The Romanian Constitution appear only partial freedom of speech. We see that reading the article 30, where freedom of speech is treated. Article begins well, if you read only the first 4 paragraphs. Here, we learn that freedom of expression is inviolabila (30.1) as censorship of any kind is prohibited (18.8), no publication can not be suppressed (18.9). In principle, these paragraphs legifereaza correct things related to the essence of freedom of expression. Unfortunately, things don't end there.
Article 30, 6: "freedom of expression may not harm the honour, dignity, private life of the person and the right to his own image". And (7): "I am forbidden by law, defamation of the country and of the nation, the urge to war of aggression, hatred, racial, class or religious incitement to discrimination, territorial separatism or public violence, and obscene manifestations, contrary to accepted principles of morality."
They contradict the freedom in the first delegate, 4 paragraphs? What do I do when you find a blog that defaimeaza country? Choose 2 (censorship of any kind is prohibited) or 7? Same problem if the blog violates the "right to one's image". The Constitution indicate the two opposing paths.
Or may not contradict. Paragraphs 6 and 7 may constitute exceptions or limitations that specifies the meaning of the terms in the preceding paragraphs, "freedom", "censorship", "publications". But, if so, then narrows them Constitution so much meaning that they no longer have anything to do with the ordinary meaning. Simply, the Constitution was talking about something else, not about freedom, as we know it. Likely that such exceptions, it will say, they have their purpose. The argument in favor of the word freedom was not to prohibit opinions because we lose the truth. However, the law prohibits only swearing and defend the dignity and honor. Not scientific theories or activities related to the discovery of truth. After all, what can be bad for your country, follow the "not talking about others, not free from hatred and you act nice?
But how bad is not a respect? Would it have to fear? And lest the expression of contempt is indispensable in the activities related to the discovery of truth? We, until now, I thought that freedom of expression does not to be punished for what you think and say.
Freedom of speech safeguard democracy. The Constitution is a tool with long-term, with rules for political and social games of today and of the future, in the year 3000. If the moment is unlikely for someone to jail in Romania because the country defaimeaza, no need to thank the Constitution. It is, however, possible that, in the future, things depend on it. To have a case when the leader of the opposition is closed for violating the right of the image according to the authorities. If we look at the practical aspects of a campaign, it's clear that you can't win a battle for perceptions, when you are suspected of violating the right of the image. Opozantii could enter the underground through a simple press release that defaimeaza country or attain honour leaders.
Beyond the shortcomings of the democratic game, if today's freedom of expression, good-bad, it works, this is not the merit of the Constitution. If the Constitutional Court rules on the type of paragraphs 6 and 7 seem innocuous today through the numbness of their future, they can look like fangs. When the lack of a good Constitution and well-written will count, you might to be too late for many and for many things.
Freedom of expression is more important than it seems at first glance. To use an illustration of James Buchanan, Constitution resembles the contract for the construction of a House. When we make a contract, ask raul first. Even though today is a respectable craftsman community person, tomorrow he or replacement or unclear parts might speculate from the contract. If we want to look to the future, and not just in the past, freedom of speech must become a norm and give up to half-measures. We can simply remain in paragraph 2, "Censorship of any kind is prohibited", no other additions that allow the national councils to decide ex ante what we hear, what we can see and what words are correct. Or we could mimic the formulation of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States, testable successfully more than two centuries: "Parliament is forbidden to make laws that limit freedom of expression."
The solution is, as often in life, the simplicity. The exceptions will not only alter the most important sense for that freedom of expression, as a constitutional norm, was invented: to defend us from authorities. Because a true Constitution is primarily a manual prohibitions for officials, not for ordinary mortals. Ours, however, they still reserve their citizens, not power.
