Freedom of Speech [antikvár]

'And God said . . .' we read several times in the first verses of the Book of Genesis, the oldest part of the Bible. 'Dixi et salvavi animam meam' is the other ancient saying often borrowed if someone wishes to underline the moral importance of expressing his/her opinion. And the list highlighting how fundamental and unavoidable the freedom of speech, of expression of ideas and opinions, and the opportunity for free debates on public affairs are could be continued from the beginnings of the history of mankind almost ad nauseam. Freedom of speech is as integral a part of human dignity, as it is understood, as is a leaf on a tree in our terrestrial environment. However, the meaning of a leaf is very different for a tourist, for a farmer, or for a biologist, and its 'message' is more distinct from particular points of view or different resolutions of a scientific microscope. Something similar may be recognised if one tries to comprehend in its complexity every detail of the freedom of speech. Doubts are awakened even regarding the proper object of each analysed legal institution: speech, expression of ideas, debate, communication, opinion, argument, press, media—all these notions are interrelated and related to the regulation and limitation of their freedom. The same complex approach, and minute attention to differences are necessary if we look at the holder of the freedom of speech: 'everyone' or the person involved in a debate or in a formal procedure, a journalist, a publisher, a researcher, an artist, a blogger, or a demonstrator faces a completely different situation, and even if the fundamental core of freedom of speech should be the same in each individual relationship, its limitations caused only by the other participants' rights and liberties cannot be the same. Anyone can hold an opinion even about the freedom of speech but a judge must decide whether one party to a trial expressing his/her opinion is giving false testimony or is only making a mistake because he/she has forgotten the proper circumstances. Similarly, a police officer must recognise the moment when the exercise of freedom of speech becomes a crime or—as a less frightening example—a professor of law must distinguish between an unusual but well-founded opinion of a student and lack of