Analysing the comparison of US, UK, and Indian free speech frameworks, covering their philosophical foundations, key cases, reasonable restrictions, and digital-era challenges.
Authors
Vishambhar Raghuwanshi, Manipal University Jaipur, India
Pranjal Khare, Associate Professor, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India
Abhishek Baplawat, Manipal University Jaipur, India
Sheenam Thakur, Rajiv Gandhi National Law University, Punjab, India
Summary
Democratic societies count freedom of speech and expression as their foundational principle. The chapter provides a thorough examination of speech liberties that influence international law alongside interpretations made by courts against constitutional backgrounds. It is essential to examine the free speech approaches adopted by United States and British and Indian democratic systems and their respective challenges stemming from security measures alongside morality-related and hate speech laws. The chapter also traces free speech philosophical underpinnings starting from the perspectives of John Stuart Mill and Alexander Meiklejohn till analyzing judicial case application in real-world contexts. The analysis includes Brandenburg v. Ohio as a crucial case among other notable decisions, Handyside v. United Kingdom (ECHR), and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Lastly, it evaluates how Indian courts identify current threats to free speech by defining ‘reasonable restrictions’ and analysing digital platform dangers as well as misinformation and increasing hate speech incidents
Published in: Navigating Modern Digital Communication Ethics and Law
To read the full chapter, please click here.
