Abstract:
The Bangladeshi Constitution and ICCPR discuss freedom of expression and hate speech. This paper examines those statutes. It examines how free speech and hate speech prevention may conflict. It examines how different nations interpret and balance these rights in their legislation. Comparative constitutional law, international human rights legislation, and legal theory are used to determine
where to draw the line between protecting speech and outlawing hate speech. The study focuses on
how Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR and Articles 12, 22, and 39 of the Bangladesh Constitution are
applied in countries with widely varied legal, cultural, and political histories. Case studies from
developing and democratic nations demonstrate how diverse legislation methods might make it
difficult to enforce fundamental rights without compromising human dignity or social cohesiveness.
The results demonstrate that many countries struggle to define hate speech while guaranteeing free
expression. The study raises moral and legal problems such whether prohibiting hate speech inhibits
political discussion or if free speech increases violence and prejudice. The study compares countries'
practices to demonstrate how international norms are applied. The report concludes by advising
states, human rights groups, and civil society on ways to defend free expression and combat hate
speech using the ICCPR.
Description:
This thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Law in East West University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
