• The post you are reporting:
   
  Amnesty International seem to have covered most of the bases IF one is going to restrain 'free speech':-
  
  [U]Specifics[/U]
  Any restriction should be as specific as possible. It would be wrong to ban an entire website because of a problem with one page.
  [U]National security and public order[/U]
  These terms must be precisely defined in law to prevent them being used as excuses for excessive restrictions.
  [U]Morals[/U]
  This is a very subjective area, but any restrictions must not be based on a single tradition or religion and must not discriminate against anyone living in a particular country.
  [U]Rights and reputations of others[/U]
  Public officials should tolerate more criticism than private individuals. So defamation laws that stop legitimate criticism of a government or public official, violate the right to free speech.
  [U]Blasphemy[/U]
  Protecting abstract concepts, religious beliefs or other beliefs or the sensibilities of people that believe them is not grounds for restricting freedom of speech.
  [U]Media and journalists[/U]
  Journalists and bloggers face particular risks because of the work they do. Countries therefore have a responsibility to protect their right to freedom of speech. Restrictions on Newspapers, TV stations, etc can affect everyone’s right to freedom of expression.
  [U]Whistleblowers[/U]
  Government should never bring criminal proceedings against anyone who reveals information about human rights abuses.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason