Freedom of expression may only be restricted in limited cases, including when an expression seeks to destroy other established rights.
- Advocacy of national, racial, and religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence was prohibited by law, and the law was enforced
- Freedom of opinion and expression was protected throughout the campaign process
- Freedom of opinion and expression by the media was respected throughout the electoral process. In addition, the media respected the freedom of opinion and expression of others
- Advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence was prohibited by law, and the law was enforced
- Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.
- No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: a. permitting any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein; b. restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party.
- The second issue is, therefore, whether in the present case such obstacles are justified under article 19, paragraph 3 [Freedom of Opinion and Expression], of the Covenant, which allows certain restrictions but only as provided by law and necessary: (a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; and (b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. The right to freedom of expression is of paramount importance, and any restrictions to the exercise of this right must meet a strict test of justification.
- Regarding the author’s claim under article 21 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the State party has failed to demonstrate that the restrictions imposed on the author were necessary in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
- Having regard to the provision of article 5, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, any rights recognized and protected by article 25 may not be interpreted as implying a right to act or as validating any act aimed at the destruction or limitation of the rights and freedoms protected by the Covenant to a greater extent than what is provided for in the present Covenant.
- The human rights and fundamental freedoms of every person shall be exercised with due regard to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. The exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others, and to meet the just requirements of national security, public order, public health, public safety, public morality, as well as the general welfare of the peoples in a democratic society.
- Freedom of expression should only be restricted when there are incidents of incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, or if necessary and proportionate to secure other rights.
- Especially important…is a State’s increased power to regulate expression when the activity or expression in question seeks to destroy other rights recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. For example, it is permissible for States to regulate speech advocating national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.