These practices bring back to the forefront a constitutional dilemma regarding the limits of individuals' freedom to comment on facts and events and express their personal opinions about them, whether stemming from intellectual, political, or religious convictions, and the extent to which the exercise of this right is linked to protecting social peace. The principle is that differences in viewpoints, no matter how intense or contrary to prevailing trends, do not lose their legal protection as long as they remain within the framework of legitimate expression and do not turn into incitement to hatred, extremism, or violence.
Here, the importance of balancing individual rights and freedoms with collective interests emerges. Protecting the unity of society may require imposing legal restrictions on certain forms of expression, provided they are necessary and proportionate to the danger to be avoided, and do not extend to confiscating legitimate opinions simply because they differ from official or societal positions. When the exercise of one freedom conflicts with the protection of society's security and safety, it becomes necessary to prioritize the collective interest to the extent required to avert public harm.
While Article "15" of the Jordanian Constitution has guaranteed freedom of opinion and expression within the limits of the law, Article "6" considers the defense of the homeland, its land, the unity of its people, and the preservation of social peace a sacred duty for every Jordanian, and obligates the state to ensure tranquility for all Jordanians. It is understood from combining these provisions that the protection of national unity is not merely a social consideration, but an interest with a constitutional basis that must be observed when regulating all individual rights and freedoms.
This approach has been reinforced in some comparative legislation, most notably Federal Decree-Law No. "34" of 2023 regarding combating discrimination, hatred, and extremism in the United Arab Emirates, Article "3" of which stipulates that freedom of opinion and expression may not be invoked to commit any statement or act that would incite contempt for religions or infringe upon them. This text confirms that freedom of expression cannot serve as a basis for justifying practices that involve incitement against religions or insulting them.
At the judicial level, the Jordanian judiciary previously dealt with the conflict of rights and interests in the 2019 teachers' strike case, when the Administrative Court issued an urgent decision to temporarily suspend the strike for fear of irreparable damage. This decision is consistent with a legal trend previously affirmed by the Special Bureau for the Interpretation of Laws in 2014, when it considered the teachers' strike harmful to the students' right to education, emphasizing the necessity for teachers to follow legitimate means to demand their rights.
In comparative jurisprudence, the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt has established that different opinions enjoy protection even if others oppose them, and that restricting expression merely for its content contradicts the requirements of public dialogue. However, it excluded from this protection statements that incite the use of force, provoke aggression, and harm others, as they exceed the scope of legitimate expression of opinion.
Internationally, Article "19" of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permitted the restriction of freedom of expression by law and for necessary reasons, including the protection of the rights of others and the preservation of public order, while Article "20" mandated the prohibition of any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.
Protecting social peace does not mean preventing citizens from discussing national events or expressing their personal and religious positions regarding them, but rather requires distinguishing between legitimate disagreement and legally prohibited incitement. National unity is not achieved by silencing dissenting opinions, but by safeguarding the right to differ and confronting discourse that turns religious and intellectual diversity into a tool for fabricating violence and hatred.
* Professor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Jordan
