Freedom of Expression in Việt Nam – Part 5: Lessons from International Legal Frameworks

Lê Giang wrote this Vietnamese article, published in Luật Khoa Magazine on June 5, 2025.

While debates over freedom of expression in Việt Nam remain ongoing, many nations have enshrined this right in their foundational legal documents, from East Asia to Europe.

For instance, Article 11 in Taiwan’s 1947 Constitution affirms: “The people shall have freedom of speech, teaching, writing and publication” (人民有言論、講學、著作及出版之自由).

Taiwan has codified this constitutional provision through legislation, making freedom of expression an integral part of its public life and a cornerstone of its democratic development. This freedom is also balanced with legal responsibilities defined in the Criminal Code; Articles 309 and 310 criminalize defamation and insult with fines or imprisonment, while Article 153 prohibits speech that incites riots or disrupts public order.

Furthermore, Taiwan uses constitutional case law to validate the legality of any restriction placed upon rights. A prominent ruling, Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 509 (2000), established a critical standard: “Freedom of speech is a pillar of democratic society, and any restriction must meet the principles of necessity and proportionality.”

This commitment to detailed legal codification and judicial review serves to clarify the limits of free expression. As a result, Taiwan’s approach is consistent with international principles, particularly Article 19.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides for limitations that protect public order and the rights of others.

Germany approaches freedom of expression in a similar fashion, anchoring it in Article 5 of its Basic Law (Grundgesetz), which states: “Everyone shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures… Censorship shall not take place” (Eine Zensur findet nicht statt). The same article also specifies limitations on this right based on “general laws, provisions for the protection of youth, and the right to personal honor” (in den Vorschriften der allgemeinen Gesetze…), reflecting the spirit of Article 19.3 of the ICCPR; freedom of expression is not absolute and may be restricted to safeguard the rights of others, national security, or public order.

In Germany, freedom of expression is implemented through a highly specific and legally defensible framework that spans criminal law, civil law, and even dedicated social media legislation (NetzDG). The German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) serves as the legal backbone that provides clear articles to address abuses of free expression. For example, Article 130 criminalizes incitement to hatred and bans the advocacy of racial or ethnic discrimination. Articles 185 to 187 also protect personal honor from insult and defamation, while Article 86a prohibits the public display of Nazi symbols. 

To combat fake news and harmful online content, Germany passed the Network Enforcement Act (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz – NetzDG) in 2017, requiring major online platforms—like Facebook and X/Twitter—to remove illegal content within 24 hours of user reports. 

Both Germany and Taiwan share a core principle that can be glimpsed in their laws: freedom of expression cannot remain a merely symbolic declaration. It must be codified through a robust legal framework that regulates its exercise. Likewise, the state should both recognize this right and create a transparent, enforceable legal system or infrastructure that ensures the protection of freedom of expression.

In such systems, legally defined limitations are not seen as violations of the right but as the necessary conditions for it to function within a democratic society, thereby protecting others and maintaining public order in the spirit of ICCPR Article 19.

This international context raises fundamental questions about Việt Nam. Article 25 of the 2013 Constitution guarantees citizens' rights to freedom of expression, the press, and assembly, but qualifies them with the crucial phrase “as prescribed by law.” 

What exactly are these laws? Are they designed in such a way that enables these rights, or do they primarily function as instruments of restriction in Việt Nam?