13 a. b. respect for the rights or reputations of others; or the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. 3. The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above, public entertainments may be subject by law to prior censorship for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence. 5. Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law. 57. The Inter-American Court has held that freedom of expression has an individual dimension and a social dimension. In its individual dimension, freedom of expression goes further than the theoretical recognition of the right to speak or write, as it also includes and cannot be separated from the right to use whatever medium is deemed appropriate to impart ideas and to have them reach as wide an 64 audience as possible. . Regarding the second dimension of the right to freedom of expression, the social element, the Court has established that freedom of expression is a way of exchanging ideas and information between persons; it includes the right to try to communicate one’s point of view to others, but it 65 also implies everyone’s right to receive other people’s opinions, information and news. 58. The social dimension of freedom of expression, that is, the right of the public to hear relevant information and opinions both to define their own life project and for participation in the political 66 process, constitutes an institutional guarantee that is necessary for the existence of a true democracy. Specifically, the Inter-American system has consistently recognized that the right of the public to have access to as many opinions or as much information as possible on matters of general interest is essential for individuals to be able to exert control over the administration of government, participate actively in 67 decision-making that affects them and, particularly, exercise their political rights. For these same reasons it has been asserted that States must create a legal framework that encourages, as opposed to inhibits or hampers a vigorous, plural and uninhibited discussion of all public affairs, even when it clashes with, is 64 Cfr. IA Ct of HR, Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Articles 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, par. 31, available in Spanish at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_05_esp.pdf and in English at: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/iachr/b_11_4e.htm 65 Cfr. IA Court of HR, Case of Herrera Ulloa Vs. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, par. 110, available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_107_esp.pdf; IA Ct. of HR, Case of Ricardo Canese Vs. Paraguay. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, par. 79, available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_111_esp.pdf; IA Ct. of HR, Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al) Vs. Chile. Merits, Repartions and Costs. Judgment February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, par. 66, available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/Seriec_73_esp.pdf. 66 Cfr. Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2009 Annual Report of the Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression, pg. 239, par. 13, available at: http://www.cidh.org/pdf%20files/RELEAnual%202009.pdf. 67 IA Ct. of HR. Case of Rios et al Vs. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, par. 105, available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_194_esp.pdf; IA Ct. of HR, Case of Perozo et al Vs. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, par. 116, available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_195_esp.pdf. Also see IA Ct. of HR, Case of Ricardo Canese Vs. Paraguay. Merits, Repartions and Costs. Judgment August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, par. 90, available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_111_esp.pdf. Also see Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2009 Annual Report of the Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression, pgs. 236-238, pars 6-10, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2009sp/RELE%20ESP%202009.pdf.