The paper will base on an attempt to bring the formal statement “there is no definition of freedom” to the realm of legal recognition and the disclosure of its legal concerns. Aware of the fact that a requirement of defining freedom can be overly unsound, just like an attempt to define a human being, we are drawn by the idea of summarizing these two requirements and putting them in the same plane. We could start from the attempt to recognize terms “human being” and “freedom” as synonyms, but we would bring ourselves to the blind side. Randomly speaking, terms “freedom” and “definition” are mutually exclusive and, to a light-minded opserver, this attempt can seem allogical in it’s essence and, at the very least, without logical connection between the terms and thus futile. But if we recognize the term “freedom” as the very possibility of autonomus and independent action, then the self-determination of a human being to be free can connotate an unconstrained and un-imprisioned human being. It has been established that the state of freedom is a birth wright of every selfconscious and reason-endowed human being, but also that every relation of an individual with a society is burdened with a certain degree of loss of the very same freedom. Following this path, we take upon ourselves the not-so-easy-task task to talk about the legal restrictions on freedom of expression in the public and the media as one of many aspects of freedom.