Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laws Governing the Historian’s Free Expression

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of State-Sponsored History After 1945

Abstract

This chapter offers a survey of laws that interfere with the free expression of historians in order to protect public interests. Four types are identified: memory laws, blasphemy laws, hate speech laws and genocide denial laws. For each type, a definition is given and overlap with other types indicated, important debates are summarized and consequences for the practice of history identified. In order to have a standard to evaluate these law types, the survey is preceded by a presentation of the international freedom of expression framework. Laws have an impact on the entire historiographical operation in determining the amount of information available, orienting epistemology and methodology, and encouraging reflection about the ethics of responsible historians. Just laws are essential for history’s survival.

Where there is no law, there is no freedom.

Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.

(Locke 1689, II, §§ 57, 202).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

A19:

Article 19

ECHR:

European Court of Human Rights

ICCPR:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

ICTR:

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

OHCHR:

Office of the (United Nations) High Commissioner for Human Rights

SRFEX:

Report of the (United Nations) Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression

UN:

United Nations

UNCESCR:

UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

UNCHR:

UN Commission on Human Rights

UNHRC:

UN Human Rights Committee

References

  • Amnesty International (2010) Rwanda. Safer To Stay Silent. The Chilling Effect of Rwanda’s Laws on ‘Genocide Ideology’ and ‘Sectarianism’ (London: Amnesty International).

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 19 (1996) Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (London: A19).

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 19 (2000) Defining Defamation. Principles on Freedom of Expression and Protection of Reputation (London: A19).

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 19 (2003) Rights vs Reputations. Campaign against the Abuse of Defamation and Insult Laws (London: A19).

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 19 (2006) Defamation ABC. A Simple Introduction to Key Concepts of Defamation Law (London: A19).

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 19 (2008a) Expert Meeting on the Links between Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR: Freedom of Expression and Advocacy of Religious Hatred that Constitutes Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence (London: A19).

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 19 (2008b) ‘France: No More “Memory Laws”’ (London: A19).

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 19 (2009a) The Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality (London: A19).

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 19 (2009b) Memorandum on the Russian Draft Federal Law ‘On Combating the Rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi Criminals or their Collaborators in the Newly Independent States Created on the Territory of Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ (London: A19).

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 19 (2009c) Rwanda: Comment on the Law Relating to the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Ideology of Rwanda (London: A19).

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 19 (2015a) ‘Hate Speech’ Explained. A Toolkit (London: A19).

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 19 (2015b) The Right to Protest. Principles on Protection of Human Rights in Protests (London: A19).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barendt, E. (2005) Freedom of Speech (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barros, C., and 348 historians (2008) ‘Documento en solidaridad con el historiador Dionisio Pereira’ (Santiago de Compostela: Historia a Debate).

    Google Scholar 

  • Belavusau, U. and Gliszczyńska-Grabias, A. (eds.) (2017) Law and Memory. Addressing Historical Injustice through Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [to appear]).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brettschneider, C. (2012) When the State Speaks, What Should It Say? How Democracies Can Protect Expression and Promote Equality (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (2017) Toward the Emancipation of Egypt. A Study on Assembly Law 10/1914 (Cairo: CIHRS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cajani, L. (2011) ‘Criminal Laws on History. The Case of the European Union,’ Historein, 11, 19–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannie, H. and Voorhoof, D. (2011) ‘The Abuse Clause and Freedom of Expression under the European Human Rights Convention. An Added Value for Democracy and Human Rights Protection?’ Netherlands Quarterly for Human Rights, 9(1), 54–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Closa Montero, C. (2010) Study on How the Memory of Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes in Europe Is Dealt with in the Member States (Madrid: CSIC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Coliver, S. (ed.) (1992) Striking a Balance. Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression and Non-discrimination (London: A19).

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention (1948) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Baets, A. (2009) Responsible History (New York and Oxford: Berghahn).

    Google Scholar 

  • De Baets, A. (2011) ‘Historical Imprescriptibility,’ Storia della Storiografia, nos. 59–60, 128–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Baets, A. (2014) ‘The Year Zero. Iconoclastic Breaks with the Past,’ Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis, Folia 165 — Studia Politologica, 13 (www.aupc.up.krakow.pl/index.php/studpol/article/view/2613), 3–18.

  • De Baets, A. (2015) ‘Democracy and Historical Writing,’ Historiografías, no. 9, 31–43 (www.unizar.es/historiografias/numeros/9/debaets.pdf).

  • Déclaration (1789) Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, L. (1998) ‘Policing the Past. Holocaust Denial and the Law’ in R. Post (ed.) Censorship and Silencing. Practices of Cultural Regulation (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities), pp. 67–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durrani, S. (2014) ‘Censored by Memory,’ Harvard Political Review (harvardpolitics.com/books-arts/censored-memory).

  • ECHR (2011b) Cultural Rights in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  • ECHR (1986) Lingens v Austria (9815/82).

    Google Scholar 

  • ECHR (1995) Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom (8/1994/455/536).

    Google Scholar 

  • ECHR (1999) Sugg and Dobbs v Sweden (45934/99).

    Google Scholar 

  • ECHR (2008) Vajnai v Hungary (33629/06).

    Google Scholar 

  • ECHR (2011a) Gollnisch v France (48135/08).

    Google Scholar 

  • ECHR (2012a) Fáber v Hungary (40721/08).

    Google Scholar 

  • ECHR (2012b) Fratanoló v Hungary (29459/10).

    Google Scholar 

  • ECHR (2015) Perinçek v Switzerland (27510/08).

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union (2008) ‘Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on Combating Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia by Means of Criminal Law,’ Official Journal of the European Union, L328/55−L328/58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, J. (1975) ‘Limits to the Free Expression of Opinion,’ in J. Feinberg and H. Gross (eds) Philosophy of Law (Encino, CA: Dickenson), pp. 135–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flauss, J.-F. (2006) ‘L’Histoire dans la jurisprudence de la cour européenne des droits de l’homme,’ Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme, 65, 7−17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, L. (1964) The Morality of Law (New Haven: Yale University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Garton Ash, T. (2008) ‘The Freedom of Historical Debate Is under Attack by the Memory Police,’ Liberté pour l’histoire (lph-asso.fr).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, I. (2012) ‘The Harms of Hate Speech Legislation,’ Free Speech Debate (Oxford: freespeechdebate.com).

    Google Scholar 

  • High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division (2000) David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt (EWHC– QB–115).

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights First (2012) Blasphemy Laws Exposed. The Consequences of Criminalizing ‘Defamation of Religions’ (New York: HRF).

    Google Scholar 

  • ICCPR (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICTR (1998) Prosecutor v Jean-Paul Akayesu: Judgement (ICTR 96–4–T).

    Google Scholar 

  • ICTR (2003) Prosecutor v Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze: Judgement and Sentence (ICTR–99–52–T).

    Google Scholar 

  • Indian Penal Code (1860).

    Google Scholar 

  • International Press Institute (2014) Out of Balance. Defamation Law in the European Union and Its Effect on Press Freedom (Vienna: IPI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Joint Declaration (2014) Joint Declaration on Universality and the Right to Freedom of Expression (Vienna: OSCE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Joint Declarations (2013) Joint Declarations of the Representatives of Intergovernmental Bodies to Protect Free Media and Expression (Vienna: OSCE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lidsky, L. (2008) ‘Where’s the Harm? Free Speech and the Regulation of Speech,’ Washington and Lee Law Review, 65(3), 1091−1101 (www.scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol65/iss3/9).

  • Locke, J. (1689) Two Treatises of Government (London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendel, T. (2006) Study on International Standards Relating to Incitement to Genocide or Racial Hatred−For the UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide (Halifax: CLD).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendel, T. (2010) Hate Speech Rules under International Law (Halifax: CLD).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendel, T. (2012) ‘Does International Law Provide For Consistent Rules on Hate Speech?’ in M. Herz and P. Molnar (eds) The Content and Context of Hate Speech. Rethinking Regulation and Responses (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 417−429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1859) On Liberty (London: Parker & Sons).

    Google Scholar 

  • Neier, A. (2013) ‘The Future of Free Speech,’ Free Speech Debate (freespeechdebate.com).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. (2005) UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (2nd ed.; Kehl am Rhein: Engel).

    Google Scholar 

  • OHCHR (2012) Rabat Plan of Action on the Prohibition of Advocacy of National, Racial or Religious Hatred that Constitutes Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oregon Revised Statutes (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Partsch, K. J. (1981) ‘Freedom of Conscience and Expression, and Political Freedoms’ in L. Henkin (ed.), The International Bill of Rights. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York: Columbia University Press), pp. 209−45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, R. (2009) ‘Hate Speech’ in I. Hare and J. Weinstein (eds.), Extreme Speech and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 123−38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raes, K. (1995) ‘Vrijheid van meningsuiting en de revisionistische geschiedvervalsing’ in G. Schuijt and D. Voorhoof (eds) Vrijheid van meningsuiting, racisme en revisionisme (Gent: Academia Press), pp. 31−77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of the Independent Expert (2013) Report of the Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order (A/HRC/24/38) (Geneva).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reporters without Borders (2013), Blasphemy: Information Sacrificed on Altar of Religion (Paris: RWB).

    Google Scholar 

  • SRFEX (2002) (E/CN.4/2002/75) (Geneva).

    Google Scholar 

  • SRFEX (2010) (A/HRC/14/23) (Geneva).

    Google Scholar 

  • SRFEX (2011) (A/HRC/17/27) (Geneva).

    Google Scholar 

  • SRFEX (2012) (A/67/357) (Geneva).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ternon, Y. (2003) ‘Le Spectre du négationnisme. Analyse du processus de négation des génocides du XXe siècle’ in C. Coquio (ed.) L’Histoire trouée. Négation et témoignage (Nantes: L’Atalante), pp. 207–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Third Geneva Convention, relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (1949).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribunal Constitucional de España (2007) Judgment No. 235/2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN (2016) Ten Principles for the Proper Management of Assemblies −Implementation Checklist (Geneva).

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCHR (1984) Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (E/CN.4/1985/4, Annex).

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCESCR (1999) General Comment 13 [right to education].

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCESCR (2005) General Comment 17 [authorship].

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCESCR (2009) General Comment 21 [right of everyone to take part in cultural life].

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2013), General Recommendation 35.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC (1983a) General Comment 10 [freedom of expression].

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC (1983b) General Comment 11 [prohibition of war propaganda and inciting national, racial or religious hatred].

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC (1988) General Comment 16 [privacy and reputation].

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC (1993) General Comment 22 [freedom of thought].

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC (1997) General Comment 26 [continuity of obligations].

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC (2011) General Comment 34 [freedoms of opinion and expression].

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC (1996) Faurisson v France (550/1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC (2000) Ross v Canada (736/1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Secretary-General (2004) The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies (S/2004/616).

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights (2014) Memorialization Processes. Report (A/HRC/25/49) (Geneva).

    Google Scholar 

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J. (2012) ‘The Harm of Hate Speech,’ Free Speech Debate (Oxford: freespeechdebate.com).

    Google Scholar 

  • World Press Freedom Committee (2000) Insult Laws. An Insult to Press Freedom (Reston, VA: WPFC).

    Google Scholar 

Recommended Readings

  • Article 19 (2000) Defining Defamation. Principles on Freedom of Expression and Protection of Reputation (London: A19).

    Google Scholar 

  • Article 19 (2009) The Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality (London: A19).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barendt, E. (2005) Freedom of Speech (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, L. (1964) The Morality of Law (New Haven: Yale University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Garton Ash, T. (2016) Free Speech. Ten Principles for a Connected World (London: Atlantic Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, I. and Weinstein J. (eds.) (2009), Extreme Speech and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1859) On Liberty (London: Parker & Sons).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. (2005) UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. CCPR Commentary (2nd ed.; Kehl am Rhein: Engel).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, F. (1982) Free Speech. A Philosophical Inquiry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Human Rights Committee (2011) General Comment 34 [freedoms of opinion and expression] (CCPR/C/GC/34).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

    Antoon De Baets

Authors
  1. Antoon De Baets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Berber Bevernage

  2. CEGESOMA (Belgian State Archives), Brussels, Belgium

    Nico Wouters

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

De Baets, A. (2018). Laws Governing the Historian’s Free Expression. In: Bevernage, B., Wouters, N. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of State-Sponsored History After 1945. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95306-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95306-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-95305-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-349-95306-6

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation