Free China Movement

Evidence · Human Rights · Democratic Future

Take Action

English 简体中文 繁體中文 Français Deutsch Español

🔎

CCE-014 ｜ Where Are the Boundaries of Free Speech? When Is Restricting Speech Justified?

Free China Movement
,

v0.5 | 2026-10-16

CCE-100 Civic Education Project · Index entry CCE-014

Abstract: Freedom of speech is not a license without limits, nor is the government’s power to restrict expression unlimited. Assessing a specific restriction requires identifying the type of expression, conflicts of rights, a clear legal basis, legitimate aims, necessity, proportionality, and avenues of remedy. This article compares international conventions, the PRC Constitution, and two European Court of Human Rights judgments that reached opposite conclusions, and proposes an analytical method the public can verify.

I. Subject of Study and Hierarchy of Sources

Do not pass off a government’s legal text as the spoken remarks of a particular political figure. The available evidence has not established any verbatim statement by any specific individual, in a specific time and setting, denying freedom of speech; verification of the original remarks is still underway. Treaty texts, treaty-body interpretations, domestic constitutions, regional court judgments, and empirical research must be labelled separately and cannot substitute for one another.

II. Basic Concepts

Holding opinions, expressing opinions, and concrete harm. Article 19(1) of the ICCPR protects the freedom to hold opinions; paragraph 2 protects the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media; paragraph 3 permits expression restrictions under strict conditions. Political criticism, verifiable factual statements, value judgments, defamation, invasion of privacy, credible threats of violence, and incitement to discrimination must each be treated separately. Factual statements can be verified; value judgments cannot mechanically be required to prove their “truth or falsity,” though their basis and the context of expression may still affect the balancing of rights. Causing offence through expression does not automatically equal concrete harm; conversely, calling conduct an “opinion” does not exempt the real risk of violence from lawful scrutiny.

III. The Threshold in International Norms

The legitimate aims listed in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR include respect for the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, public health, and morals. Paragraph 22 of General Comment No. 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/GC/34, 2011) stresses legitimate aims, necessity, and proportionality; paragraph 23 opposes the use of restriction clauses to suppress democracy and human-rights advocacy; paragraph 25 stresses that laws must be sufficiently clear and foreseeable. This General Comment is an interpretive document of a treaty body, not an independent treaty; its concrete application requires separate verification of each state’s party status, reservations, and domestic law.

IV. Why Article 20 Is Not a Blank Cheque for Speech Control

Article 20 of the ICCPR requires the prohibition by law of propaganda for war and of advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. Paragraphs 50–52 of General Comment No. 34 connect Article 20 with Article 19: prohibitory rules must also satisfy the justifiability requirements for expression restrictions. “A group dislikes it” or “it is shocking” must not be equated with “criminal incitement.” Assessment must examine context, subjective intent, audience, extent of dissemination, and the likelihood of concrete harm occurring.

V. The Six Factors of the Rabat Plan of Action

The OHCHR document A/HRC/22/17/Add.4 proposes: the social and political context, the speaker’s influence, intent, content and form, extent of dissemination, and the likelihood (including imminence) of discrimination, hostility, or violence resulting. The six factors assess whether the high threshold for criminal measures against incitement is met; they are not a mathematical score, nor automatically applicable international criminal law. Malicious expression that does not reach the criminal threshold may still be met with public rebuttal, education, or lower-intensity remedies taken in accordance with the law. Sources: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Rabat_draft_outcome.pdf; the 2020 UN guidance: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3889286/files/UN_Strategy_and_PoA_on_Hate_Speech_Guidance_on_Addressing_in_field.pdf.

VI. Handyside v. United Kingdom (1976, 5493/72)

The European Court of Human Rights reviewed a dispute over restrictions imposed on a publication aimed at young people. By 13 to 1, the Court found no violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights; Judge Mosler’s dissent questioned the necessity of the restriction. This case reminds researchers not to cite the judgment’s principles on plural expression while concealing its final outcome. Original judgment HUDOC No. 001-57499.

VII. Lingens v. Austria (1986, 9815/82)

Journalist Peter Michael Lingens faced criminal penalties related to reputation after commenting on then Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky. Paragraph 42 of the European Court of Human Rights judgment stresses that political figures must tolerate stricter public scrutiny; paragraph 46 distinguishes verifiable facts from value judgments whose truth cannot mechanically be proven. The Court unanimously found a violation of Article 10. This case does not mean political figures have no right to reputation, nor that fabricated facts are always protected. Original judgment HUDOC No. 001-57523.

VIII. Comparing the Two Cases

The Handyside case concerned publications read by young people and the protection of morals; the Lingens case concerned public political debate and the reputation of a political figure. Both examined the legal aims and necessity of the restrictions, but their factual backgrounds, public interests, and forms of punishment differed, hence the different conclusions. They are regional legal precedents, not cross-national statistical causal evidence. Dissenting opinions in the judgments should likewise be included in the research.

IX. The PRC Constitutional Text

Article 35 of the current Constitution of the People’s Republic of China lists freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration; Article 41 provides citizens’ rights to make criticism, suggestions, and complaints against state organs and functionaries, and prohibits fabricating or distorting facts to lodge false accusations. This is an official legal text, not the remarks of a specific political figure. That a constitution provides for rights is not empirical proof of their enforcement; European Court of Human Rights judgments do not automatically bind the judiciary in mainland China either. Official English full text: https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html.

X. The Strongest Arguments on Both Sides

Those who support appropriate restrictions stress reputation, privacy, child protection, and concrete risks of violence: the government cannot do nothing about real harm. Those who oppose excessive restrictions worry that vague provisions may lead to self-censorship. When comparing specific cases, one should assess the relative necessity of public correction, rebuttal, civil remedies, independent review, and criminal punishment, rather than presuming that all restrictions are either justified or unjustified.

XI. A Six-Step Verification Method

(1) Identify the type of expression and its context; (2) specify the rights affected or the concrete harm; (3) check whether the restriction has a public, clear legal basis; (4) verify whether the aim of the restriction is legitimate; (5) examine necessity, proportionality, and less intrusive alternatives; (6) check remedies, public adjudication, and error-correction mechanisms. For online content, one must also distinguish state coercive action from private platform governance — their legal obligations are not the same.

XII. Conclusion

Restrictions on freedom of expression require a clear legal basis, concrete facts, a legitimate aim, necessity, proportionality, and effective remedies. Legal norms cannot substitute for evidence of implementation performance, and two judgments cannot prove cross-national causal patterns. This article still lacks verification of the original remarks of specific political figures and cross-national quantitative research.

Sources and Evidence Hierarchy

Review record: Editorial independent review, 2026-10-16. Verdict: PASS.

← Back to the CCE-100 Civic Education Project index

Other language editions

This article is also available in Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, French, German and Spanish.