1. Introduction

Free speech, one of the oldest and most widely recognized constitutional rights in many countries across the world, is traditionally perceived as the liberty to express oneself and is indispensable as it guarantees the opportunity for citizens to participate in the government (Kentridge, 1996; Meiklejohn, 1961; Stevens, 1993). Also, it has been recognized as a fundamental human right in many of the international and regional instruments. However, when free speech adopts an increasingly dark and deeply malicious tone, it plays a conflicting role with other rights, such as the right to privacy, and the right to freedom of thought and religion (Bychawska-Siniarska, 2017; Smet, 2010; Sullivan, 2010). Navigating these conflicts requires a delicate balance between upholding free speech and addressing its potential adverse consequences on other rights and societal values. Different jurisdictions adapt various approaches and preferences in balancing conflicts among these fundamental human rights. For instance, in the United States, a strong preference is placed on protecting free speech, as guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution. For example, in the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, where the New York Times published an ad by civil rights activists criticizing the Montgomery, Alabama, police’s treatment of protestors, containing some inaccuracies. Police Commissioner L.B. Sullivan, claiming the ad defamed him, won a libel case against the Times in Alabama courts. The New York Times appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the ad’s content was protected under the First Amendment and not intended to harm Sullivan’s reputation. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the New York Times, establishing that the First Amendment protects the publication of statements, even if inaccuracies exist. The Court introduced the standard that a public official claiming libel must prove the statement was made with actual malice, meaning with knowledge of its falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth. This decision emphasized that vigorous debate about government and public affairs is protected under the First Amendment, even if such debate includes vehement criticism and mistakes. The ruling extended First Amendment protections to the press, significantly impacting how libel and defamation are approached legally, particularly in cases involving public figures and officials. In a 2015 Time magazine survey involving over 50 law professors, this decision was named the best Supreme Court decision since 1960 by both Owen Fiss of Yale and Steven Shiffrin of Cornell.