Some do not regard freedom of speech as absolute. Most legal systems generally set limits on it, particularly when it conflicts with other rights and protections, such as in cases of
libel, slander,
pornography,
obscenity,
fighting words, and
intellectual property. Some
limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction, and others may occur through social disapprobation. In Saudi Arabia, journalists are forbidden to write with disrespect or disapproval of the royal family, religion, or the government. Journalists are also not legally protected for their writing in Saudi Arabia. Journalist
Jamal Khashoggi was a critic of the Saudi Arabian government. Saudi Arabian officials
killed Khashoggi in 2018 for his writing.
Time, place, and manner Limitations based on time, place, and manner apply to all speech, regardless of the view expressed. They are generally restrictions that are intended to balance other rights or a legitimate
government interest. For example, a time, place, and manner restriction might prohibit a noisy
political demonstration at a politician's home during the middle of the night, as that impinges upon the rights of the politician's neighbors to
quiet enjoyment of their own homes. An otherwise identical activity might be permitted if it happened at a different time (e.g., during the day), at a different place (e.g., at a government building or in another
public forum), or in a different manner (e.g., a
silent protest). Funeral protests are a complex issue in the United States. It is a right for Americans to hold a peaceful protest against various policies they deem unreasonable. It is a question of whether or not it is appropriate to protest funeral proceedings through the time, place, and manner outlook. Because of recent flare-ups, legislation has been implemented to limit this. Now, funeral protests are governed and prohibited by law on a state-to-state basis inside the United States.
On the Internet was created during the
AACS encryption key controversy as "a symbol to show support for personal freedoms". Jo Glanville, editor of the
Index on Censorship, states that "the Internet has been a revolution for
censorship as much as for free speech". International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the
Internet. Judge
Stewart R. Dalzell, one of the three federal judges who in June 1996 declared parts of the CDA unconstitutional, in his opinion stated the following: The
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "
Information Society" in stating: According to Bernt Hugenholtz and Lucie Guibault, the
public domain is under pressure from the "
commodification of information" as information with previously little or no economic value has acquired independent economic value in the information age. This includes factual data,
personal data,
genetic information and pure
ideas. The commodification of information is taking place through
intellectual property law,
contract law, as well as broadcasting and telecommunications law.
Freedom of information has emerged in response to state-sponsored censorship, monitoring, and internet surveillance. Internet censorship includes the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet. The
Global Internet Freedom Consortium claims to remove blocks to the "free flow of information" for what they term "closed societies". According to the
Reporters without Borders (RWB) "internet enemy list" the following states engage in pervasive internet censorship: Mainland China, Cuba, Iran,
Myanmar/
Burma, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria,
Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. A widely publicized example of internet censorship is the "
Great Firewall of China" (in reference both to its role as a
network firewall and the ancient
Great Wall of China). The system blocks content by preventing
IP addresses from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and
proxy servers at the
internet gateways. The system also selectively engages in
DNS poisoning when particular sites are requested. The government does not appear to be systematically examining Internet content, as this appears to be technically impractical.
Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations, including more than sixty regulations directed at the Internet. Censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned
ISPs, business companies, and organizations. Saudi Arabia's government had been intensifying the scrutiny of social media accounts, under which they were detaining several activists, critics, and even normal social media users over a few critical tweets. A law professor, Awad Al-Qarni, became a victim of Saudi Arabia's
internet censorship and was facing a death sentence. Saudi-controlled media portrayed him as a dangerous preacher due to his
Twitter and
WhatsApp posts, but dissidents considered him an important intellectual who maintained strong social media influence.
Content viewed as harmful and offensive as of 2025 Some views are illegal to express because some perceive them to be harmful to others. This category often includes speech that is both false and potentially dangerous, such as
falsely shouting "Fire!" in a theatre and causing a panic. Justifications for limitations to freedom of speech often reference the "
harm principle" or the "offence principle". In
On Liberty (1859),
John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered". Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. Nevertheless, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties should be higher for causing harm. In 1999,
Bernard Harcourt wrote of the collapse of the harm principle: "Today the debate is characterized by a cacophony of competing harm arguments without any way to resolve them. There is no longer an argument within the structure of the debate to resolve the competing claims of harm. The original harm principle was never equipped to determine the relative importance of harms". Interpretations of the limitations of harm and offense to freedom of speech are culturally and politically relative. For instance, in Russia, the harm and offense principles have been used to justify the
Russian LGBT propaganda law restricting speech (and action) concerning
LGBT issues. Many European countries outlaw speech that might be interpreted as
Holocaust denial. These include Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia, Switzerland and Romania.
Armenian genocide denial is also illegal in some countries.
Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment in the United States, as decided in
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992) in which the Supreme Court ruled that hate speech is permissible, except in the case of imminent violence. The
First Amendment to the United States Constitution contains more detailed information on the Supreme Court decision and its historical background. Certain public institutions may also enact policies restricting the freedom of speech, for example,
speech codes at
state-operated schools. Political differences and
in-group favoritism on harmful speech and
content moderation were found. Judges can show
political bias when evaluating freedom of speech.
Religious Apostasy has been instrumentalized to restrict freedom of speech in some countries. In some countries,
blasphemy is a crime. For example, in Austria, defaming
Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, is not protected as free speech. In contrast, in France, blasphemy and disparagement of Muhammad are protected under free speech law.
Lèse-majesté In some countries, speech deemed insulting to a reigning monarch or the state, including lèse-majesté, is criminalized. Such expression may constitute a criminal offence.
Disinformation Some legal scholars (such as
Tim Wu of
Columbia University) have argued that the traditional issues of free speech—that "the main threat to free speech" is the censorship of "suppressive states", and that "ill-informed or malevolent speech" can and should be overcome by "more and better speech" rather than censorship—assumes scarcity of information. This scarcity prevailed during the 20th century, but with the arrival of the internet, information became plentiful, "but the attention of listeners" scarce. Furthermore, in the words of Wu, this "cheap speech" made possible by the internet " ... may be used to attack, harass, and silence as much as it is used to illuminate or debate". The
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has argued that "censorship cannot be the only answer to disinformation online" and that tech companies "have a history of overcorrecting and censoring accurate, useful speech—or, even worse, reinforcing misinformation with their policies." According to Wu, in the 21st century, the danger is not "suppressive states" that target "speakers directly", but that: On 4 March 2022, Russian President
Vladimir Putin signed into law a bill introducing
prison sentences of up to 15 years for spreading "fake news" about Russia's military operation in Ukraine. As of December 2022, more than 4,000 Russians were prosecuted under "fake news" laws. The
1993 Russian Constitution expressly prohibits
censorship in Article 29 of Chapter 2, Rights and Liberties of Man and Citizen. == See also ==