RNC finale: Unprecedented police riot against peaceful protesters & journalists

The freedom of speech is not absolute. Legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. [12] Exercising freedom of speech always takes place within a context of competing values. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech".[13] Limitations to freedom of speech may occure through legal sanction and/or social disapprobation.[14]

In "On Liberty" (1978) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[15] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[16]

In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offence principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end."[17] Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm.[18] In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle.[19] Because the degre to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.[20]

Liberal democracies have varying approaches to balance the right of freedom of speech with other values and principles. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. Many liberal democracies recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule.[citation needed]

Limitations on freedom of speech may include:

* Defamation (slander and libel)
* Product defamation (criticism of commercial products; sometimes called product libel or product disparagement; for example, the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act)
* Obscenity
* Threats
* Lying in court (perjury)
* Talking out of turn during a trial, or talk that causes contempt of court
* Speaking about a trial outside the court room after the judge forbids it (sub judice).
* Speaking publicly without a permit
* Speaking publicly outside of a free speech zone
* Limits on the size of public demonstrations
* Profanity
* Hate speech that is defamatory or causes incitement to violence
* Noise pollution
* Speech that contains a copyright infringement
* Company secrets (trade secrets), such as how a product is made or company strategy (Example: Eleven herbs and spices of KFC chicken)
* Political secrets: campaign strategies, dirty past/deeds of a politician, etc.
* Classified information: sensitive or secret to protect the national interest.[1]
* Sedition: speech or organization (vs Freedom of Assembly) that is deemed as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.
* Treason: to talk publicly of the death of all countrymen or the overthrow of the government
* Blasphemy is illegal in several Western and Muslim countries (freedom of religion as well as speech could be given here)
* The first clause of UK's Terrorism Act 2006 punishes "Encouragement of terrorism" with up to seven years in jail.
* In some European countries, Holocaust denial is a criminal offence. A prominent proponent of this view, David Irving, was sentenced for 3 years in Austria for denying the Holocaust in February, 2006.
* In many countries, public school teachers have limited freedom of speech, both on and off the job, regarding certain issues (e.g., homosexuality).