a stroke and temporary paralysis. She was advised that her life would be endangered if she became pregnant again. As such, she sought to obtain contraceptives, but their sale and importation was prohibited by Irish law.

In a case referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights, the applicants complained of an injunction imposed by the Irish courts to perpetually restrain them from providing certain information to pregnant women concerning abortion facilities outside Ireland. The majority of the Court found the injunction to be over-broad and disproportionate to the aims pursued.

The 1989 Act prohibits incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation, race, religion, or nationality. The prohibition includes the publishing and distributing of written materials and visual images, inciting speech and behavior, and activities in private residences. It criminalizes various means of disseminating and/or promoting materials, words, or actions that are threatening, abusive, or insulting, and intended or likely to stir up hatred (Section 2).

The Act amends the Public Health Act 2010 No 127.  It provides for 150-metre “safe access zones” around reproductive health clinics, which are intended to protect the safety and well-being of people entering and leaving such clinics, including employees.  The Act creates offenses punishable with imprisonment for interfering with access to clinics (§ 98C), causing actual or potential distress or anxiety to persons in safe access zones (§ 98D), or for taking/distributing photographs of people in safe access zones (§ 98E).  The Act also contains exemptions under § 98F, which sta