American Politics and Government-POLT 101  

Limitations on the Freedom of Speech and Religion

Individual liberties such as the freedom of speech and freedom of religion are considered fundamental rights that people are entitled to enjoy fully without government intrusion. However, the proper exercise of such liberties entails some restriction, with consideration to the need for national security, public order, respect of other people’s rights and preservation of various moral values. While free speech is protected under the international law, in some instances the freedom of speech is legitimately restricted such as when the speech incites discrimination, violence or hatred. On the other hand, the freedom of religion can be restricted when its practitioners pose a threat to other people’s rights and public order. In light to these statements, this paper argues herein, that the freedom of speech and religion can be limited to protect different human rights.

Freedom of expression is a civil liberty that guarantees people’s ability to convey beliefs, convictions, opinions and participate in democracy. However, the state may limit free speech for certain reasons. According to Bianco and Canon (469), the nature of limitations placed on free speech has been evolving due to shifting constitutional interpretations and political forces. Currently, the state is empowered to impose restrictions on free speech in order to protect public morals, public health, public order and national security. The state can limit free speech to protect majoritarian conception on the issue of morality by restricting certain expressions, which seem to be contrary to such conceptions. A classic example of this type of restriction is Fedetova vs. Russian Federation whereby the complainant printed posters that read ‘I am proud of my homosexuality’ and ‘homosexuality is normal’ and displayed them near a school (ICJ). The complainant was convicted for using her freedom of speech to promote propaganda about homosexuality among minors as this could affect their moral development. This case is a reminder that the state can limit freedom of speech or expression to create a balance between public interests and individual interests on morality.

While freedom of religion is considered a significant human right that any society should uphold, in some instances this right is limited. Various reasons have been linked to the restrictions on this right , including to protect public morals, health, order and safety or to safeguard freedoms and fundamental rights or others. Although free exercise clauses support the general policy of government neutrality and noninterference towards religion, this clause focuses more on balancing interests and public safety concerns (Bianco & Canon 451).  Following terrorist attacks of 7/7 and 9/11, national security has been considered a justification for limiting the freedom of religion. The freedom of religion allows people to manifest their belief or religion individually or within a community with other people. In most cases, the freedom of religion is practiced in a community. The state reserves the right of licensing certain community of individuals or groups hence people cannot start these groups or perform any activities without seeking legal recognition. Such licensing requirements limit an individual’s freedom of religion, considering that the state might fail to grant a certain group of believers the practicing license.

Conclusively, evidence included in this paper clearly shows that there are certain limitations and restrictions to certain civil liberties such as the freedom of religion and expression. Some of the reasons behind such limitations include the need for national security, public order, respect of other people’s rights and preservation of various moral values. This means that when an individual’s conduct attracts concerns on their freedom of religion and expression, the state must place limitations that are justified by the idea that the individual involved owes other people the duty of justice.

Works cited

Bianco, William T., and David T. Canon. “American Politics Today (Third Essentials Edition).” (2013).

ICJ. Fedetova V. Russian Federation, International Commission of Jurists, 30 Nov. 2012, www.icj.org/sogiunjurisprudence/fedotova-v-russian-federation-communication-no-19322010-30-november-2012-russian-federation/.