Примеры использования Freedom of expression may на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Women and minority groups exercising their right to freedom of expression may undergo additional pressure from authorities.
Although freedom of expression may be limited by rights of others, it must be done very carefully in order to not create basis for self-censorship.
With regard to stereotyping of religious followers and of sacred persons,he recalls that the right to freedom of expression may be restricted in order to protect, inter alia, the rights or reputations of others.
For example, the right to freedom of expression may be limited to proscribe incitement to terrorism or derogated from in the case of declaring a state of emergency.
With regard to stereotyping of religious followers and of sacred persons,the Special Rapporteur recalls that the right to freedom of expression may be restricted in order to protect, inter alia, the rights or reputations of others.
The freedom of expression may only be subject to restrictions that are necessary for the respect of the rights and reputation of others, and for the protection of national security.
The Special Rapporteur emphasized that the interpretation of principles related to freedom of expression may extensively vary, in particular when it comes to the definition of opinion-related offences.
The right to freedom of expression may be limited only by the right of others to dignity, reputation and honour and if it threatens public morality or the security of Montenegro.
The Committee further notes that under article 19, paragraph 3(a)and(b) of the Covenant, the right to freedom of expression may be subject to certain restrictions, including those necessary for the protection of public order ordre public.
The right to freedom of expression may be limited only by the right of others to dignity, reputation and honour and if it threatens public morality or the security of Montenegro art. 47.
With regard to the negative stereotyping of religious followers orsacred persons, the Special Rapporteur recalls that the right to freedom of expression may be restricted in order to protect, inter alia, the rights or reputations of others.
The State party submits that the right to freedom of expression may be restricted by the authorities, as long as these restrictions do not affect the heart of the right.
Apart from penalties to which the author, the responsible editor, the publisher and the printer are subject,offences against the Freedom of the Press Act as well as the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression may lead to damages and confiscation of the publication in question.
The right to freedom of expression may be restricted by law, if so is necessary towards protecting the rights and reputation of other people, preserving the authority and impartiality of courts, national security, public health or morality and public security.
Thus, it was obvious that, while manifestations of religion or beliefs,as well as the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, may be subject to limitations, the"core" right to hold beliefs or opinions was protected unconditionally and may not be restricted.
One person's right to freedom of expression may collide with other people's ability to enjoy other human rights, such as a person's right not to"be subjected to arbitrary interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his or her honour and reputation.
The Special Rapporteur concluded that legislation merely defining new restrictions andlimitations to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression may jeopardize the ability in finding a common ground on which even heated debates can turn into a useful dialogue.
Freedom of expression may be restricted by the law if necessary to protect rights and reputation of others, to uphold the authority and objectivity of the court and to protect public health, morals of a democratic society and national security of the Republic of Serbia.
It refers to the wording of article 19 of the Covenant and argues that paragraph 3 of the article in question imposes on the rights holder special duties and responsibilities, andthus the right to freedom of expression may be subjected to certain restrictions that shall be provided by law and are necessary for the respect of the rights or reputation of others and for the protection of national security or public order, of public health or morals.
In Mauritius, the Constitution provides that freedom of expression may only be restricted in the interest of, inter alia, defence, public safety, public order, public morality and public health or for the purposes of protecting the reputations, rights and freedoms of persons or the private life of persons concerned in legal proceedings.
Similarly, under article 19, paragraph 3, the right to freedom of expression may be subject to restrictions only as provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, or the protection of national security or of public order(ordre public) or of public health or morals.
Under article 19 of the Covenant, the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression may, generally speaking, be subject to certain restrictions, if such restrictions are necessary, either for respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.
The State party has also acknowledged that the right to freedom of expression may be restricted only in line with the requirements established in article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, without, however, explaining how, in this particular case, the author's actions affected the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or posed a threat to national security, public order, or public health or morals.
On the third condition,while the right to freedom of expression may be restricted,"to protect the rights and reputations of others", and in this instance, to safeguard the administration of justice, the powers of the Supreme Court provided for under Sri Lankan law for contempt of court, including the power to impose prison sentences, are wholly disproportionate and cannot be justified as being"necessary" for this end.
The State party had also acknowledged that the right to freedom of expression may only be limited in line with the requirements set up in article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, without explaining, however, how in this particular case the author's actions affected the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or posed a threat to the protection of national security or of public order(ordre public), or of public health or morals.
This means that the exercise of freedom of expression might entail a violation of the rights of others.
On numerous occasions, the ECtHR has indicated that in the case of public officials andprofessional civil servants, their freedom of expression might be limited by a duty of loyalty to the public body that employs them.
She was concerned that the restrictions which article 20(3)of the Constitution allowed to be imposed on freedom of expression might be construed much more widely than article 19(3) of the Covenant permitted.
Ms. Chanet said that the notion of"stability" did not exist in the Covenant andan inverse interpretation was possible, whereby the freedom of expression might be permitted only once stability was achieved.