Author (s): Donii N., Kravchuk H.

Work place:

Donii N. Ye.

Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, professor,

professor of department of Economic and social disciplines,

Academy of State Penitentiary Service, Chernihiv, Ukraine

Kravchuk A.,

Grand PhD in Economic Sciences, Professor,

Professor of Economics and Social Disciplines Department,

Academy of the State Penitentiary Service,Chernihiv, Ukraine

Language: Ukrainian

Scientific Herald of Sivershchyna. Series: Education. Social and Behavioural Sciences 2019. № 2 (3): 55–70


The authors of the article assumed freedom of speech to be in fact a legal institution, enshrined in a large number of international and national legal acts. Freedom of speech is at the same time a strength and also a  weakness of a democratic state: on the one hand, it is a marker of the state of democracy, law in the state, and on the other, a filter of the capacity to curb permissiveness. Freedom of speech is at the same time a strength and weakness of a democratic state: on the one hand, it is a marker of the state of democracy, law in the state, and on the other, a litmus test of the capacity to restrain permissiveness. It is stated that openness of democratic social space for ideas is a bipolar factor, as it can provoke the sale of both useful and dangerous information. This is due to the fact that, in practice, the exercise of free speech is more multifaceted and complex than it seems, and therefore the conditions of its restriction are constantly discussed.

The aim of the article is to carry out a theoretical analysis of the concept of “freedom of speech” and to empirically study the appurtenance of persons aged 18 to 22, obtaining education at the Academy of the State Penitentiary Service to the restriction of freedom of speech.

Research results. It is stated that the freedom of speech of 88% of respondents is perceived as a right and value, the restriction of which is unacceptable. Only 12% of respondents believe that freedom of speech may be restricted and such actions may be motivated by the achievement of the following goals: reducing the volume of manipulation of citizens’ consciousness, stabilizing the social situation in Ukraine and improving the psychological health of citizens.

The conclusion is maid confirming that freedom of speech is a natural right of a person to express and convey information to others. Freedom of speech as a phenomenon is contradictory: it is a blessing, however, it can also have undesirable consequences, both for the individual and for the social space within which the individual exists. This is well recognized at the level of the state and social space.

Key words: information, human rights, freedom of speech, restricting freedom of speech, value, interrogation.


  1. Berlin, I. (2001), “Philosophy of Freedom”, Europe, New Literary Education, Moscow.
  2. The Bible or the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (1988), translated by Ohienko, I. from the Hebrew and Greek languages, Anniversary edition on the occasion of the Millennium of Christianity in Ukraine, 1537 p.
  3. Block, U. (2011), Sheep in wolf skins: in defense of the condemned, Socium, Chelyabinsk.
  4. Borisov, A. (2010), Large legal dictionary, Book World, Moscow.
  5. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted by the Resolution 217 A (III) of the UN General Assembly dated December 10, 1948, avaliable at: declhr.shtml (accessed 15.09.2019).
  6. Donii, N., Honcharenko, O., Kravchuk, G. (2018), “Non-freedom as a need: the paradox of people prone to relapse”, Human rights and freedoms and their protection in conditions of freedom, Chernihiv, Academy of the State Penitentiary Service, pp.8–11.
  7. Campbell, K. The World isSseriously Rethinking the Concept of «Freedom of Speech», avaliable at: https: // (accessed 15.09.2019).
  8. Constitution of Ukraine (1996), Adopted of June 28, 1996, No. 254k / 96-VR, avaliable at: (accessed 15.09.2019).
  9. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), Adopted by General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI) of December 16, 1966, avaliable at: conventions/pactpol.shtml (accessed 15.09.2019).
  10. “The Right to Freedom of Thought and Speech, to Free Expression of Their Views and Beliefs” (2003), Legal Encyclopedia, in Shemshuchenko, Yu. S.  (Ed.), Ukrainian Encyclopedia, Kyiv, Vol. 5, avaliable at: dumki_i_slova_na_vilne_virazhennya_svoyih_poglyadiv_i_perekonan (accessed 15.09.2019).
  11. Blaha, A. (2017), Freedom of expression in times of information warfare and armed conflict, in Martynenko, O. (Ed.), Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, Kyiv, 85 p.
  12. Titko, E. (2013), Lawful restriction of freedom of expression: experience of the European Court of Human Rights: dys. … kand. of Law: 12.00.12, NAS of Ukraine, Institute of State and Law Koretsky, V., Kyiv, NAS of Ukraine, Koretsky V. Institute of State and Law, 217 p.
  13. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Rome (1950), European Convention on Human Rights as amended: by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14 supplemented by Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 16, avaliable at: Convention_ENG.pdf (accessed 15.09.2019).
  14. Garson Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins, avaliable at: (accessed 15.09.2019).
  15. Free Speech (2019), Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, avaliable at:словарь/английский/free-speech (accessed 15.09.2019).

|Full text .pdf

©2024. Penitentiary academy of Ukraine