Become a Member for $9.99/month

On Jan. 26, the Hà Nội City Police temporarily detained five of eight individuals for disturbing public order. [1] According to the authorities, the group sexually harassed a woman and assaulted her companion during street celebrations following the victory of Việt Nam’s U23 national football team.

This arrest followed an earlier incident on Jan. 15, when the Investigation Police Agency of the Hà Nội City Police temporarily detained Lê Thị Hà to investigate alleged “disturbing public order.” [2] According to reports, Hà had gathered in front of the Central Office of the Communist Party to “hold up banners and lodge complaints in violation of regulations.”

Initially, these events seem unconnected. Football celebrations are generally embraced as displays of national pride . Conversely, citizens holding placards near government offices are typically labeled as “disturbances,” scenes authorities prefer to avoid. [3]

However, authorities will swiftly deploy administrative measures or criminal sanctions to halt any activity if it causes scuffles, traffic congestion, or social disruption. This clearly demonstrates how the state encourages specific forms of expression while simultaneously utilizing legal instruments to regulate, protect, and limit individual rights in practice.

Speech and Freedom of Expression

Street celebrations after football victories and public demonstrations both function as forms of speech. They encompass several key elements: content, such as opinions, ideas, and emotions; methods of expression, including speaking, writing, cheering, singing, and dancing; and the intentions of the participants, who desire others to know, understand, reflect, and discuss their message.

State authorities should protect and guarantee all such forms of speech, guided by both national law and the international legal commitments to which the country is a party.

Article 19, Clause 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966), which Việt Nam is a part of, states that everyone has the right to express themselves freely. This includes the freedom to look for, receive, and share information and ideas in any way they choose, whether by speaking, writing, creating art, or using any other form of media. [4]

Furthermore, Article 25 of the 2013 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Việt Nam states: “Citizens have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, access to information, assembly, association, and demonstration. The exercise of these rights shall be provided by law.” [5]

While freedom of expression is recognized in principle within the country’s highest legal documents, its practical exercise assumes many nuances, categories, and forms. Consequently, the authorities' perspective on freedom of expression in Việt Nam tends to vary and includes different layers of interpretation. The actual implementation of this right remains heavily dependent on specific legal provisions.

Content-based Laws and Content-neutral Laws

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

A foundational element of the First Amendment is the content-discrimination principle . [6] Under this doctrine, laws regulating speech are divided into two distinct categories:

Content-based laws: These regulations treat various forms of speech differently depending on their specific subject matter or message. To illustrate, banning protests that criticize the state while permitting demonstrations that support government policies constitutes a content-based restriction.

Content-neutral laws: These regulations do not target speech based on topic or content; instead, they apply broadly across all forms of expression. They regulate the manner of expression rather than its underlying substance. A standard example is limiting the use of loudspeakers after designated hours to maintain public order and protect the daily routines of residents.

In the United States, any law restricting speech based on its content must survive the strict scrutiny test , which mandates two requirements: [7]

The government must demonstrate a compelling interest—an exceptionally important reason—for the restriction, proving the expression in question would cause specific harms.

The restriction must be narrowly tailored to address that exact harm while permitting other forms of speech to continue.

Vietnamese Law in Relation to These Two Approaches

Vietnamese law currently lacks a clear distinction between content-based and content-neutral approaches. Instead, an examination of legal provisions in Việt Nam, particularly within criminal law, reveals a strong tendency toward content-based restrictions.

This is evident in Article 117 of the 2015 Penal Code, which criminalizes the act of “making, storing, distributing, or disseminating information, documents, or materials aimed at opposing the State of the Socialist Republic of Việt Nam.” Individuals found guilty under this statute face prison sentences ranging from five to twelve years.

Similarly, Article 331 of the same code addresses acts of “abusing the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of belief and religion, freedom of assembly, association, and other democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the State or the lawful rights and interests of organizations and individuals.”

A notable characteristic of Vietnamese law regarding freedom of expression is its highly general nature, which lacks clear quantitative and qualitative criteria. Broad and abstract concepts like “distortion,” “defamation,” “fabrication,” “causing public anxiety,” or “abusing democratic freedoms” remain undefined in implementing regulations.

Without specific legal standards to define the boundary between lawful expression and illegal conduct, legal interpretation relies almost entirely on the subjective assessments of law enforcement and judicial bodies, including investigative agencies, procuracies, and the courts.

This dependence poses a considerable risk of arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement, which ultimately contravenes the essential rule-of-law tenet that laws should be clear, transparent, and predictable.

Ngọc Mai wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on Feb. 05, 2026. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.

References: +

1. Baochinhphu.Vn. (2026, January 26). Tạm giữ hình sự 5 đối tượng gây rối tại hầm Kim Liên (Hà Nội). baochinhphu.vn . https://baochinhphu.vn/tam-giu-hinh-su-5-doi-tuong-gay-roi-tai-ham-kim-lien-ha-noi-102260126153833112.htm

2. Thạch Hãn. (2026, January 20). Kêu oan tại trụ sở đảng trước thềm Đại hội 14, một người dân bị tạm giữ hình sự . Luật Khoa tạp chí. https://luatkhoa.com/2026/01/keu-oan-tai-tru-so-dang-truoc-them-dai-hoi-14-mot-nguoi-dan-bi-tam-giu-hinh-su/

3. Minh, H. (2026, January 26). Nhìn lại hành trình đáng tự hào của U23 Việt Nam tại Vòng chung kết U23 châu Á 2026. Dân Tộc Và Phát Triển . https://dantocphattrien.vietnamnet.vn/nhin-lai-hanh-trinh-dang-tu-hao-cua-u23-viet-nam-tai-vong-chung-ket-u23-chau-a-2026-1769395793279.htm

4. United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

5. Thuvienphapluat.Vn. (2025, June 16). Hiến pháp 2013. THƯ VIỆN PHÁP LUẬT . https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Bo-may-hanh-chinh/Hien-phap-nam-2013-215627.aspx

6. See: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4850&context=caselrev 7. Team, E. (2025, May 22). Strict scrutiny. The Free Speech Center . https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/strict-scrutiny/