Public Order and Public Morality - Are There Exceptions?

Public order and Public morality: Are there exceptions?

Anaiyah Strickland

Professor Michael Lewis

JUS201_02

03 April 2017

Public order and Public morality: Are there exceptions?

Last class session, we discussed public order and how it ties into morality. Public order is the shared norms, social values, and customs that are held by a society. Common crimes against public order include, but are not limited to: drug crimes, prostitution, disorderly conduct, public drunkenness, and other alcohol related crimes. Morality is human conduct and character referring to “those acts which it makes sense to describe as right or wrong, good or bad. 

The article, The Quest for Permissible Limitations on Freedom of Expression: Public Order and Public Morality Exceptions, discusses the permissible limitations on the fundamental right of expression, mainly public order and public morality exceptions. Although freedom of expression is a universal right, it is not an absolute right and can be revoked at any instance of disruption of public order or public morality. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that everyone has “the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” While Article 19 explicitly states what the “freedom of expression” is, there is another Article that provides a general limitation clause. Article 29 of the UDHR stipulates two essential criteria that have to be met in order for limitation to be legitimate: (1) it must be determined by law and (2) it must be enforced solely for one or several purposes mentioned in the article. Said purposes include: securing “due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others” and protecting morality, public order, and the general welfare of a democratic society. 

It is a common misconception that freedom of expression and freedom of opinion are one in the same, however those that believe in this fact are far from correct. Freedom of opinion is not the same thing as freedom of expression because freedom of opinion cannot be restricted, whereas freedom of expression can be limited by the government for a defined purpose. Freedom of opinion generally falls under the idea of inner faith and conscience of an individual, so any intervention from outside is illegitimate and rather impossible. On the other hand, freedom of expression could have a direct impact on society as a whole, and limitations may be a legitimate goal of overall social policy. 

With the legitimate grounds for restricting the right to freedom of expression is the protection of public order and public morality. The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the concept of “public order” as both physical order and the organization of society in a manner that strengthens the functioning of democratic institutions and preserves and promotes the full realization of the rights of the individual. The most notable application of the public order exception is in contempt of court proceedings where an individual can be held in contempt of court when such is necessary to the orderly functioning of court proceedings, and these proceedings should not be used to restrict the legitimate exercise of defense rights.