Search Tips
sorted by
16 shown of 16 entities
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- The legitimate subjects of restriction for States, to protect the rights or the reputation of others, national security or public order or public health or morals, may also serve as a basis for restrictions on the part of intergovernmental organizations. The rights of others, for instance, would counsel for the creation of protections to ensure that disclosures do not interfere with the privacy rights of individuals employed by or in some way connected to the intergovernmental organization. Public order may be an especially salient basis for sensitivity with regard to disclosure in the context of peacekeeping, while national security could be a basis, for example: the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) might choose not to disclose certain information about nuclear inspections; or the World Health Organization (WHO) could cite public health concerns as a basis for withholding sensitive information. Even for these generic bases for non-disclosure, the organization would still need to demonstrate necessity and proportionality in a given case.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- Article 19 (3) requires the State to demonstrate that the tools chosen to achieve a legitimate objective are necessary and proportionate to protect the rights or reputations of others or national security, public order, or public health or morals. Necessity and proportionality also apply to prohibitions under article 20 of the Covenant (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, paras. 50-52). The State must establish a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat said to exist (ibid., para. 35). Restrictions must target a specific objective and not unduly intrude upon other rights of targeted persons, and the ensuing interference with third parties' rights must be limited and justified in the light of the interest supported by the intrusion (see A/HRC/29/32, para. 35). The restriction must be the least intrusive instrument among those which might achieve the desired result (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, para. 34).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- Article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows for restrictions on the freedom of expression (but not on the freedom of opinion under article 19 (1)). According to article 19 (3), any restriction, to be legitimate, must be provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others or the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. Any restriction must be precise enough and publicly accessible in order to limit the authorities' discretion and provide individuals with adequate guidance (see the Human Rights Committee's general comment No. 34 (2011) on article 19: freedoms of opinion and expression). To be necessary, a restriction must be more than merely useful, reasonable or desirable. It is also well established that necessity requires an assessment of proportionality (see A/HRC/29/32). Proportionality requires demonstrating that restrictive measures are the least intrusive instrument among those which might achieve their protective function and proportionate to the interest to be protected (see general comment No. 34). When restrictions fail to meet the standard of article 19 (3), individuals enjoy the right to an effective remedy under article 2 (3) of the Covenant.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Groups in need of attention, limitations to the right to freedom of expression, and protection of journalists 2010, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- Article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights sets out three factors that should be taken into account when assessing whether restrictions are permissible: (a) they must be provided for by law; (b) they must be necessary; and (c) they must pursue one of the legitimate aims set forth in the article, i.e. (i) the respect of the rights or reputations of others; (ii) the protection of national security or public order (ordre public); or (iii) the protection of public health or morals. In addition, in its article 20, paragraph 2, the Covenant states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- In particular, the rights of others are undermined when deep-rooted hatred is manifested and expressed under certain circumstances. International human rights law therefore recognizes that the right to freedom of expression can indeed be restricted where it presents a serious danger for others and for their enjoyment of human rights. Indeed, article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but only such as are provided by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others and for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
Hate speech and incitement to hatred 2012, para. 41b
- Paragraph text
- [The Special Rapporteur wishes to underscore that any restriction imposed on the right to freedom of expression, on the basis of any of the above-mentioned instruments, must comply with the three-part test of limitations to the right, as stipulated in article 19 (3) of the Covenant. This means that any restriction must be:] Proven by the State as necessary and legitimate to protect the rights or reputation of others; national security or public order, public health or morals;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 15b
- Paragraph text
- [Hence, the types of information or expression that may be restricted under international human rights law in relation to offline content also apply to online content. Similarly, any restriction applied to the right to freedom of expression exercised through the Internet must also comply with international human rights law, including the following three-part, cumulative criteria:] Any restriction must pursue one of the legitimate grounds for restriction set out in article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant, namely (i) respect of the rights or reputation of others; or (ii) the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and media freedom 2012, para. 81
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur reiterates that any restriction to the right to freedom of expression must satisfy the three-part test stipulated in article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant: (i) the restriction imposed must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to everyone; (ii) it must be proven as necessary and legitimate to protect the rights or reputation of others; national security or public order, public health or morals; and (iii) it must be proven as the least restrictive and proportionate means to achieve the purported aim.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2012
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- Whistle-blowing does not always involve specific individual wrongdoing, but it may uncover hidden information that the public has a legitimate interest in knowing. International authorities and States often provide a general protection for the disclosure of information in the public interest, or disclosure of specific categories of information, or both. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers recommends that States adopt protections for those who report threats or harms to the public interest, which it says "should, at least, include violations of law and human rights, as well as risks to public health and safety and to the environment". Zambian law provides an extensive definition that covers a range of maladministration, abuse of public trust, criminal and disciplinary offences and waste or fraud. The legislation of the United States specifies violations of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; and a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. While the term "public interest" may appear capacious as a basis for whistle-blower protection, a State might define "public interest" as involving information that contributes to public debate, promotes public participation, exposes serious wrongdoing, improves accountability or benefits public safety.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- National legal frameworks establishing the right to access information held by public bodies should be aligned with international human rights norms. Exceptions to disclosure should be narrowly defined and clearly provided by law and be necessary and proportionate to achieve one or more of the above-mentioned legitimate objectives of protecting the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, or public health and morals.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 63
- Paragraph text
- State law should protect any person who discloses information that he or she reasonably believes, at the time of disclosure, to be true and to constitute a threat or harm to a specified public interest, such as a violation of national or international law, abuse of authority, waste, fraud or harm to the environment, public health or public safety. Upon disclosure, authorities should investigate and redress the alleged wrongdoing without any exception based on the presumed motivations or "good faith" of the person who disclosed the information.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Environment
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- First, restrictions must be provided by law made accessible to the public and be formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly. Second, restrictions may be imposed only on the grounds set out in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of article 13, namely, for respect for the rights or reputations of others and for the protection of national security, of public order or of public health or morals. Third, restrictions must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 20e
- Paragraph text
- [Indeed, the Internet has become a key means by which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, as guaranteed by article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The latter provides that:] for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is cognizant of the fact that, like all technological inventions, the Internet can be misused to cause harm to others. As with offline content, when a restriction is imposed as an exceptional measure on online content, it must pass a three-part, cumulative test: (1) it must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to everyone (principles of predictability and transparency); (2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , namely: (i) to protect the rights or reputations of others; (ii) to protect national security or public order, or public health or morals (principle of legitimacy); and (3) it must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity and proportionality). In addition, any legislation restricting the right to freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. There should also be adequate safeguards against abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- International human rights law establishes the right of everyone to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, and through any media of his or her choice (see Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 19; and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 19). The Human Rights Council and General Assembly have reiterated that the freedom of expression and other rights apply online (see Council resolutions 26/13 and 32/13; General Assembly resolution 68/167; and A/HRC/32/38). The Human Rights Committee, previous mandate holders and the Special Rapporteur have examined States’ obligations under article 19 of the Covenant. In short, States may not interfere with, or in any way restrict, the holding of opinions (see art. 19 (1) of the Covenant; and A/HRC/29/32, para. 19). Article 19 (3) of the Covenant provides that States may limit freedom of expression only where provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals (see Human Rights Committee general comment No. 34 (2011); A/71/373; and A/HRC/29/32).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- Second, limitations may only be justified to protect specified interests: rights or reputations of others; national security; public order; public health or morals. Even where a State prohibits by law "advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, as provided by Article 20 of the Covenant, any restrictions on expression must be consistent with Article 19(3) (A/67/357). No other grounds may justify restrictions on the freedom of expression. Moreover, because legitimate objectives are often cited as a pretext for illegitimate purposes, the restrictions themselves must be applied narrowly.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
16 shown of 16 entities