freedom of speech

1 BvR 1060/02 Plaintiff v. Ruling of Higher Regional Court Stuttgart 4 U 5/02 – German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht); decision dated May 24, 2006

It is not unconstitutional to consider the aspects summarized by case law under the term "denunciation effect" when balancing the interests of freedom of speech and the protection of personal rights. However, the courts must take into account that this is possible in different forms and intensities for various circumstances.

In Judgment No. P.23.0492.N, the Belgian Court of Cassation reviewed sexist and discriminatory remarks made by a lecturer during a conference held at a Belgian university. The Court of Cassation clarified how the mental element of the offense of sexism should be established. It held that intent can be inferred from factual elements identified by the trial judge, such as the nature and context of the remarks, where these cannot reasonably be interpreted otherwise.

The plaintiff was a newspaper editor convicted under a Virginia law making it illegal for "any person, by publication, lecture, advertisement, or by the sale or circulation of any publication, or in any other manner, [from encouraging] or [prompting] the procuring of abortion or miscarriage." The plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of this law and argued that it violated rights protected by the First Amendment.

A federal statute established in 1873 prohibited the mailing of unsolicited pamphlets regarding contraceptives. Filing a friend-of-the-court brief, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of this statute, alleging that it violated the First Amendment’s protection of commercial speech. Applying the test regarding commercial speech established in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v.

In Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery (2019), the High Court of Australia considered whether "safe access zone" laws in Victoria and Tasmania (which prohibit certain communications and protests about abortion within 150 metres of abortion clinics) impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication under the Australian Constitution.

The appellant challenged section 9(2) of the Tasmanian Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Act 2013 which prohibits protests that can be seen or heard within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. The appellant was convicted under the Act after standing on a street corner within the protest zone, holding placards with depictions of fetuses and statements about the “right to life.” He sought review of the conviction on the grounds that the law impermissibly burdens the freedom of communications on governmental and political matters, a right implied in the Australian Constitution.

Article 240 criminalizes discrimination and incitement to hatred and violence based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity, among others. The sentence is imprisonment for one to eight years.

O artigo 240 criminaliza a discriminação e incitamento ao ódio e à violência baseado em raça, gênero, orientação sexual e identidade de gênero, entre outros. A pena é de prisão de um a oito anos.

A Northern Ireland bakery that refused to bake a cake iced with the message “Support Gay Marriage” on the basis of the owners’ religious beliefs, was found in violation of anti-discrimination laws by a county court.  The county court found discrimination both on grounds of sexual orientation and on grounds of religious belief or political opinion.

The plaintiff was a mother whose second and third pregnancies were complicated by medical issues and resulted in her suffering from a stroke and temporary paralysis. She was advised that her life would be endangered if she became pregnant again. As such, she sought to obtain contraceptives, but their sale and importation was prohibited by Irish law.

The applicant challenged the constitutionality of an ex parte interim protection order issued to his wife under the Domestic Violence Act of St. Lucia. The Act mandated the issuance of protective orders to immediately shield victims of domestic violence from further harm.