What Part Of The Body Does Tendonitis Affect

The freedom of expression is a fundamental right

or human rights, stated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration Human Rights 1948 and the constitutions systems democratic, so they say. From it comes the freedom of the press also called free press. The right to freedom of expression is defined as a means for the free dissemination of ideas, and it was conceived during the Enlightenment

. For philosophers as Pach, Montesquieu , and Voltaire Rousseau the possibility of dissent promotes advancement of the arts and sciences and genuine political participation. He was one of the pillars of War of Independence of the United States ( First Amendment) and the French Revolution facts which stirred the courts of other western states. Another classic argument, associated with John Stuart Mill
is that it is essential to the discovery of truth. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Louis Brandeis , famous lawyers U.S., coined the argument marketplace of ideas. According to this analogy with the free trade , the truth of an idea is revealed in its ability to compete in the market. That is, being on equal footing with other ideas (freedom of expression), people will appreciate what ideas are true, false or relative. This argument has been criticized for assuming that any idea would fit in the marketplace of ideas. And yet you have more ideas the media impose on others, regardless of the truth. The alternative to this weakness in the marketplace of ideas would be the persecution of falsehood. But this presents its own weakness, how to know if it is right if it pursues the dissenting opinion? Even if we could be certain of the truth of an opinion, the existence of dissenting views allowed to test, and founded to keep alive the true and prevents it from becoming a dogma or prejudice unfounded. The truth is that this metaphor be misleading, and Mill did not compare the freedom of expression in a market. In
On Liberty ( 1859) appealed to the freedom to present and discuss the purpose of knowledge. This implies an implicit rules of conduct to ensure mutual respect among the speakers.
In Article 19 of the " Universal Declaration of Human Rights

" reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedom to hold be right to hold opinions without interference and to receive information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers, by any means of expression. " The" American Convention on Human Rights or Pact

San José de Costa Rica ", 1969, Article 13. says: " Freedom of thought and expression. 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print or art, or through any other media of his choice and taste 2. The exercise of the rights provided in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship, but to subsequent liability, which shall be expressly established by law and are necessary to ensure:
a) Respect the rights or reputations of others, or
b) The protection of national security, public order, health or morals.
3. You can not restrict the right of expression by indirect means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio frequencies or equipment used in information dissemination or other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions.
4. Public entertainments may be subject by law to prior censorship for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 2.
5. Shall be prohibited by law, any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitute incitements to violence or any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race , color, religion or national origin. "
The prohibition of propaganda for war, is also enshrined in the"

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
. Moreover, other rights and freedoms (or "rights to freedom of ...", eg right to freedom of assembly, demonstration, exercise of religion, etc) together with the right to freedom of expression. Thus the right to freedom of expression is not an absolute or unlimited, nor is any other right or freedom. Each right or liberty (right to freedom .. .) has an area of \u200b\u200bdevelopment and compression, and each person exercising a right, must act within the scope of development and understanding of that right. Act beyond this area is not acting within the law, but outside it, with the possibility that acts as raping, abusing or trample the rights of others, and is more serious when it comes to human rights
of people. The limit to the human right of freedom of expression, is given by respect for other people's human rights. Concordant with this, the American Convention on Human Rights, states in its Article 11: "protection of honor and dignity. 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his honor and recognition of their dignity.
2. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unfair in your life private, his family, his home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.
3. Everyone is entitled to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. "
And the Art.14 of the Convention enshrines the" right of reply, said:
"right of reply.
1. Anyone injured by inaccurate or offensive statements injury through media legally regulated and targeted to the general public is entitled to perform the same communications outlet correction or response under the conditions established by law.
2. In no case correction or reply exempt from other legal liabilities that have been incurred.
3. For the effective protection of honor and reputation, any publication or media company, film, radio or television will have a responsible person who is not protected by immunities or special privileges

."... According to the Organization Forum Liberty, legal systems and society at large, recognize limits on freedom of expression, particularly when freedom of expression conflicts with other values \u200b\u200bor rights. Limitations on freedom of expression can follow the "harm principle "or the" principle of crime ", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech." Limitations on freedom of expression can occur through legal sanction and / or social disapproval.

A member of the Baptist Church Westboro has been specifically prohibited them from entering Canada for hate speech.

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "... there should be maximum freedom of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. "Mill argues that the greater freedom of expression is necessary to push the arguments in its logical limits, rather than limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following restriction on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will, is to prevent harm to others. "

In 1985, Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the principle of "offense", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not offer sufficient protection against the wrongful acts of others. Feinberg, wrote: "It's always a good reason to support a proposed criminal ban likely would be an effective way of preventing serious offenses (as opposed to injury or harm) to others that the actor, and is likely to be necessary means to that end. "So Feinberg argues that the harm principle puts bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher to cause harm. Mill, unlike does not support legal sanctions if not based on the harm principle. Since the degree to which people can take offense varies, or may be the result of undue prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors should be taken into account in applying the principle of the offensive, including the scope, duration and social value of speech, the ease with which one can avoid, the reasons for the speaker, the number of people offended The intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community in general.