write a speech about rights and responsibilities cannot be separated

• Associate Members
• Executive Committee
• In Memoriam
• The InterAction Council and its First 25 Years
• Comments from world leaders
• Annual Plenary Meetings
• High-Level Expert Group meetings
• Economic revitalization
• Peace & security
• Universal ethical standards
• Final Communiqué
• Chairman's Reports
• Declarations
• Publications

Don't be Afraid of Ethics! Why we Need to Talk of Responsibilities as well as Rights

By Hans Küng

"Is he afraid of ethics?" Not very long ago my dear friend Alfred Grosser, the political theorist from Paris, whispered this question in my ear. The occasion was a televised dispute in Baden Baden, in which the presenter was once again gallantly dismissing the question of ethics with a reference to more immediate issues. This question came home to me again on reading the first contributions to the discussion on the proposal for a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities.1 As one of the three "academic advisors" to the InterAction Council, which is made up of former heads of state and governments, I was responsible not only for the first draft of this declaration but also for incorporating the numerous corrections suggested by the statesmen and the many experts from different continents, religions and disciplines. I therefore identify completely with this declaration. However, had I not been occupied for years with the problems, and had I not finally written A Global Ethic for Global Politics and Global Economics, published in 1997, which provides a broad treatment of all the problems which arise here, I would not have dared to formulate a first draft at all ? in close conjunction with the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights and the 1993 Declaration on a Global Ethic endorsed by the Parliament of the World's Religions, which required a secular political continuation. I say this simply to those who presuppose great naivety behind such declarations. That is certainly not the case!

I. Globalization calls for a global ethic

1.The declaration by the InterAction Council (IAC) is not an isolated document. It fulfils the urgent call by important international bodies for global ethical standards at present made in chapters of the reports both of the UN Commission on Global Governance (1995) and the World Commission on Culture and Development (1995). The same topic has also been discussed for a long time at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos and similarly in the new UNESCO Universal Ethics Project. Increasing attention is also being paid to it in Asia.2

2. The contemporary background to the questions raised in these international and interreligious bodies is the fact that the globalization of the economy, technology and the media has also brought a globalization of their problems (from the financial and labour markets to ecology and organized crime). If there are to be global solutions to them, they therefore also call for a globalization of ethics: no uniform ethical system, but a necessary minimum of shared ethical values, basic attitudes and criteria to which all regions, nations and interest groups can commit themselves. In another words there is a need for a common basic human ethic. There can be no new world order without a world ethic.

3. All this is not based on an "alarmist" analysis but on a realistic analysis of society. Critics have selected a few isolated quotations in particular from Helmut Schmidt's introductory article on the Declaration of Human Responsibilities in Die Zeit, printed here, and constructed a twofold charge from it:

a. the analysis of society underlying the Declaration is purely negative, gloomy, and oriented on decline;

b. such ''gloomy pictures of society'' would be used in ''potentially successful'' campaigns to ''supplement individual freedoms by reinforcing communal obligations'', a suspicion which culminates in the charge that all would be ''to limit the consequences of these individual freedoms.'' Over against this, emphatic reference is made to empirical investigations which are said to have discovered that there has been no ''repudiation of and decline in'' morality. As if Helmut Schmidt had asserted any of this. As if he had engaged in sheer ''alarmism'', demonized individualism, lamented a decline in values... Instead of this, Schmidt has indicated in a sober and realistic way some elements of danger in the process of globalization which have been seen and complained about for a long time all over the world. And Schmidt's plea for a Declaration of Human Responsibilities in particular presupposes that there are sufficient people also in the younger generation who at least in principle affirm ''responsibility'', ''morality'', and ''orientation on the common good.'' However, hardly anyone can seriously dispute that after the increase in and reinforcement of the rights of the individual over the past three decades, we need a stocktaking of education, journalism and politics. For:

4. A. sober diagnosis of the present notes that the radicalized individualization, accelerated secularization and ideological pluralization of present society is not just a negative development (thus the hierarchy of the Roman church), nor is it just a positive development (thus the belated representatives of the modern Enlightenment), but a highly ambivalent structural change. It brings opportunities and advantages, but also enormous risks and dangers, and in the midst of a revolutionary change raises new questions about criteria for values and points of orientation. This does not mean ''turning back the clock'', but recognizing the ''signs of the times''. As Marion Countess Dönhoff has remarked: ''Of course pluralistic democracy is unthinkable without the autonomous individual. So there can be no question of turning our backs on emancipation and secularization ? moreover that would be impossible. What we have to do is to educate citizens to greater responsibility and again give them a sense of solidarity. In our present world with its manifold temptations and attractions, the desire for a basic moral orientation, for norms and a binding system of values, is very great. Unless we take account of that, this society will not hold together." 3 Ralf Dahrendorf makes the following observation on the ''question of law and order'', which for him is one of the ''great questions of our time'', which for him is one of the ''great questions of our time'', along with unemployment and the welfare state. ''Lawlessness is the scourge of modernity. The sense of belonging disappears, and with is lost the support which a strong civil society gives to individuals and which they can take for granted. There is little to indicate why existing regulations and laws should be observed. Police control can replace social control only at the price of becoming authoritarian or, even worse, totalitarian. What holds modern society together?" 4 5. The question of what holds society together has in fact become more acute in postmodernity, which is a new epoch-making paradigm and does not just amount to a "second modernity". For:

• On the one hand a classic statement which the constitutional lawyer E.W. Böckenförde made at a very early stage is still true: ''The free secular state lives on the basis of presuppositions which it cannot guarantee without putting its freedom in question," 5 Modern society therefore needs a leading social and political ideas which emerged from common convictions, attitudes and traditions which would predate this freedom. These resources are not naturally there, but need to be looked after, aroused and handed down by education (''Responsibilities are not there ''just like that'').
• But on the other hand, what the sociologist H. Dubiel, among others, has emphasized is also true. The modern liberal social order has for a long time relied on ''habits of the heart'', on a thick cushion or pre-modern systems of meaning and obligation, though today - as is also confirmed by many teachers of religion and ethics - these are now ''worn out". 6

6. So what will hold post-modern society together? Certainly not religious fundamentalism of a biblicistic Protestant or a Roman Catholic kind. In the Declaration of Human Responsibilities there is deliberately not a single word about questions like birth control, abortion or euthanasia, on which there cannot be a consensus between and within the churches and religions. Nor however, will society be held together by the random pluralism which wants to sell us indifferentism, consumerism and hedonism as a "post-modern" vision of the future. But in the end the only thing that will hold society together is a new basic social consensus on shared values and criteria, which combines autonomous self-realization with responsibility in solidarity, rights with obligations. So we should not be afraid of an ethic which can be supported by quite different social groups. What we need is a fundamental yes to morality as a moral attitude, combined with a decisive no to moralism, which one-sidedly insists firmly on particular moral positions (e.g. on sexuality).

II. Human responsibility reinforce human rights

1. Individual human rights activists who have evidently been surprised by the new problems and the topicality of human responsibilities initially reacted with perplexity to the proposal for a Declaration of Responsibilities. Here I am not speaking of those one-issue people who wit Jeremiads and scenarios of destruction force all the problems of the world under a single perspective (say the intrinsically justified perspective of ecology, or any other perspective that they regard as the sum and solution of all problems of the world), and who want to force their one-dimensional, often monocausal view, of the world (Carl Amery's ''biospheric perspective'') upon everyone, instead of taking seriously the many levels and the many dimensions of human life and social reality, as the Declaration of Human Responsibilities does. I am speaking, rather, of those who use sophisticated arguments, like the German General Secretary of Amnesty International, Volkmar Deile. 7 In principle he affirms ''a necessary minimum of shared ethical values, basic attitudes and criteria to which all religions, nations, and interest groups can commit themselves'', but he has suspicions about a separate Declaration of Human Responsibilities. These suspicions seem to me to be worth considering, even if in the end I cannot share them. The main reason is that a Declaration of Human Responsibilities does not do the slightest damage to the Declaration of Human Rights. At any rate the UN Commissions and other international bodies cited here 8 are of the same opinion. Reflection on human responsibilities does not damage the realization of human rights. On the contrary, it furthers it. But let us look more closely.

2. A Declaration of Human Responsibilities supports and reinforces the Declaration of Human Rights from an ethical perspective, as is already stated programmatically in the preamble: ''We thus... renew and reinforce commitments already proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: namely, the full acceptance of the dignity of all people; their inalienable freedom and equality, and their solidarity with one another.'' If human rights are not realized in many places where they could be implemented, this is for the most part for want of lack of political and ethical will. There is no disputing the fact that ''the rule of law and the promotion of human rights depend on the readiness of men and women to act justly''. Nor will any of those who fight for human rights dispute this.

3. Of course it would be wrong to think that the legal validity of human rights depends on the actual realization of responsibilities. ''Human rights - a reward for good human behaviour''. Who would assert such nonsense? This would in fact mean that only those who had shown themselves worthy of rights by doing their duty towards society would have any. That would clearly offend against the unconditional dignity of the human person, which is itself a presupposition of both rights and responsibilities. No one has claimed that certain human responsibilities must be fulfilled first, by individuals or a community, before one can claim human rights. These are given with the human person, but this person is always at the same time one who has rights and responsibilities: ''All human rights are by definition directly bound up with the responsibility to observe them'' (V. Deile). Rights and responsibilities can certainly be distinguished neatly, but they cannot be separated from each other. Their relationship needs to be described in a differentiated way. They are not quantities which are to be added or subtracted externally, but two related dimensions of being human in the individual and the social sphere.

4. No rights without responsibilities: as such, this concern is by no means new, but goes back to the ''founding period'' of human rights. The demand was already made in the debate over human rights in the French Revolutionary Parliament of 1789 that if one proclaims a Declaration of Human Rights one must combine it with a Declaration of Human Responsibilities. Otherwise, in the end everyone would have only rights, which they would play off against one another, and no one would any longer know the responsibilities without which these rights cannot function. And what about us, 200 years after the Great Revolution? We in fact live largely in a society in which individual groups all too often insist on rights against others without recognizing any responsibilities that they themselves have. This is certainly not because of codified human rights as such, but because of certain false developments closely connected with them. In the consciousness of many people these have led to a preponderance of rights over responsibilities. Instead of the culture of human rights which is striven for, there is often an unculture of exaggerated claims to rights which ignores the intentions of human rights. The ''equilibrium of freedom, equality and participation'' is not simply ''present'', but time and again has to be realized afresh. After all, we indisputably live in a ''society of claims'', which often presents itself as a ''society of legal claims'', indeed as a ''society of legal disputes''. This makes the state a ''judiciary state'' (a term applied to the Federal Republic of Germany by the legal historian S.Simon). 9 Does this not suggest the need for a new concentration on responsibilities, particularly in our over-developed constitutional states with all their justified insistence on rights?

5. What Deile calls ''the reality of severe violations of human rights which spans the world'' should make it clear, particularly to professional champions of human rights who want to defend human rights ''unconditionally'', how much a declaration and explanation of human rights comes up against a void where people, particularly those in power, ignore (''What concern is that of mine?), neglect (''I have to represent only the interests of my firm''), fail to perceive (''That's what churches and charities are for''), or simply pretend falsely to be fulfilling (''We, the government, the board of directors, are doing all what we can), their humane responsibilities. The ''weakness of human rights'' is not in fact grounded in the concept itself ''but in the lack of any political (and ? I would add ? moral) will on the part of those responsible for implementing them'' (V.Deile). To put it plainly: an ethical impulse and the motivation of norms is needed for an effective realization of human rights. Many human rights champions active on the fronts of this world who confess their ''Yes to a Global Ethic'' 10 have already explicitly endorsed that. Therefore those who want to work effectively for human rights should welcome a new moral impulse and framework of ethical orientation and not reject it, to their own disadvantage.

6. The framework of ethical orientation in the Declaration of Human Responsibilities in some respects extends beyond human rights, which now ''clearly say what is commanded and forbidden only for quite specific spheres (V. Deile). Nor does the Declaration of Human Rights expressly raise such a comprehensive moral claim. A Declaration of Human Responsibilities must extend much further and begin at a much deeper level. And indeed the two basic principles of the Declaration of Human Responsibilities already offer an ethical orientation of everyday life which is as comprehensive as it is fundamental: the basic demand, ''Every human being must be treated humanely'' and the Golden Rule, ''What you do no wish to be done to yourself, do not do to others''. Not to mention the concrete requirements of the Declaration of Human Responsibilities for truthfulness, non-violence, fairness, solidarity, partnership, etc. Where the Declaration of Human Rights has to leave open what is morally permissible and what is not, the Declaration of Human Responsibilities states this ? not as a law but as a moral imperative. Therefore the Declaration of Human Responsibilities ''opens up the possibility of agreement ? democratic agreement ? about what is right and what is wrong. The responsibility of being interested in these important questions returns the manifesto to the individual? Thus it is not paternalistic but political. What else could it be?'' 11

7. If the Declaration of Human Responsibilities is mostly formulated ''anonymously'', since it is focussed less on the individual (to be protected) than on the state (the power of which has to be limited), while the Declaration of Human Responsibilities is also addressed to state and institutions, it is primarily and very directly addressed to responsible persons. Time and again it says, ''all people'' or ''every person''; indeed specific professional groups which have a particular responsibility in our society (politicians, officials, business leaders, writers, artists, doctors, lawyers, journalists, religious leaders) are explicitly addressed, but no one is singled out. It is beyond dispute that such a Declaration of Responsibilities represents a challenge in the age of random pluralism, at least for the ''winners'' in the process of individualism at the expense of others, and for all those who recognize only ''provided it's fun'' or ''it contributes to my personal advancement'' as the sole moral norm. But the declaration is not concerned with a new ''community ideology'', which is the criticism made of the communitarians around Amitai Etzioni. At least these people do not want to set up a ''tyranny of the common mind'' and to relieve people even of individual responsibility. That is what is done, rather, by their superficiality moral opposite numbers, who, fatally mistaking the crisis of the present, think that they have to propagate a ''confession of the selfish society'' or the ''virtue of having no orientation or ties'' as a way into the future.

8. Thus like the Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration of Human Responsibilities is primarily a moral appeal. As such it does not have the direct binding character of international law, but it proclaims to the world public some basic norms for collective and individual behaviour which apply to everyone. This appeal is, of course, also meant to have an effect on legal and political practice. However, it does not aim at any legalistic morality. The Declaration of Responsibilities is not a ''blueprint for a legally binding canon of responsibilities with a world-wide application'', as has been insinuated. No such spectres should be conjured up at a time when even the pope and the curial apparatus can no longer implement their legalistic authoritarian moral views in their very own sphere (far less in the outside world). A key feature of the Declaration of Human Responsibilities is that it specifically does not aim at legal codification, which in any case is impossible in the case of moral attitudes like truthfulness and fairness. It aims at voluntarily taking responsibility. Such a declaration can of course lead to legal regulations in individual cases, or if it is applied to institutions. However, a Declaration of Human Responsibilities should be morally rather than legally binding.

III. ''Responsibilities'' can be misused - but so too can ''rights''

1. Particularly those who reject any revision of the Declaration of Human Rights (and this is certainly also rejected by the IAC) should argue for a Declaration of Human Responsibilities. To discredit the plea of many Asians for a recognition of responsibilities - traditional in Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam - a priori as authoritarian and paternalistic is to be blind to reality and arrogant in a Eurocentric way. It is obvious that here the attack on the idea of responsibilities is often governed by political interests. But that (makes) does not deprive the demand for responsibilities generally of its credibility, any more than the call for freedom is discredited because it is misused by robber baron capitalists or sensational journalists. To think that authoritarian systems would wait specifically for a Declaration of Responsibilities and in the future woo would be dependent on a Declaration of Responsibilities to uphold their authoritarian system is ridiculous. Rather, in the future it will be possible to address authoritarian systems more critically than before over their responsibility to show truthfulness and tolerance - which is not contained in any human rights. And this can have an effect. Authoritarian systems like those of Poland, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, the Philippines or South Africa were overthrown without bloodshed, not least by moral arguments and demonstrations, with demands for ''truth'', ''freedom'', ''justice'', ''solidarity'', ''humanity'' slogans which often went beyond human rights. So human rights and human responsibilities should be seen together. A Declaration of Human Responsibilities can serve many people as a reference document in the same way as the Declaration of Human Rights - and this can be significant not least for education and schools.

2. Germans in particular have an additional problem here. Unfortunately they do not have the good fortune of the Anglo-Americans, who have three related terms with different emphases, ''duties'', ''obligations'' and ''responsibilities'' where they have to made do with one, ''Pflicht.'' It was exciting to see how among the professionals both in Paris (UNESCO) and Vienna (InterAction Council) and in Davos (World Economic Forum) each time quickly agreed on the term ''responsibilities'' to translate Pflicht. Why? Because this term more than the other words emphasizes inner responsibility rather than the external law, and inner responsibility must be the ultimate aim of a Declaration of Responsibilities, which can in no way enforce an ethic. If ''Verantwortlichkeit'' were accepted terminology, that would have been preferable, but it seemed possible to use this only on isolated occasions.

3. Europeans, and especially Germans, need to be reminded that this term Pflicht in the sense of ''duty'' has been shamefully misused in their more recent history. ''Duty'' (towards superiors, the Fuhrer, the Volk, the party, even the pope) has been hammered home by totalitarian, authoritarian and hierarchical ideologies of all kinds. So one can understand the anxious projections (''authoritarian state'', ''paternalism''... ), which have led to the word being made morally and ultimately even linguistically taboo. But should abusers prevent us from taking up positively a concept which has had a long history since Cicero and Ambrose, which was made a key concept of modern times and which even today seems irreplaceable? So we should not be afraid of ethics: responsibility exerts a moral pressure but it does not compel. It follows primarily not from purely technical or economic reason but from ethical reason, which encourages and urges human beings, whose nature is to be able to decide freedom, to act morally. And here it should be remembered that:

4. Not only obligations but also rights can be misused: particularly when, first, they are constantly used exclusively for one's own advantage and, secondly, when they are constantly exploited to the maximum, to their limit of their own extreme possibilities. Those who neglect their responsibilities finally also undermine rights. Even the state would be endangered if its citizens made no meaningful use of rights and employed them purely to their own advantage. Indeed, not even Amnesty International could survive if it was governed and supported by such egoistic ''being in the right'' instead of by ethically motivated activists. So we should be aware of false alternatives:

5. Liberating rights (in the West) versus enslaving responsibilities (in the East): this is a construction against which resolute opposition must be declared. The Declaration of Responsibilities which reinforces the Declaration of Rights could perceive a function of supplementing and mediating here ? without threatening the universal validity, the indivisibility and the cohesion of human rights. It could be a help towards avoiding a ''clash of civilizations'' which only the innocent can suppose to be ''long refuted'', as soon as on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights.

6. I share the love of freedom, and Isaiah Berlin was certainly right in saying that freedom is essentially about the absence of compulsion with the ''negative'' aim of avoiding interference: i.e. freedom from. But as a former Isaiah Berlin lecturer in Cambridge, perhaps I may modestly remark that a pure ''freedom from'' can be destructive and sometimes dangerous without a ''freedom for''; here the British sociologist Anthony Giddens confirms a piece of old theological wisdom. This should certainly not be a call for the exercise of freedom ''as service to the community'', which can easily lead to servitude, but is rather that freedom in responsibility without which liberty becomes libertinism, which in the end leaves people who live only for their egos inwardly burnt out. However, such libertinism becomes a social problem the moment there is a dramatic increase in the number of people who selfishly cultivate their own interests and the private aesthetic development of their everyday lives, and are ready for commitment only in so far as this serves their needs and sense of pleasure. Even the political weeklies and journals are slowly beginning to note this: recently major critical articles have appeared on ''The Shameless Society'' or ''The New Shamelessness''.

7. We need not worry: morality and community cannot be ''prescribed'' as obligations. And the best guarantee of peace is in fact a functioning state which guarantees its citizens the security of the law. Here human rights are the ''guiding star'' (not the ''explosive device'') of such a society. But precisely because community and morality cannot be prescribed, the personal responsibility of its citizens is indispensable. As we saw, the democratic state is dependent on a consensus of values, norms and responsibilities, precisely because it cannot and should not either create this consensus or prescribe it.

8. Those concerned with human rights in particular must know that the Declaration of Human Rights itself, in Article 29, contains a definition of the ''duties of everyone towards the community''. From this it follows with compelling logic that a Declaration of Human Responsibilities cannot in any way stand in contradiction to the Declaration of Human Rights. And if concrete forms of political, social and cultural articles on human rights were possible and necessary through international agreements in the 1960s, why should a development of Article 29 by an extended formulation of these responsibilities in the 1990s be illegitimate? On the contrary, precisely in the light of this it becomes clear that human rights and human responsibilities do not mutually restrict each other for society but supplement each other a fruitful way ? and all champions of human rights should recognize this as a reinforcement of their position. It is not by chance that this Article 29 speaks of the ''just requirements of morality, public order and general welfare in a democratic society''. But the asymmetrical structure in the determination of the relationship of rights and responsibilities must be noted.

IV. Not all responsibilities follow from rights

1. The decisive question, whether expressed or not, is whether alongside a claim to rights there is also a need for reflection on responsibilities. The answer to that is: All rights imply responsibilities, but not all responsibilities follow from rights. Here are three examples:

(a) The freedom of the press or of a journalist is guaranteed and protected by the modern constitutional state: the journalist, the newspaper, has the right to report freely. The state must protect this right actively, and if need be to enforce it. Therefore the state and the citizen have the responsibility of respecting the right of this newspaper of this journalist to free reporting. However, this right does not yet in any way touch on the responsibility of the journalist or the media themselves (which has been widely discussed since the death of Princess Diana) to inform the public truthfully and avoid sensational reporting which demeans the dignity of the human person (cf. Article 14 of the Declaration of Responsibilities). But that the freedom of opinion which critics claim entails a responsibility ''not to insult others'' is a claim to which no lawyer would subscribe. 12

(b) The right each individual to property is also guaranteed by the modern constitutional state. It contains the legal responsibility of others (the state of the individual citizen) to respect this property and not to misappropriate it. However, this right does not in any way affect the responsibility of property-owners themselves not to use the property in an anti-social way but to use it socially (this is laid down as a duty in the German Basic Law), to bridle the manifestly unquenchable human greed for money, power, prestige and consumption, and to use economic power in the service of social justice and social order (cf. Article 11).

(c)The freedom of conscience of individuals to decide in accordance with their own consciences contains the legal responsibility of themselves and others (individuals and the state) to respect any free decision of the conscience: the individual conscience is guaranteed protection by the constitution in democracies. However, this right by no means entails the ethical responsibility of individuals to follow their own conscience in every case, even, indeed precisely when this is unacceptable or abhorrent to them.

2. It follows from this that rights also entail certain responsibilities, and these are legal responsibilities. But by no means all responsibilities follow from rights. There are also independent ethical responsibilities which are directly grounded in the dignity of the human person. At a very early stage in the theoretical debate on this, two types of responsibility were distinguished: obligations in the narrower sense, ''complete'', legal obligations; and responsibilities in the wider sense, ''incomplete'', ethical responsibilities like those prompted by conscience, love and humanity. These are based on the insight of the individual and cannot be compelled by the state through law.

3. Thus ethics is not exhausted in law. The levels of law and ethics belong together, but a fundamental distinction is to be made between them, and this is particularly significant for human rights.

• Human beings have fundamental rights which are formulated in the Declarations of Human Rights. To these correspond the legal responsibilities of both state and individual citizens to respect and protect these rights. Here we are at the level of law, regulations, the judiciary, the police. External behaviour in conformity to the law can be examined; in principle the law can be appealed to and if need be enforced (''in the name of the law'').
• But at the same time human beings have original responsibilities which are already given with their personhood and are not grounded in any rights: these are ethical responsibilities which cannot be fixed by law. Here we are at the level of ethics, customs, the conscience, the "heart''... The inward, morally good disposition, or even truthfulness, cannot be tested directly; therefore it cannot be brought under the law, let alone be compelled (''thoughts are free''). The ''sanctions'' of the conscience are not of a legal kind but often of a moral kind - and can even be felt in dreams and sleeplessness. The fact that immorality rarely pays in the long run, even in politics and business, and often leads to conflicts with the criminal law, does not follow directly from the ethical imperative.

4. Where a gap yawns between law and ethics, the law does not function either. Whether human rights will be realized in concrete terms depends not only generally on the ethical will of those responsible, but often on the moral energy of an individual or a few people. Even the realization of the fundamental principle of international law, ''pacta sunt servanda'', ''treaties are to be kept'', depends quite decisively on the ethical will of the partner to the treaty, as the example of former Yugoslavia has again demonstrated. And must not truthfulness, which cannot be tested by law, be presupposed in the conclusion of any treaty, even if it cannot be compelled legally? ''Morality is good, rights are better'' (as Norbert Greinacher remarked) is a simple statement. For what use are any rights and laws if there are no morals, no moral disposition, no obligation of conscience behind them? In other words, the law needs a moral foundation! So the Declaration of Responsibilities says that a better world order cannot be created with laws, conventions and ordinances alone. Indeed, without an ethic, in the end the law will not stand. So it is meaningful and requisite to set a Declaration of Human Responsibilities alongside the Declaration of Human Rights. As I have remarked, the two do not restrict each other but support each other.

5. One last thing: the nineteen articles of the Declaration of Human Responsibilities are anything but a random cocktail. As any expert will easily recognize, they are a reshaping of the four elementary imperatives of humanity (not to kill, steal, lie, commit sexual immorality) translated for our time. Despite all differences between the faiths, these can already be found in Patanjali, the founder of Yoga, the Bhagavadgita and the Buddhist canon, and of course also in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, the Qur’an, and indeed in all the great religious and ethical traditions of humankind. No ''cultural relativism'' is being encouraged here; rather, this is overcome by the integration of culture-specific values into an ethical framework with an universal orientation. As we saw, like human rights, these fundamental human responsibilities have their point of reference, their centre and the nucleus in the acknowledgement of human dignity, which stands at the centre of the very first sentence of the Declaration of Human Responsibilities, as it does in the Declaration of Human Rights. From it follows the fundamental ethical imperative to treat every human being humanely, made concrete by the Golden Rule, which also does not express a right but a responsibility. Thus the Declaration of Responsibilities is an appeal to the institutions, but also to the moral consciousness of individuals, explicitly to note the ethical dimension in all action.

6. My final wish for the wider debate is for there to be no false fronts, no artificial oppositions between rights and responsibilities, between an ethic of freedom and an ethic of responsibility, but rather a grasping of the opportunities which there could be in such a perhaps epoch-making declaration, were it promulgated. After all, it is not every day that statesmen from all the continents agree on such a text and propagate such a cause. And above all let us not be afraid of ethics: rightly understood, ethics does not enslave but frees. It helps us to be truly human and to remain so.

1. Cf. the series on rights and responsibilities in Die Zeit, nos 41-48, 1997. Contributors included Helmut Schmidt, Constanze Stelzenmüller, Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, Susanne Gaschke, Hans Küng, Norbert Greinacher, Carl Amery, and Marion Gräfin Donhoff. Where names appear in this article without further details they usually refer to this series.

2. Cf. the contribution by J. Frühbauer in this volume.

3. M. Gräfin Dönhoff, ''Verantwörtung für das Ganze'', in E. Teufel (ed.), Was hält die moderne Gesellschaft zusammen?, Frankfurt 1996, 44. Or Thomas Assheuer, addressing the naively optimistic propagandists of a ''second modernity'' (Ulrich Beck); ''To speak of a social and moral crisis is no longer the privilege of conservatives''. T. Assheuer, ''Im Prinzip ohne Hoffnung. Die ''zweite Moderne'' als Formel: Wie Soziologen alte Fragen neue drapieren'', Die Zeit, 18 July 1997.

4. R. Dahrendorf, ''Liberale ohne Heimat'', Die Ziet, 8 January 1998.

5. Thus the federal judge E. W.Bockenforde, ''Fundamente der Freiheit'', in ibid, 89. Böckenförde formulated the thesis quoted above thirty years ago, in the meantime it may be taken to have been fully accepted.

6. H. Dubiel, ''Von welchen Ressourcen leben wir? Erfolge und Grenzen der Aufklärung'', in F. Teufel (ed.), Was halt die moderne Gesellschaft zusammen (n.3), 81.

7. Cf. V. Deile, ''Rechte bedingungslos verteidigen'', Die Zeit, 21 November 1997.

8. There are more details in J. Fruhbauer.

9. Cf. the radio broadcast by the Director of the Max Planck Institute for European Legal History in Frankfurt am Main, D. Simon, ''Der Richter als Ersatzkaiser'' (manuscript).

10. Cf. H. Küng (ed.) Yes to a Global Ethic, London and New York 1996.

12. S Gaschke, ''Die Ego-Polizei", Die Zeit, 24 October 1997.

13. For this complex of problems see the correspondence between the World Press Freedom Committee and the InterAction Council.

Leading in Context

Unleash the Positive Power of Ethical Leadership

Rights, Responsibilities and Freedom

While some people think of rights, responsibilities and freedom separately, in a compartmentalized way, I believe they cannot be separated.  According to John Courtney Murray, freedom was always intended to be grounded in ethical values.

“Freedom was not conceived in terms of the sheer subjective autonomy of the will. Man’s freedom, like man himself, stood within the moral universe. It meant the objective right to act; it meant what Acton defined as “the right to do what one ought.” John Courtney Murray, S.J., Freedom, Responsibility, and the Law, Woodstock Theological Library, Georgetown University

All Three Concepts Are Morally Defined

Here is an excerpt from a previous post I wrote that addresses the relationship between rights and responsibilities: 

“Can rights and responsibilities be separated? Clearly they are both part of good citizenship and ethical leadership. But what happens if we try to separate them?  If we demand our rights but fail to live up to our responsibilities, we will have a negative impact on others.  If we assert individual rights without also taking responsibility, we are asking for more than we are willing to give.  We are conveying that what we want is more important than what others want. We are demanding that our needs be met without caring about what happens to others. U nder those circumstances the answer to “Can rights and responsibilities be separated?” is ‘Yes, but not ethically.'” Linda Fisher Thornton, Leaders: Can Rights and Responsibilities Be Separated? ,  Leading in Context Blog

All three concepts – rights, responsibilities and freedom, fall within what John Courtney Murray called “the moral universe.” To be whole, then, arguments advocating rights and freedoms must include a willingness to take responsibility.  As ethical leaders, we need to talk about them as a “package deal” to ensure that we are always taking responsibility for our actions. 

Click the cover to read a free preview!

LeadinginContext.com  

© 2019 Leading in Context LLC

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Join the Conversation!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.3: Rights and Responsibilities

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 183381

Democracies rest upon the principle that government exists to serve the people. In other words, the people are citizens of the democratic state, not its subjects. Because the state protects the rights of its citizens, they, in turn, give the state their loyalty. Under an authoritarian system, by contrast, the state demands loyalty and service from its people without any reciprocal obligation to secure their consent for its actions.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

This relationship of citizen and state is fundamental to democracy. In the words of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

More specifically, in democracies, these fundamental or inalienable rights include freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of assembly, and the right to equal protection before the law. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the rights that citizens enjoy in a democracy, but it does constitute a set of the irreducible core rights that any democratic government worthy of the name must uphold. Since they exist independently of government, in Jefferson’s view, these rights cannot be legislated away, nor should they be subject to the whim of an electoral majority.

SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, AND PROTEST

Freedom of speech and expression, especially about political and social issues, is the lifeblood of any democracy. Democratic governments do not control the content of most written and verbal speech. Thus democracies are usually filled with many voices expressing different or even contrary ideas and opinions. Democracies tend to be noisy.

Democracy depends upon a literate, knowledgeable citizenry whose access to information enables it to participate as fully as possible in the public life of society and to criticize unwise or oppressive government officials or policies. Citizens and their elected representatives recognize that democracy depends upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, data, and opinions. For a free people to govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves—openly, publicly, and repeatedly—in speech and in writing.

The protection of free speech is a so-called "negative right," simply requiring that the government refrain from limiting speech. For the most part, the authorities in a democracy are uninvolved in the content of written and verbal speech.

Protests serve as a testing ground for any democracy—thus the right to peaceful assembly is essential and plays an integral part in facilitating the use of free speech. A civil society allows for spirited debate among those in disagreement over the issues. In the modern United States, even fundamental issues of national security, war, and peace are discussed freely in newspapers and in broadcast media, with those opposed to the administration’s foreign policy easily publicizing their views.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it is not absolute, and cannot be used to incite violence. Slander and libel, if proven, are usually defined and controlled through the courts. Democracies generally require a high degree of threat to justify banning speech or gatherings that may incite violence, untruthfully harm the reputation of others, or overthrow a constitutional government. Many democracies ban speech that promotes racism or ethnic hatred. The challenge for all democracies, however, is one of balance: to defend freedom of speech and assembly while countering speech that truly encourages violence, intimidation, or subversion of democratic institutions. One can disagree forcefully and publicly with the actions of a public official; calling for his (or her) assassination, however, is a crime.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND TOLERANCE

All citizens should be free to follow their conscience in matters of religious faith. Freedom of religion includes the right to worship alone or with others, in public or private, or not to worship at all, and to participate in religious observance, practice, and teaching without fear of persecution from government or other groups in society. All people have the right to worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief, and to establish and maintain places for these purposes.

Like other fundamental human rights, religious freedom is not created or granted by the state, but all democratic states should protect it. Although many democracies may choose to recognize an official separation of church and state, the values of government and religion are not in fundamental conflict. Governments that protect religious freedom for all their citizens are more likely to protect other rights necessary for religious freedom, such as free speech and assembly. The American colonies, virtually theocratic states in the 17th and 18th centuries, developed theories of religious tolerance and secular democracy almost simultaneously. By contrast, some of the totalitarian dictatorships of the 20th century attempted to wipe out religion, seeing it (rightly) as a form of self-expression by the individual conscience, akin to political speech. Genuine democracies recognize that individual religious differences must be respected and that a key role of government is to protect religious choice, even in cases where the state sanctions a particular religious faith. However, this does not mean that religion itself can become an excuse for violence against other religions or against society as a whole. Religion is exercised within the context of a democratic society but does not take it over.

CITIZEN RESPONSIBILITIES

Citizenship in a democracy requires participation, civility, patience—rights as well as responsibilities. Political scientist Benjamin Barber has noted, "Democracy is often understood as the rule of the majority, and rights are understood more and more as the private possessions of individuals. ... But this is to misunderstand both rights and democracy." For democracy to succeed, citizens must be active, not passive, because they know that the success or failure of the government is their responsibility, and no one else’s.

It is certainly true that individuals exercise basic rights—such as freedom of speech, assembly, religion—but in another sense, rights, like individuals, do not function in isolation. Rights are exercised within the framework of a society, which is why rights and responsibilities are so closely connected.

Democratic government, which is elected by and accountable to its citizens, protects individual rights so that citizens in a democracy can undertake their civic obligations and responsibilities, thereby strengthening the society as a whole.

At a minimum, citizens should educate themselves about the critical issues confronting their society, if only so that they can vote intelligently. Some obligations, such as serving on juries in civil or criminal trials or in the military, may be required by law, but most are voluntary.

The essence of democratic action is the peaceful, active, freely chosen participation of its citizens in the public life of their community and nation. According to scholar Diane Ravitch, "Democracy is a process, a way of living and working together. It is evolutionary, not static. It requires cooperation, compromise, and tolerance among all citizens. Making it work is hard, not easy. Freedom means responsibility, not freedom from responsibility." Fulfilling this responsibility can involve active engagement in organizations or the pursuit of specific community goals; above all, fulfillment in a democracy involves a certain attitude, a willingness to believe that people who are different from you have similar rights.

Chapter 6: The Right to Freedom of Speech

The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man; and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

Free speech is our most fundamental—and our most contested—right. It is an essential freedom because it is how we protect all of our other rights and liberties. If we could not speak openly about the policies and actions of government, then we would have no effective way to participate in the democratic process or protest when we believed governmental behavior threatened our security or our freedom. Although Americans agree that free speech is central to democratic government, we disagree sharply about what we mean by speech and about where the right begins and ends. Speech clearly includes words, but does it also include conduct or symbols? Certainly, we have the right to criticize the government, but can we also advocate its overthrow? Does the right to free speech allow us to incite hate or use foul language in public?

The framers of the Bill of Rights understood the importance of free expression and protected it under the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Both English history and their own colonial past had taught them to value this right, but their definition of free speech was much more limited than ours. Less than a decade after the amendment’s ratification, Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, making it a crime to criticize the government. Many citizens believed government could forbid speech that threatened public order, as witnessed by numerous early nineteenth-century laws restricting speech against slavery. During the Civil War, thousands of antiwar protestors were arrested on the theory that the First Amendment did not protect disloyal speech. Labor unrest in the 1800s and 1890s brought similar restraints on the right of politically unpopular groups, such as socialists, to criticize government’s failure to protect working people from the ills of industrialization and economic depression.

Freedom of speech did not become a subject of important court cases until the twentieth century when the Supreme Court announced one of the most famous principles in constitutional law, the clear and present danger test. The test was straightforward: government could not restrict speech unless it posed a known, immediate threat to public safety. The standard sought to balance the need for order with the right to speak freely. At its heart was the question of proximity, or closeness, and degree. If speech brought about an action that was dangerous under the immediate circumstances, such as falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, then it did not enjoy First Amendment protection. With this case, Schenck v. United States (1919), the Court began a decades-long process of seeking the right balance between free speech and public safety.

The balance, at first, was almost always on the side of order and security. Another case decided in 1919, Debs v. United States , illustrates how restrictive the test could be. Eugene Debs was a labor leader from Indiana who had run for President four times as the candidate of the Socialist Party of America, once polling more than one million votes. At a June 1918 rally in Chicago, while U.S. troops were fighting in World War I, he told the working-class crowd, “You need to know you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.”

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.

He was sentenced under an existing federal statute to twenty years in prison for inciting disloyalty and obstruction of military recruitment, which the Supreme Court upheld.

For the next five decades, the Court wrestled with the right balance between speech and order. Much of what defined freedom of speech emerged from challenges to the government’s ability to regulate or punish political protest. Each case brought a new set of circumstances that allowed the justices an opportunity to modify or extend the clear and present danger test. Many decisions recognized the abstract right of individuals to speak freely, but each one hedged this right in important ways. Always in the background were conditions that pointed to disorder, dissension, and danger—the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War, among them—so the justices were cautious in expanding a right that would expose America to greater threats. These cases, however, gradually introduced a new perspective on the value of free speech in a democracy, namely, the belief that truth is best reached by the free trade in ideas.

The belief that society is best served by a marketplace of ideas open to all opinions, no matter how radical, ultimately prevailed. In 1927, the Court had endorsed what came to be called the bad tendency test: if officials believed speech was likely to lead to a bad result, such as urging people to commit a violent act, it was not protected under the First Amendment even if no violence occurred. By 1969, however, similar facts produced a different outcome. Ku Klux Klan members in Ohio invited a television station to film their rally. Waving firearms, they shouted racist and anti-Semitic slurs and threatened to march on Congress before their leader was arrested and later convicted under a state law banning speech that had a tendency to incite violence. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction in Brandenburg v. Ohio and established the rule still in effect today: the First Amendment protects the right to advocate the use of force or violence, but it does not safeguard speech likely to incite or produce an immediate unlawful act. The Brandenburg test has allowed Nazis to march, Klan members to hold rallies, and other extremist groups to promote views far outside the mainstream of public opinion. With few exceptions—fighting words and obscenity, for example—government today cannot regulate the content of speech.

Even as society was coming to accept a wide range of political ideas, opposition to an unpopular war raised other questions about the limits and forms of free speech. By the mid- to late 1960s, the Vietnam War divided Americans. Although many citizens supported the use of U.S. troops to stop communism in Asia, a growing minority, including many draft-age young people, took to the streets to oppose the war. The protestors did not limit their efforts to antiwar speeches; they also wore shirts with obscene slogans, burned draft cards, and desecrated American flags. Using these symbols to protest, they argued, was a form of free speech. Soon, the Supreme Court faced the question squarely in a case involving a youthful protestor from the nation’s heartland: is symbolic speech—messages using symbols or signs, not words—protected by the First Amendment?

The first large-scale American demonstration against the Vietnam War occurred in November 1965 when more than 25,000 protestors converged on the nation’s capital. Fifty Iowans made the long bus ride, and on the way home they decided to make their opposition known locally by wearing black armbands to work and school. One member of the peace contingent was Lorena Tinker, the wife of a Des Moines Methodist minister and mother of five children. Mary Beth Tinker, a thirteen-year-old eighth grader, followed her mother’s suggestion and became one of a handful of local public school students who wore this symbol of protest to school. This act placed her in the middle of a national controversy about student rights and freedom of expression.

In many ways, Mary Beth was a normal eighth grader. She was a good student who enjoyed singing, spending time with her friends, and taking part in church activities. What made her different was a commitment to social justice, a passion encouraged by her parents, both of whom were known for their activism. Her parents wanted their children to share their moral and social values, and Mary Beth responded eagerly to their invitation to participate with them. By the time she became a teenager, she already had attended her first protest, accompanying her father to a rally about fair housing.

Mary Beth Tinker, her brother, John, and a handful of Des Moines students planned their demonstration for December 16, 1965. The students’ aim was not to protest the war but to mourn its casualties, Vietnamese and American, and to show support for proposed peace talks. School officials, however, promised to suspend anyone who came to school wearing the armbands, and the school principal suspended Mary Beth and sent her home. She was one of five students suspended that day for wearing the offending cloth. Significantly, the school ban applied only to armbands, in other words, to students who opposed the Vietnam War; a number of students that day wore an array of other symbols, including the Iron Cross, a Nazi medal.

When the school board upheld the suspensions, the Tinkers persuaded the Iowa Civil Liberties Union to take the case to federal court. Two lower federal courts agreed with the school’s action, rebuffing the argument that the policy violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The Supreme Court decided otherwise. In its 7-to-2 decision, announced in February 1969, the justices held that the wearing of armbands is a symbolic act akin to “pure speech” and protected by the right to free expression. The protesting students posed no threat to the order required for effective instruction, nor did the wearing of armbands interfere with the school’s educational mission. In this instance, the balance between order and liberty was weighted on the side of the First Amendment. Students and teachers, the Court concluded, do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Symbolic speech has been the focus of some of our greatest constitutional drama. Words may be powerful and provocative, but symbols are often more inflammatory because they are visual and evoke an emotional response. We live in an age when we use pictures and symbols to convey important messages, whether in politics or the marketplace. For these reasons, the Supreme Court’s recognition of symbolic speech as a right protected by the First Amendment has been a significant development. Twenty-five years after Mary Beth Tinker put on her armband in remembrance of the war dead, Life magazine featured a handful of civil liberties cases to celebrate the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights. Mary Beth’s case was included, even though the rights of students remained, and still are, more limited than those of adult citizens. But her actions as an eighth grader expanded our conception of constitutionally protected speech to include the symbols we use to express our convictions.

Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.

More than most other recent decisions, cases involving symbolic speech have revealed how contentious the right of free speech remains in our society. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected individuals who burned the American flag in protest. This decision was highly controversial, and it has resulted in numerous attempts to amend the Constitution to protect the flag and, in effect, limit speech in this circumstance. The outcome of this effort is uncertain, but the debate raises important questions: What role does this right play in our democracy? How does it contribute to our liberty as Americans?

The right to speak freely, without restraint, is essential to democratic government because it helps us develop better laws and policies through challenge, rebuttal, and debate. When we all have the ability to speak in the public forum, offensive opinions can be combated with an opposing argument, a more inclusive approach, a more effective idea. We tolerate offensive speech and protect the right to speak even for people who would deny it to us because we believe that exposing their thoughts and opinions to open debate will result in the discovery of truth. This principle is an old one in Western thought. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s dissent in Abrams v. United States , a 1919 case suppressing free speech, is a classic statement of this view: “The best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which [the public’s] wishes safely can be carried out.”

Governmental actions to deny differing points of view, even distasteful or unpopular opinions, rob us of the range of ideas that might serve the interests of society more effectively. In a case decided almost a decade before Tinker v. Des Moines , the Supreme Court found this rationale especially applicable to the classroom. “The Nation’s future,” the justices wrote, “depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues.” As a nation, we are willing to live with the often bitter conflict over ideas because we believe it will lead to truth and to improved lives for all citizens. We recognize that freedom of speech is the first freedom of democracy, as the English poet John Milton argued during his own seventeenth-century struggle to gain this right: “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” The ability to speak freely allows us to pursue truth, to challenge falsehoods, to correct mistakes—all are necessary for a healthy society.

Free speech also reflects a commitment to individual freedom and autonomy, the right to decide for ourselves and to pursue our own destiny. Throughout our history, we have been so committed to individual choice that many foreign observers believe it is our most characteristic trait. We see it reflected daily in everything from advertising slogans—“Have It Your Way”— to fashion statements, but fail to recognize how closely freedom is tied to the right to speak freely. Free speech guarantees us an individual voice, no matter how far removed our opinions and beliefs are from mainstream society. With this voice we are free to contribute as individuals to the marketplace of ideas or a marketplace of goods, as well as to decide how and under what circumstances we will join with others to decide social and governmental policies.

A commitment to free speech, of course, will not resolve all conflict, not if our history is any guide. The debate is most contentious during times of war or other moments when national security is at stake. Even then—perhaps especially then—we will continue to fight over words and symbols because they express our deepest hopes and our most worrisome fears. This contest over what speech is acceptable and what is not has been a constant theme of our past. Rarely do these struggles produce a neat consensus. More often, intemperate rhetoric and bitter division have been their legacy, and this angry clamor is one of the basic noises of our history. What makes the struggle to protect free speech worthwhile is its ability to serve as a lever for change. When we practice our right to speak openly, we are defining the contours of our democracy. It is messy work, but through it, we keep the Constitution alive and, with it, our dreams of a just society.

“Free Trade in Ideas”

Jacob Abrams was a Russian immigrant and anarchist convicted of violating the Sedition Act of 1918, which made it a crime to advocate anything that would impede the war effort during World War I. In 1917 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., had written the Court’s opinion in Schenck v. United States , upholding similar convictions because Congress had a right to regulate speech that posed a “clear and present danger” to public safety. But by the time Abrams’s appeal reached the Court in 1919, Holmes had modified his views. Disturbed by anti-radical hysteria, he dissented from the majority’s decision upholding Abrams’s conviction in Abrams v. United States . His eloquent discussion of the connection between freedom of speech and the search for truth soon became the standard used by the Supreme Court to judge free speech cases until Brandenberg v. Ohio in 1972. The First Amendment, Holmes reasoned, protected the expression of all opinions “unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”

But as against dangers peculiar to war, as against others, the principle of the right to free speech is always the same. It is only the present danger of immediate evil or an intent to bring it about that warrants Congress in setting a limit to the expression of opinion where private rights are not concerned. Congress certainly cannot forbid all effort to change the mind of the country. Now nobody can suppose that the surreptitious publishing of a silly leaflet by an unknown man, without more, would present any immediate danger that its opinions would hinder the success of the government arms or have any appreciable tendency to do so . . .

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country . . . Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time warrants making any exception to the sweeping command, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” Of course I am speaking only of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which were all that were uttered here, but I regret that I cannot put into more impressive words my belief that in their conviction upon this indictment the defendants were deprived of their rights under the Constitution of the United States.

“Malicious Words” versus “Free Communication”

In response to fears about imminent wars with France in 1798, the Federalist-controlled Congress passed a series of four acts known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Section 2 of the Sedition Act made it a crime to make defamatory statements about the government or President. (Sedition is an action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to lead to the overthrow of the government.) The act was designed to suppress political opposition. Its passage by Congress reveals how limited the definition of the right of free speech was for some Americans only a few years after the ratification of the First Amendment.

Sec. 2 . . . That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United Sates, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

James Madison, congressman from Virginia, and Thomas Jefferson, the sitting Vice President, secretly drafted resolutions protesting the Sedition Act as unconstitutional. The Virginia and Kentucky legislatures passed these resolutions in 1798. Both resolutions especially pointed to the act’s violation of First Amendment protections, as seen in the Virginia Resolution here.

Resolved, . . . That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution in the two late cases of the “Alien and Sedition Acts” passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.

That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, “the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States,” and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.

The Sedition Act expired in 1801 but not until a number of the Federalists’ opponents, including Congressman Matthew Lyon of Vermont, had been convicted of violating the law. Today, historians consider the Sedition Act to have been a gross misuse of government power. In 1798, the Kentucky Resolutions focused on the rights of states to determine the limits of free speech.

Resolved, that it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed.

Related Resources

• Timeline: First Amendment - Freedom of Speech
• Video: A Conversation on the Constitution with Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor: Freedom of Speech

Table of Contents

Academic freedom can’t be separated from responsibility

PhD candidate, Sociological and Anthropological Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

Disclosure statement

Karine Coen-Sanchez does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Ottawa provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation CA-FR.

University of Ottawa provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA.

View all partners

Academic freedom has become a polarizing topic . Recent issues at the University of Ottawa expose ongoing challenges of balancing academic freedom with university community members’ rights to respectful and safe classroom and campus spaces.

In October 2021, the university’s Committee on Academic Freedom issued a report that examined academic freedom, freedom of expression, equity, diversity and inclusion — and the legal aspects of these issues.

This work was set in motion after controversy surrounding a professor who used a derogatory word for Black people in class .

The committee’s report, and wider commentary about the University of Ottawa controversy , point to the need for greater public discussion to understand how academic freedom relates to responsibility.

As a PhD researcher who examines structural and systematic racism embedded in social institutions, including in education systems, I believe it’s critical to consider failures to understand academic freedom as an ethical concept, rather than simply a neutral objective standard .

Role of responsibilities, ethics in freedom

At universities, faculty collective agreements and university policies spell out frameworks for academic freedom.

But as University of Ottawa’s Committee on Academic Freedom noted, universities’ definitions and policies vary, sometimes significantly, in the ways they spell out wider rights, responsibilities, obligations and limits — or how academic freedom relates with equity , diversity or ethics.

The University of British Columbia distinguishes between freedom of expression — protected in Canada under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — and academic freedom in an FAQ about these issues on the university website:

“Most significantly, academic freedom is not a legal right, but rather a right or a privilege bestowed by an institution of higher learning. It might best be construed as an ethical right, insofar as it serves good ends: the advancement and dissemination of knowledge .”

When speakers seek to responsibly disseminate knowledge, they must be aware of who they’re speaking to, and how what they’re saying may resonate.

Power and privilege

In October 2020, after the University of Ottawa classroom incident, Québec Premier François Legault criticized the university for suspending the professor at the centre of the issue.

As a fully bilingual university close to the Québec border, the University of Ottawa has close connections with the province.

At a news conference, the premier said, “I don’t think there should be banned words,” and “It’s as if [the university] has … censure police.”

The premier’s comments illustrated power and privilege. Their wider related effects, including discussion around Québec’s commission to study academic freedom , have added to the division among professors and students at the University of Ottawa.

Harms to students

In its report, the University of Ottawa’s Academic Freedom Committee made several recommendations, including:

further work to ensure the university community has a wider understanding of principles of academic freedom;

clear criteria and mechanisms are needed for making complaints;

university administration should establish an action plan to fight racism, discrimination and cyberbullying;

affirming “the need to protect academic freedom and freedom of expression in fulfilment of its teaching and research mission.” The committee said it’s against “institutional or self-censorship that is apt to compromise the dissemination of knowledge or is motivated by fear of public repudiation.”

I’m specifically concerned about what this last point will mean, especially given that the report’s recommendations don’t address how professors need to demonstrate self-awareness of their own social positions in how they exercise responsibility.

More discussion is needed about how power shapes identities and access to learning. Communities also need to consider students who experience moral injury when people use irresponsible language and are unaccountable for their privilege.

In June 2021, the Black, Indigenous and People of Colour Professors & Librarians Caucus Working Group at the University of Ottawa made a submission to Committee on Academic Freedom. It stressed that notions of academic freedom cannot be divorced from respect for dignity and integrity in the classroom . This caucus also made ample suggestions about practical ways to urgently tackle systemic racism at the university. This is necessary for creating safer spaces for all community members.

Confronting ‘colonial nostalgia’

Academics concerned about academic freedom and the quality of education note that academic freedom needs to be concerned with the quality of speech and the context in which it’s uttered.

As interdisciplinary scholar Farhana Sultana argues, some academics participate in the erosion of academic integrity when they apply “scholarly” veneer to hateful ideologies. She writes:

“At a time when there are concerted efforts to decolonize academia, there is concurrent rise of colonial nostalgia and white supremacy among some academics, who are supported by and end up lending support to the escalating far-right movements.”

To fully and freely engage in dialogue in the classrooms, professors must recognize different aspects of their identities such as race, gender, sexuality, language — and consider how what they say may resonate among varied groups.

Safe spaces, brave spaces

Educators seeking to balance the need for sincere and challenging dialogue and responsibility have explored the notion of moving from safe spaces to “brave spaces .”

Read more: 4 ways white people can be accountable for addressing anti-Black racism at universities

In the article, “From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces: A New Way to Frame Dialogue Around Diversity and Social Justice,” student affairs educators Brian Arao and Kristi Clemens define safe space as “a learning environment that allows students to engage with one another over controversial issues with honesty, sensitivity and respect.” They also explore how the notion of safety can become conflated with comfort.

Arao and Clemens argue that education about difficult issues may be shocking and uncomfortable, but it’s possible to do so in respectful ways through social justice teaching practices that foster diversity and inclusion. Other researchers have developed these ideas further .

There is an ethical responsibility by professors to provide space for challenging discussions. This necessarily includes not perpetrating old structures that were built on casting out marginalized groups. Professors have a responsibility not to humiliate racialized students or use racist or discriminatory language.

New teaching, training standards needed

Standards of ethical and professional behaviour have progressed, and the practice of academic freedom should adapt.

As anti-racist and feminist scholar bell hooks also argued, what’s needed is learning how to teach students to transgress against racial and class boundaries that promote white supremacy or a hierarchy of human dignity .

I remain hopeful that with ongoing collaborative engagement from administrators and policy-makers, change will occur in our educational system.

• Free speech
• Academic freedom
• Safe Spaces
• Critical race
• Anti-Black racism

Program Manager, Teaching & Learning Initiatives

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

Center Staff

State Network

• State Programs At-a-Glance

Board & Councils

• Board of Directors
• National Advisory Council

History of the Center

Annual Reports

• About the Program
• How to Use We the People
• Curriculum by Grade Level
• Simulated Hearings
• National & State Competitions
• 2024 National Finals
• 2024 National Invitational
• Professional Learning
• Supplemental Resources
• Level 3 Resources
• Level 2 Resources
• Level 1 Resources
• Program Impact
• State Competitions
• 2023 National Finals
• 2023 National Invitational
• Hearing Questions
• Scoring Rubric Videos
• Resource Center Level 3
• Resource Center Level 2
• Resource Center Level 1

• National Showcases
• Curriculum In Focus

• About the Toolkit
• How-To Use the Toolkit
• Principles of the Constitution
• Evolution of Political Parties
• Women's Rights
• Civil Rights in America
• Citizenship
• Civics Empowers All Students
• James Madison Legacy Project Expansion
• Project Citizen Research Program

Teacher Resources

• Self-Paced Courses
• The Constitution EXPLAINED Videos
• Constitution Day
• Bill of Rights
• Voting and Elections
• 60-Second Civics
• Quotations about Democracy

Civics Inquiry Lesson Plans

• Lower Voting Age
• Who Are We the People?
• Escaping Misinformation
• Has Dr. King's Legacy Been Fulfilled?

EAD Crosswalks

• We the People Level 1
• We the People Level 2
• We the People Level 3

Learn.Civiced.org

• We the People Open Course
• Strengthening Democracy Open Course

For Teachers

Resource Materials

• Civics Renewal Network
• Civics Teacher Corps
• EAD Champion
• WTP Alumni Network
• Ways to Give

What Responsibilities Accompany Our Rights?

We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution Upper Elementary Grades

Student Book

Purpose of lesson.

Suppose your government does everything it can to protect your rights. Is this enough? Will your rights be protected? Do we have any responsibility to protect not only our own rights, but each other's as well?

In this lesson you will discuss some important questions about the responsibilities of citizens. You must develop your own answers to these questions. We hope this lesson will help you develop good answers.

Is a good constitution enough?

The Framers planned our government carefully. They organized it so its powers were limited. They separated the powers of our government among three different branches. They balanced the powers among these branches. They provided ways each branch could check or limit the powers of the other branches. Finally, they added a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights now protects our rights from unfair treatment by our national, state, and local governments.

Some of the Framers believed they had organized the government very well. They believed the way they planned the government was enough to make sure our rights and welfare would be protected.

Other Framers did not agree. They did agree that the way the government was organized was very important. However, they believed that the government would only work well if there were good people running it. They also believed it would only succeed if the citizens were good citizens.

Today, most people agree. A well-written constitution is not enough to protect our rights. We need to elect leaders who will make and enforce laws that protect our rights and promote our welfare.

However, even a good constitution and good leaders may not be enough. If we want to protect our rights and welfare, we, the people, have certain responsibilities to fulfill. Let's examine what some of these responsibilities might be.

What responsibilities go along with our rights?

Most of us agree we all should have certain basic rights. For example, we all want the right to speak freely. We want the right to believe as we wish. We also want to be able to own property and to travel wherever we want to go. Is it fair to say that if we want these rights, we must also take on some responsibilities? Let's examine this question.

Problem solving Can you have rights without responsibilities?

In the last unit, you studied five of your basic rights. Let's examine what some of the responsibilities might be that go along with these rights. Your class should be divided into five groups. Each group should develop answers to the questions on one of the rights listed below. Then each group should report its findings to the class.

Group 1. Freedom of Expression

Your government cannot unfairly limit your right to speak freely. What responsibilities might go along with this right?

• Suppose you attend a meeting of students in your school. The group is supposed to suggest rules for the playground. You have the right to speak and give your suggestions. What responsibilities should you have in the way you speak and in what you say? List and explain these responsibilities.
• What responsibilities should other students at the meeting have toward your right to speak? List and explain these responsibilities.
• What responsibilities should you have toward the other students' right to speak? List and explain these responsibilities.
• What might happen to the right to free speech if no one fulfilled the responsibilities you have discussed?

Group 2. Freedom of Religion

Your government cannot interfere with your right to believe as you wish. It cannot unfairly limit your right to practice your religious beliefs. What responsibilities might go along with these rights?

• Suppose you believe in a particular religion. You attend a church or temple in your community. List and explain what responsibilities you should have in the way you practice your religious beliefs.
• Suppose there are people in your community who believe in different religions or in no religion at all. List and explain what responsibilities they should have to protect your right to practice your religious beliefs.
• List and explain what responsibilities you should have to protect other people's right to practice their religious beliefs or not to have any religious beliefs.
• What might happen to the right of freedom of religion if no one fulfilled the responsibilities you have discussed?

Group 3. The Right to be Treated Equally

Your government may not favor some people over others because of such things as their age, sex, race, or religion. What responsibilities might go along with this right?

• Suppose people in your community are planning a picnic for the public. List and explain what responsibilities they might have to be fair to you no matter what your age, sex, race, or religion may be.
• Suppose you were helping to plan the picnic. List and explain what responsibilities you think you should have to other people no matter what their age, sex, race, or religion might be.
• What might happen to the right to be treated equally if no one fulfilled the responsibilities you have discussed?

Group 4. The Right to be Treated Fairly by Your Government

Your government must be fair to you when it is gathering information and making decisions. What responsibilities might go along with this right?

• Suppose someone has accused you of doing something wrong in your school or community. What responsibilities should that person have toward you? List and explain those responsibilities.
• Suppose you have accused others of doing something wrong in your school or community. What responsibilities should you have toward them? List and explain those responsibilities.
• What might happen to the right to be treated fairly if no one fulfilled the responsibilities you have discussed?

Group 5. The Right to Vote and Run For Public Office

When you are eighteen, you will have the right to vote. You will also have the right to run for public office if you want to. What responsibilities might go along with this right?

• Suppose you are about to vote in an election. You can vote for or against five proposed laws. You must choose between two people running for Congress. What responsibilities should you have? List and explain those responsibilities.
• Suppose some friends, neighbors, and others in your community do not agree with the way you are going to vote. List and explain what responsibilities they have toward your right to vote.
• Suppose you do not agree with the way some of your friends, neighbors, and others in your community are going to vote. List and explain what responsibilities you should have toward their right to vote.
• What might happen to the right to vote if no one fulfilled the responsibilities you have discussed?

Reviewing and using the lesson

• Explain what you think are some of the most important responsibilities you have in order to protect your rights.
• What responsibilities should you take to protect the rights of others? Why?

ISBN 0-89818-169-0

Center for Civic Education

5115 Douglas Fir Road, Suite J Calabasas, CA 91302

  Phone: (818) 591-9321

  Email: [email protected]

  Media Inquiries: [email protected]

  Website: www.civiced.org

• Our Programs
• Our Networks

Rights and Responsibilities

In order to enjoy ou

Guiding Questions

• What is a right?
• What is a responsibility?
• What responsibilities are natural byproducts of the rights we enjoy?
• How does exercising our rights and fulfilling our responsibilities help to promote the common good for all?
• Students will differentiate rights from responsibilities.
• Students will analyze the relationship between rights and responsibilities.
• Students will explain how rights and responsibilities are related to the common good.

Expand Materials Materials

Educator Resources

• Handout A and B Answer Keys
• Rights and Responsibilities Slips

Student Handouts

• Rights and Responsibilities Essay

Handout A: How Does the Constitution Protect Liberty?

• Handout B: Excerpts from Federalist No. 10, 51, 55, and 57
• U.S. Constitution

Expand Key Terms Key Terms

• responsibilities
• common good

Expand Prework Prework

Have students read Rights and Responsibilities Essay for homework. (20 minutes)

Prior to class time, print and cut apart the Rights and Responsibilities Slips .

Students will need copies of the U.S. Constitution .

Expand Warmup Warmup

Ask the class, What is a right? What is a responsibility?

After students briefly discuss these questions, give each student one or more of the Rights and Responsibilities Slips . Students work in pairs or small groups to help one another decide which category each slip belongs in: Rights or Responsibilities.

After students have worked on the task for a few minutes, ask the class if there were any items that were difficult to classify and why. Designate a container for Rights on one side of the room and another container for Responsibilities on the other. Have students get up from their desks to place each of their slips of paper in the container they have chosen. Ultimately the person who received each slip has the final authority to decide where it goes.

Expand Activities Activities

Work with the class as a whole to develop a list of rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. Students skim Amendments 1 – 8 of the Bill of Rights. Make a class list of all the rights listed. Discuss how Amendments 9 and 10 apply to the idea of rights. Have one group of students quickly skim Amendments 11- 27, and contribute to the class list of rights. Have another group quickly skim Articles 1 – 7 of the U.S. Constitution to find individual rights, and add to the list of rights.

Have students work in small groups to read Handout A: How Does the Constitution Protect Liberty? , and to discuss the questions at the end of the handout. Invite groups to share their responses to the Comprehension and Critical Thinking Questions.

In whole-class discussion, pick several rights. Ask what action would be required of citizens to exercise that right responsibly. For example, students should naturally discuss voting. Ask whether that is a right or responsibility, and discuss how to participate in the act of voting responsibly. Examples might be keeping up with current events and learning about a candidate’s positions and actions with respect to public affairs and current issues. Free speech: What responsibilities are implied when you wish to exercise your freedom of speech? Examples might be listening respectfully to others and protecting the right to free speech for those who hold unpopular opinions. Continue as time permits with other rights/responsibilities that students may suggest. Conclude by asking, What characteristics of citizens are necessary for republican self-government to be just and to promote the common good?

Have students work in small groups to read Handout B, Excerpts of Federalist Papers No. 10, 51, 55, and 57 , regarding responsibilities of republican government. Discuss the questions provided.

Expand Wrap Up Wrap Up

Develop a classroom definition of “common good” that most can agree upon.

According to Dictionary.com, Common good is “the advantage or benefit of all people in society or in a group.”

Ask, How are rights and responsibilities related to the common good? When we insist upon, and exercise, our inalienable rights, to whom are we responsible? How can exercising our liberties benefit the common good?

Expand Homework Homework

Write a 2-3 paragraph response: How can you be a good citizen and contribute to the common good while exercising your rights and fulfilling your responsibilities? Give concrete examples.

Expand Extensions Extensions

Go back to your original sorting sheet where you divided rights and responsibilities into categories. Which items are both? Is the sorting more or less difficult after this lesson?

Handout B: Excerpts from Federalist No 10, 51, 55, and 57

Next Lesson

Diversity as an American Value

Related resources.

The Constitution

The Constitution was written in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by delegates from 12 states, in order to replace the Articles of Confederation with a new form of government. It created a federal system with a national government composed of 3 separated powers, and included both reserved and concurrent powers of states.

Know Your Rights

• What is Free Speech
• Free Speech on Campus
• Books, Articles, and Further Reading
• Student Rights and Responsibilities
• Student Services and Resources
• Social Justice

Definitions and Background

• First Amendment: Freedom of Expression and Religion The National Constitution Center's overview of the First Amendment
• Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This language restricts government’s ability to constrain the speech of citizens. The prohibition on abridgment of the freedom of speech is not absolute. Certain types of speech may be prohibited outright. Some types of speech may be more easily constrained than others. Furthermore, speech may be more easily regulated depending upon the location at which it takes place.
• Intellectual Freedom: Hate Speech and Hate Crime (American Library Association) The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. To be clear, the First Amendment does not protect behavior that crosses the line into targeted harassment or threats, or that creates a pervasively hostile environment. But merely offensive or bigoted speech does not rise to that level, and determining when conduct crosses that line is a legal question that requires examination on a case-by-case basis.
• What Does Free Speech Mean? Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

Freedom of Speech in Debate

• Opposing Viewpoints in Context Freedom of speech is the right to express opinions and ideas without interference, censorship, or punishment by the government. It is one of the fundamental rights and liberties granted to the people of the United States under the First Amendment to the Constitution, along with freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right to petition the government to address grievances. Speech is a form of expression, a broader term that covers seeking, receiving, and imparting information and ideas through verbal and written communication, visual art, music, dance, information technology, symbols, actions, and other means. more... less... Covers current social and cultural issues, and includes pro and con "viewpoint" essays, topic overviews, primary sources, and news articles.
• Can We Start Taking Political Correctness Now? Jonathan Chait's article in New York Magazine says that "political correctness is a system of thought that denies the legitimacy of political pluralism on issues of race and gender."
• Race and the Free-Speech Diversion Jelani Cobb's article in the New Yorker which says that "freedom to offend the powerful is not equivalent to the freedom to bully the relatively disempowered."
• Next: Free Speech on Campus >>
• Last Updated: Aug 1, 2023 8:19 AM
• URL: https://libraryguides.unh.edu/know-your-rights-free-speech

Rights and Responsibilities of Participants in Networked Communities (1994)

Chapter: 4 free speech, 4 free speech.

The right of free speech enjoyed by Americans is rooted in the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. …" Nevertheless, the right to free speech is not entirely unfettered, and one's ability to speak whatever one likes can be legally limited under certain circumstances that depend on the nature of the speech and the communications medium in which that speech is expressed. The electronic environment, which gives every user access to a large audience and a virtually unlimited supply of information, poses particular challenges concerning free speech. This chapter summarizes a discussion of two free speech scenarios that were examined by a panel at CSTB's February 1993 forum.

NOTE: This chapter, and the three chapters following it, are based on the discussions held at the February 1993 forum described in the preface. As noted in the preface, the forum was intended to raise issues related to and associated with the rights and responsibilities of participants in networked communities as they arose in discussions of various hypothetical scenarios. Thus, Chapter 4 through 7 collectively have a more descriptive than analytical quality.

SCENARIO 1: EXPLICIT PHOTOS ON A UNIVERSITY NETWORK

A large state university serves as a network "hub" for the state's high schools. The university itself is networked with every faculty member, staff member, and student having a network computer on his or her desk. The university also is connected to the Internet. A student electronically scans pictures of men and women in various sexual poses.

Issue: The Law as the Ultimate Authority

The university needs to consider how its policies are consistent with the law, because a state university exists in a jurisdiction that probably has indecency and obscenity laws, according to Allan Adler, a lawyer with Cohn and Marks. "We do not voluntarily submit ourselves to the law. It is the reality in which we live," he said.

Adler acknowledged, however, the common practical desire to reach consensus about behavior or conduct through negotiated policies and agreements. This is a typical approach in situations involving a communications medium, he said, where legal resolutions tend to be expensive and most parties get more than they bargained for in terms of restrictions on future conduct. Clearly, he said, there must be a set of social norms, whether defined by policy, contract, or law, and there must be some authority that enforces those norms; the ultimate authority is the law.

Assuming that the university in Scenario 1 communicated the network ground rules to users, their usage of the network would imply assent, Alder said. Assent is required in both contract and criminal law, by individuals in the former case and by society as a whole in the latter. That is, individuals must be notified of regulations that affect their conduct so that they have a fair opportunity to comply; if they do not assent to compliance, then they cannot fairly be held responsible for complying, he explained.

Responding to a suggestion that users could enforce rules themselves by employing screening devices, Adler argued that defamatory or fraudulent information would be difficult to informally identify and filter out, and the law would need to step in. For example, an individual about whom a defamatory story had been written might wish to prevent others from seeing the story, and thus would have to

persuade an unknown universe of individuals to screen stories about him—clearly an imposing if not impossible task. "If the user is a participant in a system where either the user or some third party is defamed or has sustained damage to their reputation that affects them outside of the immediate electronic network on which they are operating, they are going to want some remedy for that," Adler said. 1

As to whether the student, if disconnected, has any First Amendment rights, Larry Lessig, an assistant professor of constitutional law and contracts at the University of Chicago, noted that such rights would apply at a state university (though not necessarily at private universities). However, Lessig also contended that all universities habitually regulate speech. "If a student comes into my classroom and wants to talk about pornography when I want to talk about contracts, I tell the student, 'I'm going to fail you.' Now that is speech regulation," he asserted. Michael Godwin, staff counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, concurred that the classroom is highly regulated and such regulation is appropriate based on the purpose of the classroom, but he raised the question of whether the university's electronic forum was more like a conversation on the block (in which freedom of speech guarantees do obtain) than like a lecture in a classroom.

Lessig warned that the legal community has few tools to make sense of behavior on electronic networks, in part because judges, lawyers, and legislators have little or no experience with that world. "I think the point is that we have very little understanding of how these principles that seem fundamental to us, like free speech, can apply in these various different worlds," he said.

Issue: The Need to Establish Rules and Educate Users

If the university is only now responding to the problems posed by Scenario 1, then it is already too late, according to Reid W. Crawford, legal advisor and interim vice president for external affairs at Iowa State University. He noted that networking issues should be considered within the university community before such problems arise, and any concerns should be shared with the connected high schools. He also said that discussions should begin very early in the process

with university trustees, regents, legislators, the faculty senate, women's groups, civil liberties groups, and other concerned parties.

According to Crawford, this scenario would be an important public relations concern, because the university supports the network with public funds. Thus, he said, the matter should be handled preemptively through a quiet and nonpublic political and regulatory process managed by the university, involving consultation with the various constituencies in the university community. Crawford continued, "That is not the only step, but it's the first step that has to be taken so that you can deal with issues in a rational setting. Because if you think of it strictly as a legal issue, you can make all the arguments you want to about pornography, Playboy, Playgirl , or getting into the harder-core and illegal pornography. But if you cannot recognize the public relations issues, I don't think you will ever get to the substantive legal issues."

Since he made these remarks at the forum in 1993, Crawford's point has been underscored by scores of articles in the public press about "sex and the information superhighway." 2

Lessig suggested that if users of a university network have an understanding that any subject is permissible, then it may be appropriate to have some technical means for segregating topics. 3 This idea was seconded by Murray Turoff, who noted that New Jersey Institute of Technology electronic forums supported the discussion of very controversial subjects in private conferences that are advertised in a directory. An affirmative choice must be made by the student before access to a private conference is granted.

Carrying forward the theme of individual responsibility for enforcement, David Hughes, a freedom-of-speech advocate and managing partner of Old Colorado City Communications, suggested that users who wished to screen out material they deem offensive could use a technological filter (akin to "Caller ID" for telephones), assuming

such a device could be developed for electronic traffic. 4 This technological solution would be the equivalent of a porch—i.e., it would allow offensive messages to reach the door but not to enter the house. Still, other technical approaches for screening undesirable material may not be viable in the electronic environment. For example, broadcast media have often resorted to segregating material not intended for children by broadcasting such material late at night; in an electronic environment in which the material is available 24 hours per day, such an approach becomes more difficult to implement.

The first concern of George Perry, vice president and general counsel for the Prodigy Services Company, with regard to Scenario 1 was whether any laws were broken; he was not sure, noting that the answer might depend on the nature of the pictures. Therefore, the real question becomes the nature of the relationship among the user, the provider, and, perhaps, the victim, he said. Perry did not see a freedom-of-speech issue in the scenario, arguing that speech has never been entirely free.

Given that electronic networks are a new medium with very few commonly accepted rules of behavior, Perry emphasized the need for providers to establish them. "I think it is absolutely critical that operators of these systems, whether they are universities or commercial operations, establish their rules. … I don't think that every network in which you express yourself has to have the same rules, but you've got to have some rules; otherwise the place is just going to crumble."

A view that went farther was espoused by Hughes. He contended that the primary responsibility in handling the explicit photographs lay with the individual and that the university had no responsibility. If the university responded to the incident by disconnecting the student from the network, then the student should respond by demanding his or her freedom of electronic speech, Hughes asserted.

He based this argument on the premise that the digitized photographs constitute speech rather than property, and that freedom of speech is the overriding principle. Methods of handling problems on electronic networks should evolve from that foundation, Hughes argued, rather than from university policies or social norms developed for other communications media.

In Hughes's view, the university's only responsibility in Scenario 1 is to educate students and the public. He asserted that members of the public who lack experience with electronic networks—including parents and newspaper reporters—are unable to make sound, objective judgments about such situations. On his own network, Hughes educates and influences his user population to adhere to an ethic. "We discuss that ethic, and out comes socially responsible behavior—not by imposing external authority on them. I never delete, on my system, a piece of mail—never, no matter how obtrusive. I handle it technologically sometimes [by masking the appearance of the message] so that it is free speech, and we have a discussion to the point of responsible group behavior." Others argue that masking the appearance of the message is itself a form of censorship.

In closing discussion of Scenario 1, moderator Henry Perritt noted that panel members generally agreed on the importance of establishing rules under which electronic forums operate. Rules need not be the same from forum to forum, as Perry pointed out, but they need to be explicit and give important consideration to the views of stakeholders—operators and users. Perritt pointed out that the disagreements were over the extent (if any) to which other mechanisms were needed to enforce those rules.

SCENARIO 2: NEGATIVE COMMENTS HARM A THIRD PARTY

In an investment forum bulletin board hosted by a commercial network service provider, several users are discussing the merits of investing in XYZ Corp., a "penny stock" whose price can fluctuate widely on relatively small trading volume. John, a regular user of the bulletin board, has gained some credibility with other users for his stock picks. He posts a note on the bulletin board that says: "I was heavy in this stock 4 months ago, but sold most of my holdings last month. The company is out of cash, and sales are in the tank. Inside management is waiting for the stock to go up a quarter point

to dump some big positions." The next day XYZ's shares fall precipitously on heavy trading.

Issue: Provider Responsibility and Liability

Lessig argued that because the First Amendment applies less forcefully in the context of commercial speech, it may be better to first ask to what extent it is reasonable to make individuals (in this case, the provider) seek out and screen information to avoid harming others. Lessig outlined two points relevant to the problem.

First, he offered the analogy of electronic networks functioning as the National Enquirer of cyberspace, in that no one could reasonably rely on anything that was said. Thus, "the person has no claim they had been harmed, because they shouldn't have relied upon [the information], and nobody should have relied upon it." That is not to say, however, that speakers should be immune from liability, Lessig added. It is only when individuals feel responsible for their words and actions that others begin to give them credibility, he noted. Thus, if the network is to gain credibility there must be some responsibility.

Adler was disturbed by the National Enquirer analogy, arguing that credibility is essential if electronic networks are to evolve into the marketplace of the future. Trying to ward off liability by warning users to distrust the network is the wrong approach, he said; users must feel comfortable knowing that they do not routinely risk any type of injury and that injuries, when sustained, can be redressed. Moreover, the First Amendment has been linked to Oliver Wendell Holmes's notion that the marketplace is where truth will prevail through a free competition of ideas, Adler added. 5

Lessig's second point was that what is reasonable liability depends primarily on technology. If there were a simple way to search the bulletin board for harmful information, then common law courts

might find it reasonable to impose that duty on providers, he said. 6 However, emphasizing his earlier point, Lessig pointed out that common law is made by judges, who may be unfamiliar with electronic networks. "The biggest and, I think, most frightening thing about regulation in this area is that the people doing the regulation have no experience at all," he said. "They have no conception of what cyberspace looks like or even feels like."

There was some dispute on this point. Marc Rotenberg, a privacy advocate with Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, suggested that Cubby Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. (described in Chapter 3 ) was a landmark free speech case that demonstrated that judges are beginning to understand electronic networks. Rotenberg sympathized with CompuServe's argument that it acted as a distributor, not a publisher, and that it did not know and had no reason to know of the statements in question. The court agreed, emphasizing the First Amendment and saying that CompuServe deserved the same protection as a traditional news vendor. Rotenberg was most enthusiastic about the Cubby decision, calling it "wonderful" and "sensible." He said the court appeared to be promoting electronic networks as an information resource by limiting but not eliminating liability for providers. Moderator Perritt suggested that even if judges didn't understand the new technology, they could be educated about specialized subjects through the testimony of expert witnesses and amicus briefs and that such approaches could be encouraged for cases involving electronic networks.

Others, however, warned that the decision establishes troubling precedents. Adler was disturbed by the finding that CompuServe was not responsible because it had little or no editorial control. In fact, the provider did have the technological ability to exercise control but chose not to do so, placing that responsibility on a contractor, Adler noted; he further wondered whether publishers should be allowed to pass liability on to a contractor simply by declaring themselves to be distributors and thus lowering their liability. "So when

we are talking about rights and responsibilities in this world, one of the things we have to consider is, do the responsibilities flow from whether or not you actually have the capability, whether or not it is feasible for you to exercise control, or whether or not you choose to place yourself in that position of exercising control?" In addition, rights and responsibilities flow from a social decision regarding whether it is beneficial to grant individuals the rights or to saddle them with the responsibilities.

The central problem with the Cubby decision, Adler said, is lack of clarity, or failure to distinguish among the various electronic services and formats. Adler said he feared that some readers of the decision would conclude that solicitation of criminal activity, defamation, and other crimes or torts could be carried out on electronic networks without liability.

Hughes said he was frightened by the notion that a provider's capability to review materials translates into an obligation to do so. It is the provider that defines its services and thus its obligations, he argued. (Of course, a provider never has complete freedom, as it is subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in which it operates.) Hughes said further that even a single system may have multiple roles. For example, the Prodigy Services Company is a publisher, which implies some review of content; but the service also carries free speech, for which it should not be held accountable, according to Hughes.

The point regarding multiple roles was reinforced by Davis Foulger from IBM, who argued that different types of computer-mediated communications (e.g., electronic newsletters, conferences, and mail) may carry different types of responsibility. Electronic newsletters, he suggested, may be entirely analogous to print-based newsletters, with all of the liabilities of the latter carrying over to the former, whereas an unmoderated conferencing forum may carry fewer responsibilities. Given the flexibility offered by electronic networks to define the type of communication, Hughes and Foulger agreed that the self-definition ought to be the element that defines liability; for example, in the case of a commercial network whose contractual agreement with users declares that the network owns all data on its system, the network should be subject to all of the legal mechanisms used to hold an individual liable for that data.

Hughes went on to note a further complication to the self-definition process: the extensive interconnection between networks means that a given network may be unable to control the input to it. Hughes asked: "To what extent am I accountable for what someone else says on another system that happens to be displayed on mine?"

Godwin argued that Cubby posed a "knew" or "should have known"

standard of liability for defamation, and he thought that the decision was proper. But Godwin also argued that the case does not imply that liability results from a complete failure to exercise discretion or a decision not to exercise discretion. He noted that " Cubby is based on California v. Smith , 7 [in which] bookstores were held to be not responsible for monitoring and not responsible for the specific contents of their books [even though] bookstores can exercise discretion about what they carry." He further argued that a broad kind of discretion need not necessarily result in liability; such a freedom from liability would be important to forum operators, who need to be able to shape the character of their forums but who also want to avoid liability for the specific contents of those forums.

Providers were satisfied with the Cubby decision but said it leaves some questions unanswered. Perry, while pleased that CompuServe was not held liable, said a provider's obligation remains unclear. For instance, if a system is large, with perhaps 50 million messages posted each year, how far should the operator have to go in investigating allegations about a piece of information? "Do I have an obligation to go find that thing in the 50 million [notes]? … Once I find it, do I have an obligation to go out and discover the facts as to whether or not what the individual was saying was true …?"

Perry argued that, in the scenario he just outlined, both a publisher and a distributor have an obligation to determine the facts. This responsibility is clearer in the case of a publisher, he noted; in the Cubby case, the court found that if a distributor is notified of a problem, then it, too, faces some liability unless it takes action. Moreover, he warned that "it is very dangerous to make the publisher/distributor distinction when it comes particularly to commercial operators, because in fact they are a wide spectrum of different kinds of beasts. At one end they may very well be publishers. On another end they may be pure distributors. On another end they may be none of either. So I think it's dangerous for us to take those preexisting analogies and try to apply the law that we have today that applies to those areas, to this new medium."

In general, liability protection models from other media may not be appropriate on electronic networks, Adler said, noting that the

distributor model suggests that "the best way to avoid any possible liability is to exercise the least control. [But] I'm not sure that is socially responsible." Rule by law is not necessarily so bad, he said, pointing out that, historically, citizens have not objected to laws per se, but rather to the arbitrary exercise of law—law without participation and consent.

As to how liability should be applied, Adler emphasized the distinction between a common carrier and a service provider: the former is virtually immune from liability because it is legally required to provide equal access to all users without editorial control over content, whereas the latter can be held responsible if it is notified of a problem and does nothing to eliminate the continuing harm. It is not clear which definition applies in Scenario 2.

Issue: User Responsibility and Liability

Liability for defamation is a critical issue in the electronic environment. In common law, the question of defamation rested on the truth or falsity of a statement about an individual. However, in light of First Amendment considerations, the Supreme Court has focused on the degree of fault that can be attributed to the speaker, Adler said. Of course, if the speaker (or poster) of a defamatory message is truly anonymous (i.e., if it is genuinely impossible to determine the identity of the speaker with certainty, as might be the case if the message originated on another network, for example), then the matter ends there, and no party can be held liable.

True anonymity currently is rare on electronic networks. 8 In many more cases, the true identities of speakers are confidential (i.e., the identities of speakers are withheld as a matter of policy on the part of the service provider, although the provider does in fact know these true identities). In such cases, Adler maintained, "the question is whether the service provider is willing to accept the liability for the harm that is caused by maintaining the promise of confidentiality, or whether … there is a balance … that says there are compelling interests which outweigh the values of the promise of confidentiality and require disclosure."

But Perry and Hughes took a somewhat different tack. Perry argued that a user's liability on a bulletin board ought to be the same

as in any other circumstance. Hughes agreed, saying that John's note in Scenario 2 was an individual act of irresponsible speech, for which the provider was not responsible. Both suggested that under the circumstances of Scenario 2, the provider should not have to bear the liability to which Adler referred. Hughes further argued that when identities are kept confidential as a policy choice on the part of the provider, a complainant should seek the assistance of law enforcement authorities and show probable cause for issuance of a search warrant (in a criminal case) or a subpoena (in a civil case) that would compel the provider to provide the sender's identity. In this case, the decision concerning whether to divulge the speaker's identity does not rest with the provider but with law enforcement authorities.

If the provider in Scenario 2 maintained the confidentiality of the originator of the communication, thus shielding the only potential defendant, then the provider still would not be obligated to report a violation to law enforcement authorities, Hughes said, citing the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-508). However, he said, the provider has some fundamental ethical responsibility. "Some things are right and some things are wrong," Hughes argued.

DISCUSSION AND COMMON THEMES

The balance between free speech and other values is tested regularly, and the regulation of speech comes in many forms. Even in academia, usually regarded as the bastion of free speech, users sometimes are banned from networks. Carl Kadie, a graduate student in computer science at the University of Illinois and moderator of the academic-freedom mailing list on the Internet, cited the example of an Iowa State University student being expelled from the campus network for copying materials from an erotic forum into an open forum meant for discussion of newsgroups and newsgroup policy. The expulsion was lifted after protests from Internet and campus network users, but access to the erotic forum remains restricted. Kadie went on to argue that because many universities are state universities and because many parts of the Internet are owned or leased by federal or state government, lawsuits could be filed in these cases based on the First Amendment, 9 although the law is weaker for cases involving library policy on selection (or, more to the point, exclusion)

of electronic resources. "I think many of these arguments have to be won or lost on the moral argument and [by] appealing to freedom of expression—academic freedom—and can't depend so much on legal protections," Kadie said.

Still, users generally can be more outspoken on university networks than anywhere else. Kadie expressed the hope that those who determine rules for behavior on electronic networks will "learn from the experience (and, hopefully, wisdom) codified in long-standing academic policies and principles. … I don't think academia should be the only forum for free speech. … I would hope that technical solutions such as 'kill files' 10 and the ability to create new forums [as is done in Santa Monica] would be enough to have people [on nonacademic networks] regulate themselves."

It may be difficult to transfer this principle of openness to other arenas. For instance, corporate executives may want to control postings of material relevant to company business. Economic considerations also may argue for the regulation of speech at times. This is particularly true for commercial information providers, as clients demand to be insulated from certain types of content, noted Perry. Perry said, "There are different environments in which you have to deal with the same set of problems, maybe with a different view and a different historical and traditional background." These differences in perspective can lead to conflicting views about what speech is or is not appropriate for public viewing or exposure.

Finally, it was argued that free speech was not possible when one was denied access to the electronic environment. As Sara Kiesler noted, "The purest form of censorship is absence of access. If you can't have access to a network at all, then you are completely censored from that forum. Therefore, we have to know who has access, and, even for those who have physical access, who's being driven off."

There was broad agreement among panel participants that free speech is not an absolute right to be exercised under all circumstances. The relevant issue for free speech is what circumstances justify the uses of which mechanisms to discourage and/or suppress certain types of speech. The nature of the circumstances in which free speech should be discouraged is a matter of political and social debate, but it is clear that policymakers have a variety of such mechanisms at their disposal to discourage or suppress expression:

Educate and persuade: At a minimum, most people agree that an important step involves persuasion and education, relying on voluntary means to dissuade people from saying things that are arguably harmful, objectionable, or offensive to others.

Rely on contractual provisions: Someone agrees, as a condition of use, to abide by regulations regarding the content of speech.

Weigh political considerations: An institution may wish to weigh how it will be seen in the eyes of its relevant public in determining the nature of its response.

Rely on market mechanisms: Grass-roots pressure on suppliers of information services often forces change because suppliers fear losing the business of those complaining.

Explicitly rely on First Amendment freedoms: A state university may have far fewer options for regulating speech due to the fact that it can be regarded as an arm of government.

How are these issues different in the electronic networked environment? Lessig asserted that

in ordinary life, social norms are created in a context where other things besides speech are going on, things such as exclusion, anger, and the impact of local geographies. … [These are the] sorts of things that help the process of norm creation in a speech context. [But] what makes electronic networks so difficult from the perspective of creating and molding norms is that the interactive human behavior on these networks is mostly if not entirely pure speech. From the constitutional perspective, this is the first environment in which society has had to face the problem of creating and changing norms when the only thing it is doing is trying to regulate speech.

The steering committee generally concurred with this assessment, concluding that

Networks offer a greater degree of anonymity than is possible for speakers under other circumstances.

Networks enable communications to very large audiences at relatively low cost as compared to traditional media.

Networks are a relatively new medium for communications, and there are few precedents and little experience to guide the behavior of individuals using this medium. As a result,

Speakers are less familiar with a sense of appropriateness and ethics here (treating a big megaphone as though it were a smaller one); and

Policymakers are less confident in this domain.

This book describes a number of social and legal issues as they relate to various members of electronically networked communities. After a brief introduction to relevant legal precedents and to the manner in which societies develop norms for social behavior, the book explores right and responsibilities related to free speech, vandalism, property interests, and privacy.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Responsibilities vs. Rights

What's the difference.

Responsibilities and rights are two fundamental aspects of human existence. Responsibilities refer to the duties and obligations that individuals have towards themselves, others, and society as a whole. They involve fulfilling one's obligations, being accountable for one's actions, and contributing to the well-being of others. On the other hand, rights are the entitlements and freedoms that individuals possess by virtue of being human. They include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as the right to express oneself, practice religion, and participate in the decision-making process. While responsibilities emphasize the duties individuals have towards others, rights emphasize the entitlements individuals have to be treated with dignity and respect. Both responsibilities and rights are interconnected and play a crucial role in maintaining a harmonious and just society.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Responsibilities and rights are two fundamental concepts that shape our societies and govern our interactions with others. While responsibilities refer to the duties and obligations we have towards others and society as a whole, rights are the entitlements and freedoms we possess as individuals. Both responsibilities and rights play a crucial role in maintaining a balanced and harmonious society. In this article, we will explore the attributes of responsibilities and rights, highlighting their significance and how they complement each other.

Responsibilities

Responsibilities are the moral, legal, or social obligations that individuals or groups have towards others or society. They are the duties we must fulfill to ensure the well-being and progress of our communities. Responsibilities can be categorized into various types, including personal responsibilities, professional responsibilities, and civic responsibilities.

Personal responsibilities encompass the obligations we have towards ourselves, our families, and our immediate surroundings. These may include taking care of our physical and mental health, nurturing relationships, and contributing to the well-being of our loved ones.

Professional responsibilities refer to the duties we have in our workplaces or chosen professions. These may include being punctual, performing our tasks diligently, respecting colleagues, and upholding ethical standards.

Civic responsibilities are the obligations we have as citizens of a particular country or community. These may include voting in elections, obeying laws, paying taxes, serving on juries, and actively participating in community initiatives.

Responsibilities are essential for maintaining order, promoting social cohesion, and ensuring the welfare of individuals and society as a whole. They require individuals to act ethically, consider the consequences of their actions, and prioritize the common good over personal interests.

Rights, on the other hand, are the entitlements and freedoms that individuals possess by virtue of being human. They are inherent and cannot be taken away arbitrarily. Rights are often enshrined in legal frameworks, such as constitutions or international declarations, to protect individuals from discrimination, oppression, and abuse.

There are various types of rights, including civil rights, political rights, economic rights, and social rights. Civil rights encompass the freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, as well as the right to privacy and a fair trial. Political rights include the right to vote, run for office, and participate in political processes. Economic rights involve the right to work, fair wages, and access to basic necessities. Social rights encompass the right to education, healthcare, and social security.

Rights empower individuals, allowing them to live with dignity, express themselves freely, and pursue their goals and aspirations. They provide a framework for equality, justice, and the protection of vulnerable groups. However, it is important to note that rights come with certain limitations to prevent their abuse or infringement upon the rights of others.

Interplay between Responsibilities and Rights

Responsibilities and rights are interconnected and mutually dependent. They form the foundation of a well-functioning society, ensuring a balance between individual freedoms and collective well-being. While responsibilities guide our actions towards others, rights safeguard our autonomy and protect us from undue interference.

Responsibilities often arise from the recognition and respect of the rights of others. For example, the responsibility to treat others with kindness and respect stems from the recognition of their right to dignity and equality. Similarly, the responsibility to follow laws and regulations arises from the understanding that these laws protect the rights and safety of individuals within society.

On the other hand, rights also come with responsibilities. The exercise of our rights should not infringe upon the rights of others or jeopardize the well-being of society. For instance, the right to freedom of speech should be exercised responsibly, without inciting hatred or spreading false information that may harm others. The right to own property should be balanced with the responsibility to use resources sustainably and consider the needs of future generations.

Responsibilities and rights are not in opposition to each other but rather complement and reinforce one another. They create a social contract that binds individuals together and ensures a harmonious coexistence. By fulfilling our responsibilities, we contribute to the protection and promotion of the rights of others, fostering a society where everyone can thrive.

In conclusion, responsibilities and rights are integral components of a functioning society. Responsibilities encompass the duties and obligations we have towards others and society, while rights are the entitlements and freedoms we possess as individuals. Both responsibilities and rights are essential for maintaining order, promoting social cohesion, and protecting the well-being of individuals and communities. They are interconnected and mutually dependent, forming a social contract that guides our actions and ensures a balance between individual autonomy and collective welfare. By recognizing and fulfilling our responsibilities, we contribute to the protection and promotion of the rights of others, creating a society where everyone can enjoy their rights and live with dignity.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Freedom of Speech: Right and Responsibility

The body: the freedom of speech and its limits.

Freedom of speech has been accepted as a universal and essential right of every human being (Belavusau, 2013). It is obvious, however, that the rights of one person should not violate the rights of another person. Therefore, the right of expressing our mind entails a responsibility: we should assess our words, bearing in mind the consequences that may follow.

Freedom of speech in the US is guaranteed by the Constitution or, namely, by the First Amendment (Belavusau, 2013). This right is closely connected to the freedom of expression, although the latter entails the freedom of finding or expressing one’s opinion in any form and through any medium (Belavusau, 2013). The importance of these rights can hardly be overestimated. It cannot be denied that the freedom of speech is truly essential from the point of view of progress, especially when science is concerned, and this simple truth does not seem to raise objections (Powers, 2011). However, the issue can grow more controversial.

The reasons for the existing limits of freedom of speech are understandable. It is clear why information about child pornography should not be distributed or why copyright is not supposed to be violated. Yet, there are more difficult questions. For example, obscene or hate speeches are also not protected by the First Amendment. Still, how do you define obscenity? Of course, there exists the Miller test of the US Supreme Court (Belavusau, 2013). But how accurate is it in defining the boundaries of this vague term? Due to such situations, the limits of freedom of speech are being continuously questioned. The necessity of this right, however, can hardly cause doubts.

There exists several books about the dystopian worlds of the future where there is no right to speak freely, but I would rather use another example. In January 2015 twelve people who worked in a satirical magazine “Charlie Hebdo” were killed for the publications of disrespectful cartoons featuring the prophet Muhammad (Penketh, 2015). It is not surprising that a satirical magazine in the middle of Europe (France) finds it possible to publish cartoons of different political and religious figures. It is perfectly natural for a country where people are granted the right to express their opinion freely and through any means. Of course, it is also a well-known fact that the adherers of Islam take their religion very seriously and find it difficult to joke about their prophets. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Islam world found the cartoons extremely offensive and, before the attack, it would be fitting to criticize the magazine for disregarding other people’s rights and feelings, even though they had the right to act this way. Yet, the violent reaction that involved killing people changed the situation completely. It is an example of what we may expect from a world without the freedom of speech, and it is not a passage from “Fahrenheit 451” or “Nineteen Eighty-Four”, but a tragedy that took place in Europe less than a year ago.

The conclusion: thesis statement confirmed

The only logical conclusion I could make is that the balance between right and responsibility in respect to the freedom of speech is particularly difficult to find. Perhaps it is impossible to truly regulate this kind of rights on the legislative level and to walk this tightrope we should address our human decency. Still, there is no denying the fact that the freedom of speech is an essential unalienable right of every human being that should be respected and protected by the government since the alternative is indeed too horrible to imagine.

Belavusau, U. (2013). Freedom of speech . New York, NY: Routledge.

Penketh, A. (2015). Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad. TheGuardian . Web.

Powers, E. (2011). Freedom of speech . Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell University Press.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, January 10). Freedom of Speech: Right and Responsibility. https://studycorgi.com/freedom-of-speech-right-and-responsibility/

"Freedom of Speech: Right and Responsibility." StudyCorgi , 10 Jan. 2022, studycorgi.com/freedom-of-speech-right-and-responsibility/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Freedom of Speech: Right and Responsibility'. 10 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Freedom of Speech: Right and Responsibility." January 10, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/freedom-of-speech-right-and-responsibility/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Freedom of Speech: Right and Responsibility." January 10, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/freedom-of-speech-right-and-responsibility/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Freedom of Speech: Right and Responsibility." January 10, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/freedom-of-speech-right-and-responsibility/.

This paper, “Freedom of Speech: Right and Responsibility”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: January 10, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Lesson 3: Rights and responsibilities

Related material.

• Student handout 5.4: Rights and responsibilities
• Student handout 5.2: List of human rights

How can rights exist without responsibilities?

The students form pairs. It is important that there is an equal number of pairs in the classroom.

Each pair is given a blank sheet of paper and a pen and is asked to write down three important rights that they think they should have at school and three important rights that they think they should have at home. Examples might be the right not to be overloaded with homework or the right to get some pocket money.

Once this has been completed, the teacher distributes a copy of student handout 5.4, Rights and responsibilities, and student handout 5.2, List of human rights to each pair. The students are then asked to examine the list of human rights and to discuss which rights best correspond to the six rights they have written on their sheet of paper.

Once they have decided, they write the six rights in the first column of student handout 5.4. At this point, the teacher can ask the students if they need any clarification on the rights they have listed.

Once the first column is complete, the teacher explains to the students that every right carries corresponding responsibilities, giving the following example: “The freedom of speech is limited by the responsibility not to say untrue things that will degrade another person and abuse his/her right to dignity and good reputation.” The teacher can also explain that the balance of a person’s rights and his/her responsibilities to respect the rights of other people means that we have to exercise our rights within certain restraints. There are many situations in which the rights and responsibilities of different people conflict. For example, in the classroom, the right of education can conflict with the right to leisure, when some students want to learn while others prefer just to have fun. Moreover, school has the responsibility to teach and to educate the students and to ensure that teachers have the right of decent working conditions (such as not too much noise in their working environment).

The teacher now asks each pair of students to swap their list with another pair. The new pair now has to discuss examples of two levels of responsibility that correspond with each right listed by the other pair (see example below):

• First level: the responsibilities that individuals have to ensure so that others can enjoy the right (this should be written in the second column).
• Second level: the responsibilities (where these exist) for authorities (such as school or local authorities) to ensure this right. This should be written in the third column. For example, the responsibility of each individual to respect the privacy of the diary of other students; the responsibility of the school not to search an individual’s belongings when this is unnecessary (for example, not reading the diary while searching the classroom for a stolen calculator).

The teacher can then ask each pair to report to the rest of the class on one right and the corresponding responsibilities from their lists.

As the emphasis of this lesson is on responsibilities, the teacher can choose to draw two columns on the blackboard, one for individual responsibilities, the other for responsibilities of authorities, and as the students give examples, these can be written on the blackboard. The teacher can end the class with a review of the responsibilities and ask the students to comment on the lists.

Extension activity

If time allows, or if the teacher wishes to extend the lesson to include the idea of positive and negative rights and project work, he or she could carry out the following activities.

The teacher can begin by explaining that sometimes human rights are divided into “negative rights” and “positive rights”.

“Negative rights” are rights that ban or forbid something unpleasant (such as the ban on torture). “Positive rights” are rights that explicitly ask one to do something or to have something done (such as the right to food: everyone is entitled to have adequate food). Whereas “negative rights” expect people not to carry out specific actions, “positive rights” expect individuals and authorities to carry out certain activities in order to provide those rights.

The teacher also explains that most of the human rights have both negative and positive sides. For example, the right not to be tortured means that authorities must not mistreat people who have been detained, but also that the authorities need to give clear instructions about this to their police forces.

The students are invited to return to their lists of human rights and to choose three of them. They should then look for examples of positive or negative action in their lives to illustrate their own moral responsibility. They should then look for other examples, this time to show the responsibility of the school or the local/national authorities. For this purpose, they could add a plus or minus sign to the responsibilities chosen: see example below.

If teachers wish to use this activity as an introduction to project work, they could ask students to choose some of the human rights that will be treated more in depth over the next few weeks or months. Students then set up a plan in which they agree on the overall objective and the different steps to be taken. They also decide by when which task has to be completed and by whom.

During the course of the next few lessons, this plan has to be followed up and finally evaluated.

• Educating for democracy (I)  
• Introduction  
• Part 1 - Understanding democracy and human rights  
• Unit 1 – What the concepts mean  
• 1. Politics, democracy & democratic governance of schools  
• 1.1 Politics  
• 1.2 Democracy  
• 1.3 Democratic governance of schools  
• 9 " href="https://www.living-democracy.com/textbooks/volume-1/part-1/unit-1/chapter-2/" class="text-dark">2. Childrens Rights & the Right to Education 9  
• 11 " href="https://www.living-democracy.com/textbooks/volume-1/part-1/unit-2/" class="text-dark">Unit 2 – The key to a dynamic concept of citizenship 11  
• 1. Challenges to the traditional model of citizenship  
• 1.1 A new kind of citizenship requires a new kind of education  
• 2. Political culture  
• 2.1 Democracy comes to life through its citizens  
• 2.2 The cultural dimension of human rights  
• 2.3 Teaching through democracy and human rights – democratic culture in school  
• Unit 3 - Educating for democracy and human rights  
• 1. The three dimensions of EDC/HRE  
• 1.1 The cognitive dimension of EDC/HRE: learning “about” democracy and human rights  
• 1.2 The participative dimension of EDC/HRE: learning “for” democracy and human rights  
• 1.3 The cultural dimension of EDC/HRE: learning “through” democracy and human rights  
• 13 " href="https://www.living-democracy.com/textbooks/volume-1/part-1/unit-3/chapter-2/" class="text-dark">2. HRE and its connection with EDC 13  
• 3. Competences in EDC/HRE  
• 3.1 “I would like my students to be able to …”  
• 3.2 Competences – a general definition  
• 3.3 How can teachers find out what competences students have? Competence and performance  
• 3.4 A model of student competences in EDC/HRE  
• 3.5 Teacher competences in EDC/HRE  
• 16 " href="https://www.living-democracy.com/textbooks/volume-1/part-1/unit-3/chapter-4/" class="text-dark">4. “We create the world in our minds”: constructivist learning in EDC/HRE 16  
• 4.1 Learners “construct” meaning – they discover and create something new  
• 4.2 Learners “reconstruct” what they have learnt – they apply it and put it to the test  
• 4.3 Learners “deconstruct”, or criticise, their own results or each other’s  
• 5. Professional ethics of EDC/HRE teachers: three principles  
• 5.1 Principle of non-indoctrination  
• 5.2 Principle of controversial discussion  
• 5.3 Empowering students to promote their interests  
• 6. Key concepts in EDC/HRE  
• 6.1 Why do we need key concepts in EDC/HRE?  
• 6.2 The essence of the key concepts  
• 7. The method carries the message: task-based learning in EDC/HRE  
• 7.1 The shortcomings of traditional citizenship education  
• 7.2 Teaching though and for democracy and human rights requires active learning  
• 7.3 Tasks – the teacher’s tool to support active learning  
• 7.4 Task-based learning is problem-based learning  
• 7.5 The teacher’s roles in task-based learning sequences  
• 7.6 Active learning requires a follow-up  
• 23 " href="https://www.living-democracy.com/textbooks/volume-1/part-1/unit-3/chapter-8/" class="text-dark">8. A human rights-based approach to schooling 23  
• 26 " href="https://www.living-democracy.com/textbooks/volume-1/part-1/unit-4/" class="text-dark">Unit 4 - Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education – A short history of the Council of Europe approach 26  
• 1. Background  
• 2. Outcomes of the EDC/HRE project  
• 3. Practical instruments  
• 3.1 The EDC/HRE pack  
• 3.2 Six volumes on EDC/HRE in school projects, teaching sequences, concepts, methods and models  
• Part 2 - Teaching democracy and human rights  
• Unit 1 - Conditions of teaching and learning  
• 1. Introduction  
• 2. Task and key questions for conditions of teaching and learning  
• 2 - Work file 1: How to take students’ skills and knowledge into account  
• 2 - Work file 2: How to take my teaching skills and knowledge into account  
• 2 - Work file 3: Considering general teaching and learning conditions  
• 2 - Work file 4: What are my basic attitudes towards students?  
• 2 - Work file 5: Rethinking discipline and order from a democratic point of view  
• 2 - Work file 6: Rethinking the teacher’s role from a democratic point of view  
• 2 - Work file 7: How to develop a democratic atmosphere in the classroom  
• 2 - Work file 8: How to develop school as a democratic community  
• Unit 2 - Setting objectives and selecting materials  
• 2. Task and key questions for setting objectives and selecting materials  
• 2.1 Task  
• 2.2 Key questions  
• 2 - Work file 1: Students’ competences for EDC/HRE  
• 2 - Work file 2: Two categories of materials in EDC/HRE  
• 2 - Work file 3: Selecting and using materials in EDC/HRE  
• Unit 3 - Understanding politics  
• 1. Introduction: what must students learn?  
• 2. Task and key questions to understand politics  
• 2.1 Task for teachers in EDC/HRE  
• 2 - Work file 1: How can I address politics in my EDC/HRE classes?  
• 2 - Work file 2: How can I support my students in judging political issues?  
• Unit 4 - Guiding processes of learning and choosing forms of teaching  
• 2. Task and key questions for guiding processes of learning and choosing forms of teaching  
• 2 - Work file 1: Three stages in a learning process  
• 2 - Work file 2: Why chalk and talk is not enough, or “taught ≠ learned” and “learned ≠ applied in real life”  
• 2 - Work file 3: Selecting adequate forms of teaching and learning  
• 2 - Work file 4: Five basic forms of teaching and learning  
• Unit 5 - Assessment of students, teachers and schools  
• 2. Task and key questions for assessment of students, teachers and schools  
• 2 - Work file 1: Different dimensions of assessment  
• 2 - Work file 2: Perspectives of assessment  
• 2 - Work file 3: Perspectives and forms of assessment  
• 2 - Work file 4: Standards of reference  
• 2 - Work file 5: Assessment of students – the influence of assessment on self-concepts  
• 2 - Work file 6: Checklist “How do I assess my students?”  
• 2 - Work file 7: Assessment of teachers  
• 2 - Work file 8: Self-assessment of teachers  
• 37 " href="https://www.living-democracy.com/textbooks/volume-1/part-2/unit-5/chapter-2/lesson-9/" class="text-dark">2 - Work file 9: Working with journals, logbooks, portfolios 37  
• 2 - Work file 10: Co-operative teaching and peer feedback  
• 2 - Work file 11: Assessment of EDC/HRE in schools  
• 2 - Work file 12: Quality indicators of EDC/HRE in a school  
• 2 - Work file 13: General principles for evaluating EDC/HRE  
• 2 - Work file 14: Guidelines for self-evaluation of schools  
• 2 - Work file 15: Involving the different stakeholders in evaluating EDC/HRE in a school  
• 46 " href="https://www.living-democracy.com/textbooks/volume-1/part-2/unit-5/chapter-2/lesson-16/" class="text-dark">2 - Work file 16: Governance and management in a school 46  
• 2 - Work file 17: Focus on democratic school governance  
• 2 - Work file 18: How to analyse and interpret EDC/HRE evaluation results  
• Part 3 - Tools for teaching and learning democracy and human rights  
• Unit 1 - Toolbox for teachers  
• Tool 1: Task-based learning  
• Tool 2: Co-operative learning  
• Tool 3: Chairing plenary sessions (discussion and critical thinking) in EDC/HRE classes  
• Tool 4: Interviewing an expert – how to collect information  
• 47 " href="https://www.living-democracy.com/textbooks/volume-1/part-3/unit-1/tool-5/" class="text-dark">Tool 5. Defining competence-based teaching objectives 47  
• Unit 2 - Toolbox for students  
• Tool 1: Worksheet for students to plan their learning schedules  
• Tool 2: Worksheet for students to reflect on their learning  
• Tool 3: Worksheet for students to reflect on their achievement  
• Tool 4: Researching in libraries  
• Tool 5: Researching on the Internet  
• Tool 6: Carrying out interviews and surveys  
• Tool 7: Interpreting images  
• Tool 8: Mind maps  
• Tool 9: Creating posters  
• Tool 10: Holding exhibitions  
• Tool 11: Planning and giving presentations  
• Tool 12: Preparing overhead transparencies or a PowerPoint presentation  
• Tool 13: Writing newspaper articles  
• Tool 14: Putting on performances  
• Tool 15: Holding debates  
• Growing up in democracy (II)  
• The conceptual framework of this manual  
• Unit 1: Identity – Me in my community  
• Lesson 1: This is what I like  
• Lesson 2: My personal symbols (coat of arms part I)  
• Lesson 3 - This is our coat of arms (coat of arms part II)  
• Lesson 4 - Individuals and groups  
• UNIT 2: Diversity and pluralism – At home in Europe  
• Lesson 1: What is Europe?  
• Lesson 2: I am at home in Europe (building a physical map I)  
• Lesson 3: I am at home in Europe (building a physical map II)  
• Lesson 4: Europeans are different and equal  
• UNIT 3: Equality – Minorities and majorities  
• Lesson 1: All different, all equal  
• Lesson 2: Is it fair? (research)  
• Lesson 3: Is it fair? (follow-up)  
• Lesson 4: A matrix of power  
• UNIT 4: Conflict – Rules help to solve conflicts  
• Lesson 1: Everything’s okay! Really?  
• Lesson 2: This is how we do it  
• Lesson 3: A list of ideas  
• Lesson 4: Our contract of rules  
• UNIT 5: Rules and law – The basis of living together  
• Lesson 1: Why do we need rules and laws?  
• Lesson 2: What happens if …?  
• Lesson 3: Our new school rules  
• Lesson 4: A campaign for our new school rules  
• UNIT 6: Power and authority – I am the boss! Am I?  
• Lesson 1: Superhero?  
• Lesson 2: Good guys, bad guys?  
• Lesson 3: One person does everything, the rest do nothing?  
• Lesson 4: Sharing the power  
• UNIT 7: Responsibility – I go eco … my school takes part!  
• Lesson 1: Responsibility  
• Lesson 2: School is life: living ecology?  
• Lesson 3: How can I start to be responsible?  
• Lesson 4: How did we do – what’s the plan?  
• UNIT 8: Rights and freedom – My rights – your rights  
• Lesson 1: Wants and needs: what is important to me?  
• Lesson 2: Human rights: what do they say?  
• Lesson 3: Survey: what people around us think and know  
• Lesson 4: Human rights alive!  
• UNIT 9: Media - Media in use: I would if I could  
• Lesson 1: We prepare an exhibition  
• Lesson 2: The power of knowledge and skills!  
• Lesson 3: Presentation time!  
• Lesson 4: We plan a media product  
• Unit 9 - Teachers’ handout 1: media in democracies  
• Unit 9 - Teachers’ handout 2: working with television  
• Manual for students  
• I. Handouts for students - Introduction  
• Student handout for Unit 1, lesson 1: “I like and don’t like” table  
• Student handout for Unit 1, lessons 2 and 3: Coat of arms template  
• Student handout for Unit 1, lesson 4: 3-step discussion  
• Student handout for Unit 2, lesson 1: Map of Europe (enlarge it to A3)  
• Student handout for Unit 2, lesson 1: The countries and capitals of Europe  
• Student handout for Unit 2, lesson 1: The flags of Europe  
• Student handout for Unit 2, lesson 1: Rivers in Europe  
• Student handout for Unit 2, lesson 1: Mountains and landforms in Europe  
• Student handout for Unit 2, lessons 2 and 3: Country portrait  
• Student handout for Unit 3, lesson 2: Table for notes  
• Student handout for Unit 3, lesson 3: Statistics sheet  
• Student handout for Unit 3, lesson 4: Word and power cards  
• Student handout for Unit 4, lesson 1: Our problem – my problem  
• Student handout for Unit 4, lesson 3: Voting cards  
• Student handout for Unit 5, lesson 1: Rights, responsibilities and rules in our school  
• Student handout for Unit 5, lesson 3: Voting cards  
• Student handout for Unit 5, lesson 4: Criteria for good rules  
• Student handout for Unit 6, lesson 1: Superhero?  
• Student handout for Unit 6, lesson 2: Schema of political representation  
• Student handout for Unit 6, lesson 3: Election information  
• Student handout for Unit 7, lesson 1: Responsibility for what?  
• Student handout for Unit 7, lesson 4: Who has what kind of responsibility?  
• Student handout for Unit 8, lesson 1: Task to decide between “WANTS” and “NEEDS”  
• Student handout for Unit 8, lesson 2: Human rights: a list for comparing rights and needs  
• Student handout for Unit 8, lesson 3: Survey on human rights  
• Student handout for Unit 9, lesson 1: Presentation cards giving a short description of the media devices  
• II. Toolbox for students - Introduction  
• 1. Researching in libraries  
• 2. Researching on the Internet  
• 3. Carrying out interviews and surveys  
• 4. Interpreting images  
• 5. Mind maps  
• 6. Creating posters  
• 7. Holding exhibitions  
• 8. Planning and giving presentations  
• 9. Preparing overhead transparencies or a PowerPoint presentation  
• 10. Writing newspaper articles  
• 11. Putting on performances  
• 12. Holding debates  
• Living in democracy (III)  
• The conceptual framework of the manual: key concepts  
• Part 1: Individual and community  
• UNIT 1: Stereotypes and prejudices  
• Lesson 1: How others see a person  
• Lesson 2: How differently a person can be described...  
• Lesson 3: Stereotypes and prejudices  
• Lesson 4: Identity - Stereotypes about me!  
• Student handout 1.1: (Group 1) Role play  
• Student handout 1.1: (Group 2) Role play  
• Student handout 1.1: (Group 3) Role play  
• Background material for teachers: Stereotypes and prejudices  
• Student handout 1.2: Self-perception – perception by others  
• UNIT 2: Equality - Are you more equal than me?  
• Lesson 1: Differences and similarities  
• Lesson 2: Vesna’s story  
• Lesson 3: Equality between men and women  
• Lesson 4: Social justice  
• Student handout 2.1: Vesna's story  
• Student handout 2.2: Men and women: the story  
• Student handout 2.3: The shipwreck  
• UNIT 3: Diversity and pluralism - How can people live together peacefully?  
• Lesson 1: How can people live together?  
• Lesson 2: Why do people disagree?  
• Lesson 3: In what ways are people different?  
• Lesson 4: Why are human rights important?  
• Student handout 3.1: The school on the edge of the forest  
• Student handout 3.2: Hope is for everyone  
• Student handout 3.3: Help for Hope College  
• Student handout 3.4 - The islanders and the settlers (role cards)  
• Student handout 3.5: Situation cards: the islanders  
• 15 " href="https://www.living-democracy.com/textbooks/volume-3/part-1/unit-3/student-handout-10/" class="text-dark">Student handout 3.6: Key elements of human rights 15  
• UNIT 4: Conflict  
• Lesson 1: Conflict resolution  
• Lesson 2: Applying the six-step approach  
• Lesson 3: Conflicting human rights  
• Lesson 4: Using violence  
• Teacher’s resource sheet: International humanitarian law  
• Student handout 4.1: A six-step approach to conflict resolution  
• Student handout 4.2: Conflict scenarios  
• Student handout 4.3: Five cases of conflicting human rights  
• Student handout 4.4: Is violence acceptable in some cases?  
• Part 2: Taking responsibility  
• UNIT 5: Rights, liberties and responsibilities  
• Lesson 1: Wishes, basic needs, human dignity and human rights  
• Lesson 2: Detecting human rights violations  
• Lesson 3: Rights and responsibilities  
• Lesson 4: Human rights quiz  
• Student handout 5.1: Wishes, needs and rights  
• Student handout 5.2: List of human rights  
• Student handout 5.3: Cases of human rights violations  
• Student handout 5.4: Rights and responsibilities  
• Student handout 5.5: Human rights quiz (training cards)  
• Teacher’s resource sheet  
• UNIT 6: Responsibility  
• Lesson 1: Responsibilities at home  
• Lesson 2: Why should people obey the law?  
• Lesson 3: Whose problem is it?  
• Lesson 4: Why do people become active citizens?  
• Student handout 6.1: Milan makes a choice  
• Student handout 6.2: Schmitt’s dilemma  
• Student handout 6.3: Things are getting out of control!  
• Student handout 6.4: Card sort: the life of Jelena Santic  
• Part 3: Participation  
• UNIT 7: A class newspaper  
• Lesson 1: The newspapers around us  
• Lesson 2: Our newspaper is the best... don't you agree?  
• Lesson 3: We produce our wall newspaper  
• Lesson 4: Our first issue!  
• Background material for teachers  
• Student handout 7.1: How to write an article  
• Part 4: Power and authority  
• UNIT 8: Rules and Law  
• Lesson 1: Good law – bad law  
• Lesson 2: At what age?  
• Lesson 3: You make the law  
• Lesson 4: Rules of evidence  
• Student handout 8.1: A questionnaire: at what age?  
• Student handout 8.2: Discussion cards  
• 8.1 Background information for teachers: Integration, not criminalisation  
• 8.2 Background information for teachers: Convention on the Rights of the Child  
• UNIT 9: Government and politics  
• Lesson 1: Who is in charge?  
• Lesson 2: If you were the president  
• Lesson 3: Me and my role  
• Lesson 4: Student parliament  
• Student handout 9.1: The Kingdom of Sikkal  
• Student handout 9.2: Discussion cards  
• Student Handout 9.3: Questionnaire  
• Taking part in democracy (IV)  
• Interactive constructivist learning in EDC/HRE  
• Part 1: Taking part in the community  
• UNIT 1: IDENTITY  
• Lesson 1: Views on choices and identity  
• Lesson 2: Looking back: what choices made me the person I am?  
• Lesson 3: Looking forward: three choices that shape our future lives  
• Lesson 4: Which job suits me?  
• Materials for teachers 1.1: Quotes on choices and identity  
• Materials for teachers 1.2: Job cards  
• Unit 1.3: Background information for teachers  
• UNIT 2: RESPONSIBILITY  
• Lesson 1: Risk losing a friend – or break a rule?  
• Lessons 2 and 3: What would you do?  
• Lesson 4: What values must we share?  
• Materials for teachers 2.1: How to use the tool for dilemma analysis  
• Materials for teachers 2.2: Flipchart layout for the comparison of dilemma solutions (lesson 4)  
• Materials for teachers 2.3: Liberty and responsibility - three lecture modules  
• UNIT 3: DIVERSITY AND PLURALISM  
• Lesson 1: If I were president …  
• Lesson 2: What goals do we want to promote?  
• Lesson 3: What is the common good?  
• Lesson 4: Taking part in pluralist democracy  
• Materials for teachers 3A: Four basic political standpoints  
• Materials for teachers 3B: Lecture: what is the common good?  
• Materials for teachers 3C: Suggestions for extensions and follow-ups  
• Part 2 - Taking part in politics: settling conflict, solving problems  
• UNIT 4: CONFLICT  
• Lesson 1: The fishing game (1)  
• Lesson 2: The fishing game (2)  
• Lesson 3: How do we catch "as many fish as possible"?  
• Lesson 4: How can we achieve sustainability?  
• Materials for teachers 4.1: Fishing game: record sheet for players  
• Materials for teachers (game managers) 4.2: Reproduction chart: recovery of the fish population (in tons of fish)  
• Materials for teachers 4.3: Fishing game: record chart  
• Materials for teachers 4.4: Fishing game: diagram of fish Stocks and total catches  
• Materials for teachers 4.5: Homework Instructions (mini-handout for students)  
• Unit 4.5: Background information for teachers: Reading list on the fishing game  
• Unit 5: RULES AND LAW  
• Lessons 1 and 2: Why does a community need rules?  
• Lesson 3: What rules serve us best?  
• Lesson 4: The conference  
• Unit 6: Government and politics  
• Lesson 1: “Our most urgent problem is …”  
• Lesson 2: Politics - how a democratic community solves its problems  
• Lesson 3: Applying the policy cycle model  
• Lesson 4: How can we take part?  
• Lesson 5: Feedback session (optional)  
• Materials for teachers 6.1: Illustration of the policy cycle model - how can we reduce the number of car accidents?  
• Materials for teachers 6.2: Key statements on the policy cycle model  
• UNIT 7: EQUALITY  
• Lesson 1: The majority always rules?  
• Lesson 2: How can we balance majority and minority interests?  
• Lesson 3: Draft statutes  
• Lesson 4: What is a good way to govern a democratic community?  
• Part 3 - Taking part in politics: participation through communication  
• Unit 8: LIBERTY  
• Lesson 1: What issues are interesting for us?  
• Lesson 2: Preparing for the debate  
• Lesson 3: We debate – we decide – we report  
• Lesson 4: One debate – different perspectives  
• Materials for teachers 8.1: Why freedom depends on framing by rules and laws  
• UNIT 9: The media  
• Lesson 1: We are the gatekeepers!  
• Lessons 2 and 3: We are the gatekeepers!  
• Lesson 4: Do we control the media – or do the media control us?  
• Materials for teachers 9A: Skills and strategies for media education  
• Student handout 1.1: What choices have made me the person I am today - and who made them?  
• Student handout 1.2: Three options that shape our futures  
• Student handout 1.3: My criteria for choosing a job  
• Student handout 1.4: Questionnaire: job shadowing  
• Student handout 2.1: The dilemma concept  
• Student handout 2.2: A tool to analyse and solve dilemmas  
• Student handout 2.3: How would you decide? Dilemma case stories  
• Student handout 2.4: Record sheet on dilemma discussions (Based on student handout 2.3)  
• Student handout 2.5: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 December 1948)  
• Student handout 2.6: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (The European Convention on Human Rights), as amended by Protocol No. 11 with Protocol Nos. 1, 4, 6 (excerpts)  
• Student handout 3.1: Schedule for unit 3 “Diversity and pluralism”  
• Student handout 3.2: Taking part in democracy – basic rules and principles  
• Student handout 3.3: Establishing a political party  
• Student handout 3.4: How does a democratic political system handle diversity and pluralism?  
• Student handout 3.5: The concept of the common good: the hallmark of democracy and dictatorship  
• Student handout 3.6: Map of social cleavages and political parties  
• Student handout 4.1: Case story: the conflict in the fishing community  
• Student handout 4.2: A model of sustainability goals  
• Student handout 4.3: Applying the sustainability model to the fishing game: how do we “catch as many fish as possible”?  
• Student handout 4.4: What is the optimum balance between fish reproduction and harvest?  
• Student handout 5.1: Preparations for the conference on a framework of rules  
• Student handout 5.2: Basic questions to consider in institutional design  
• Student handout 5.3: Comparing frameworks of rules  
• Student handout 5.4: Procedural rules for the conference – draft version  
• Student handout 5.5: Summary: what can we learn through these games?  
• Student handout 5.6: Feedback on units 4 and 5  
• Student handout 6.1: The policy cycle model: politics as a process of solving problems in a community  
• Student handout 6.2: The policy cycle – a tool to observe and understand political decision-making processes  
• Student handout 6.3: Feedback on the unit “Government and politics”  
• Student handout 7.1: Is majority rule unfair to the minority? A case story  
• Student handout 7.2: How do democracies care for the protection of minorities?  
• Student handout 7.3: Task: drafting a statute for the sports club  
• Student handout 7.4: Record of group presentations: draft statutes for a micro-community  
• Student handout 8.1: Suggestions for a debating issue  
• Student handout 8.2: Rules for debating  
• Student handout 8.3: Planning sheet for the debating teams  
• Student handout 8.4: Planning sheet for the chairpersons  
• Student handout 8.5: Record sheet for the audience  
• Student handout 8.6: Worksheet for news story writers  
• Student handout 9.1: Creating a wall newspaper - making choices  
• Student handout 9.2: Tips for producing a wall newspaper  
• Student handout 9.3: Tips for writing a good news story  
• Exploring Children’s Rights (V)  
• Introduction: What the nine units have to offer (Class 1– 9)  
• Part 1: Lesson plans  
• Unit 1 (Primary school, Class 1) - I have a name – we have a school  
• Unit 2 (Primary school, Class 2) - Names are more than just letters!  
• Unit 3 (Primary school, class 3) - We are wizards!  
• Unit 4 (Primary school, Class 4) - Our rights - our treasure  
• Unit 5 (Primary school, Class 5) - We make rules for our classroom  
• Unit 6 (Primary school, Class 6) - Children's rights: a work of art!  
• Unit 7 (Primary school, Class 7) - Is what I want also what I need?  
• Unit 8 (Primary school, Class 8) - Children's rights - thoroughly researched  
• Unit 9 (Primary school, Class 9) - Why must we obey rules?  
• Part 2: Background information  
• 1. Frequently asked questions about the children's rights convention  
• 2. Children's rights - part of the human rights process  
• 3. How children's rights were created  
• 4. Children's rights: experiencing, getting to know and implementing them  
• 5. Pedagogical approach: learning by example  
• 6. Task-based learning: accompanying learning  
• 7. Teaching children's rights: key questions to guide the choice of teaching methods  
• 8. "But that means that I have the right to have a break, doesn't it?" - Children's rights in the classroom  
• Part 3: Documents and Teaching Materials  
• 1. Pupil's version of the Convention on the Rights of the Child  
• 2. Grouping children's rights into four dimensions  
• 3. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (20 November 1989)  
• 4. The illustrated Children's Rights (Children's Rights cards)  
• Teaching Democracy (VI)  
• Chapter 1 - Building up classroom atmosphere  
• Exercise 1.1. - Matching cards  
• Exercise 1.2. - Rights, responsibilities and rules in the classroom  
• Exercise 1.3. - Identity coat of arms  
• Exercise 1.4. - A bouquet of flowers  
• Exercise 1.5. - Chinese sticks  
• Chapter 2 - Clarifying values  
• Exercise 2.1. - The raft game  
• Exercise 2.2. - Value Systems  
• Exercise 2.3. - Philosophy of life  
• Chapter 3 - Getting to know human rights  
• Exercise 3.1. - The human rights poster  
• Exercise 3.2. - The strings  
• Exercise 3.3. - The human rights tree  
• Exercise 3.4. - The balloon ride  
• Exercise 3.5. - Wants and needs  
• Exercise 3.6. - The treasure box  
• Chapter 4 - Perceiving others  
• Exercise 4.1. - All different, all equal  
• Exercise 4.2. - Difference  
• Exercise 4.3. - True and false  
• Exercise 4.4. - First impressions  
• Exercise 4.5. - We all have prejudices  
• Exercise 4.6. - We are all equal, but some are more equal than others  
• Exercise 4.7. - The tourists  
• Exercise 4.8. - Globingo: "A human being is part of the whole world".  
• Chapter 5 - Making justice work  
• Exercise 5.1. - It's not fair  
• Exercise 5.2. - The exception  
• Exercise 5.3. - The jigsaw puzzle  
• Exercise 5.4. - The role of law  
• Exercise 5.5. - Perspectives on justice  
• Chapter 6 - Understanding political philosophy  
• Exercise 6.1. - Basic concepts of political thought  
• 5 " href="https://www.living-democracy.com/textbooks/volume-6/chapter-6/exercise-2/" class="text-dark">Exercise 6.2. - Attitudes to power 5  
• Exercise 6.3. - If I were a magician  
• Chapter 7 - Taking part in politics  
• Exercise 7.1. - The wall of silence  
• Exercise 7.2. - My feelings about dictatorship  
• Exercise 7.3. - Questionnaire on attitudes to change  
• 6 " href="https://www.living-democracy.com/textbooks/volume-6/chapter-7/exercise-4/" class="text-dark">Exercise 7.4. - The planning project 6  
• Exercise 7.5. - We and the world  
• Exercise 7.6. - Should we take part in politics?  
• Exercise 7.7. - How does government affect your life?  
• Exercise 7.8. - Ways of participating in democracy  
• Exercise 7.9. - The policy cycle  
• Chapter 8 - Dealing with conflict  
• Exercise 8.1. - Win-win solutions  
• Exercise 8.2. - A structured approach to conflict resolution  
• Exercise 8.3. - Family and peer conflict  
• Exercise 8.4. - Brainstorming session on conflict and peace  
• Exercise 8.5. - The statues  
• Exercise 8.6. - Punishment versus positive conflict resolution  
• Exercise 8.7. - Minorities  
• Exercise 8.8. - Images of war and peace  
• Illustrations  

Speech on Child Rights

Child rights are crucial for every young individual. They ensure you are protected, loved, and given opportunities to grow.

Sadly, many children around the world don’t enjoy these rights. Let’s explore why these rights are important and what we can do to uphold them.

1-minute Speech on Child Rights

Good day, everyone. We are here to talk about something very important: child rights. This means the rights every child should have, no matter where they live or who they are.

First, every child has the right to life. This means they should be born and grow up healthy and safe. They should have food to eat, clean water to drink, and a safe place to live. They should not be hurt or treated badly.

Next, every child has the right to learn. They should go to school and get a good education. This helps them grow their minds and learn about the world. This also prepares them for the future, so they can get good jobs and live happy lives.

Also, every child has the right to play. Play is not just fun, but also important for learning and growing. It helps children make friends, learn new skills, and understand how to work with others.

Lastly, every child has the right to be heard. This means they should be allowed to say what they think and feel. Adults should listen to them and respect their ideas. This helps children feel important and teaches them to respect others too.

Remember, child rights are not just nice to have, they are necessary. They help children grow up to be healthy, happy, and successful. Let’s all work together to make sure every child has these rights. Thank you.

Also check:

• Essay on Child Rights

2-minute Speech on Child Rights

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today, we gather here to discuss an issue that touches the lives of every single person, ‘Child Rights’. You may ask, why are child rights important? Well, let’s start with the basics. Children are the future of our world. They are the ones who will take our place and shape the world years from now. So, it’s important they grow up in a safe, healthy, and loving environment.

Firstly, let’s talk about the right to life and survival. Every child has the right to live, to grow, and to develop to their full potential. This means they should have access to good food, clean water, and healthcare. But sadly, many children around the world don’t get these basic needs. We must work together to change this.

Secondly, let’s discuss the right to education. Education is like a magic key. It opens doors to new opportunities and helps children to grow into responsible adults. It teaches them to dream big and to work hard to achieve those dreams. But sadly, many children are kept away from school. We must ensure that every child, no matter where they come from, has the chance to go to school and learn.

Next, we have the right to protection. Every child deserves to live in a place where they feel safe. They should not be hurt, abused, or exploited. It’s our duty to protect them from harm. If we see a child being treated badly, we must step in and help.

Lastly, let’s talk about the right to participation. This means that children should have a say in matters that affect them. They should be listened to and their opinions should be respected. After all, they are the ones who know best about their own lives.

In conclusion, child rights are not just words on paper. They are promises we make to our children. Promises that we will keep them safe, that we will care for them, and that we will respect them. We must work together to make sure these promises are kept.

Remember, every child is special. Every child is important. And every child deserves to have their rights respected. Let’s make a promise today, a promise to stand up for child rights, to fight for them, and to make sure that every child gets the love, care, and respect they deserve.

• Speech on Child Protection
• Speech on Chief Guest On Sports Day
• Speech on Chief Guest In School Function

We also have speeches on more interesting topics that you may want to explore.

One Comment

so cool website i am really impressed

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.