Page 149 - 4188

147

of prior restraint whereby publications must be submitted to censors for
clearance before being distributed can never be justified for the media,
and have for some time now been unknown among democracies.
The position in international law can be summarized as follows:

Although the right to freedom of expression does not require an absolute
ban on prior censorship, this should be a highly exceptional measure,
taken only when a publication threatens grave harm, such as loss of life

or serious harm to health, safety or the environment. An article deemed
defamatory, blasphemous, obscene or overly critical of the government
would rarely if ever meet this threshold. Moreover, a system whereby
media content must be officially cleared before it can be released would

be unacceptable; its harm to freedom of expression would plainly far
outweigh the benefit to its goals.

ASSIGNMENTS
1. Is censorship necessary and how far should it go?
2. Why is it often prudent to permit some abuse of freedom of

expression in order to ensure that legitimate use of the right is not
discouraged?
3. What was one of the main arguments advanced against licensing of

journalists and publications?
4. Should the authorities only impose sanctions after publication, where
justified, or should they, in appropriate circumstances, be able to
prevent its release?

5. Why does the American Convention on Human Rights prohibit prior
censorship altogether?
6. What does prior censorship pose?

7. Does the right to freedom of expression require an absolute ban on
prior censorship?
8. What are the methods used to directly censor and suppress people
and their ideas?

9. Describe the main criteria of censorship.
10. Summarize the text.