Communication Jurisprudence; How Far Is It Linked to Freedom of Speech and Expression including Information Right?
12 Pages Posted: 8 Aug 2018 Last revised: 26 Mar 2020
Date Written: July 21, 2018
Communication, a human instinct acquired naturally, is not only the reality of law of nature but also personal and social reality for their respective function to be performed in target area. This human civilization has become well organized and developed as with the presence of communication; otherwise there wouldn't be difference between human and animal domain. So any personal expression is allowed to the extent that other person does not feel harm or ashamed and so is applicable to organized institution as such it may not go wrong and misuse the terms of reference as deemed under law and moral standards. Public communication is a base of human rights and popular sovereignty as the functions of democracy is possible only through socially responsible communication. The responsibility of this communication goes not only to government and its organ but also to private sectors to the extent that they are existed in the market. Under the domain of law, large numbers of legal philosophers describe the role and requirements of communication i.e. inner morality of Fuller, command of Austin, penumbra situation of Hart, principle of hard case of Dworkin, freedom of speech and expression as a personal interest of Roscoe Pound, no harm principle of JS Mill, requirement of publication of law for formality, participatory approach of law making, interpreting and enforcement process etc. No society and its organizational integration are possible in the absence of communication. Communication is tools of progress and development of all language, culture, social system, rules and behavior control. Communication is the oxygen of state, human knowledge, its storage and transfer. It is a base of transparency, good governance and effective government system. Thus, freedom of speech and expression and right to information are respiratory organ of public communication. So, both face to face and public communications are required for discourse of social phenomenon for Habermas. Yet, public communication cannot be used for defamation; libel and slander, contempt of court, racial disharmony, vested interest, criminal instigation etc. It attracts the necessity of reasonable regulation to the public media for healthy discourse both legal and social.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation