The Writers Voice
The World's
Favourite Literary Website
Freedom of Speech
by
Ehsan Elahi Ehsan
Freedom of speech is considered a social value in the modern liberal
democracies. It is an integral concept of freedom in general. Freedom of speech
does not accept any kind of censorship. The right to freedom of speech has been
promulgated under various international laws and by various human rights
organizations. This is, however, not implemented in various countries in its
totality. The right of freedom of expression is usually termed as freedom of
speech. The freedom is speech, in its true implication is not restricted to
verbal expression but to any way of expression by which an idea or ideas of a
person is freely conveyed to others. It expanded to any act of seeking,
receiving and imparting information or ideas regardless of the medium used.
This right to freedom of expression is not, however, absolute. The governments
may be coming out with their prohibitions when they think that certain types of
expression are damaging types of expression. Generally there are three parts
tests for these expressions:
(a) They must be provided by law
(b) Pursue an aim recognized as legitimate and
(c) Be necessary for the accomplishment of aim.
When we come to the accomplishment of aim, we are already in the mire. How these
aims can be judged as legitimate? These legitimate aims are usually considered
to be (a) the protection of the rights and reputations of others which means
protection of defamation of other, (b) protection of national security and
public order, and (c) protection of health and moral.
It is noteworthy that freedom of expression is subservient to the accepted
morals; morals of one’s own nation and morals of others. In other words, it can
be said that every right is connected with some responsibility. So is the case
with the freedom of speech. If the freedom of speech is made use of without
taking into account the responsibility connected with it, that freedom of speech
is changed into unbridled freedom of speech and may breed into it numerous
problems for which the whole humanity or majority of it is to suffer. In spite
of these restrictions, the importance of speech cannot be ignored. In the third
world countries, where there is little or no freedom of speech, the conditions
become more deteriorating rather than improving. The reasons for this
suppression of the freedom of speech can be many. Amongst the most prominent is
the unrepresentative governments, or the governments lacking real democratic
spirit. By the freedom of speech such governments fear that their weaknesses
would come to limelight and their false propaganda of being popular with the
public, would be exposed. Under such governments, the societies of those nations
begin to stagger. Education and good conduct is crushed, and coarseness in
thought, speech and manners begins to prevail. This is the point, which is
exploited by the west especially in the case of the Muslim countries, and after
intervals, we see that the Muslim countries are mocked and ridiculed under one
pretext or the other. The problem begins to turn into a serious one when,
instead of conditions prevailing in these countries, the faith of the Muslims,
their religion, their holy book and their Holy Prophet are made the target of
this ridicule. The real problem is not pin- pointed, rather it is evaded and the
two civilizations; the western and the Muslim are brought to a point of
collision. If West needs to point out, at any rate, it must point out to the
real problem instead of deviating it to some other directions which brings no
positive result for the West, the third world generally and the Muslim world
particularly.
It is not only the govt. that makes people hesitant to free speech or freedom of
expression but also the society itself. When an individual expresses an
unpopular idea or opinion, the pressure of the society comes into action in
those countries that are not enjoying liberal democracies. Such a person fears
the hatred and even the violent reaction of the community. Even the civil
liberty of such a person is threatened.
The trouble that is being created in the present times, in the context of
western freedom of speech concept, is its over lapping. Any kind of
irresponsible statement or expression in any way is given the label of ‘the
right of freedom of speech’. Nobody seems inclined to think what are or would be
the consequences of such an irresponsible statement or expression. It is not
taken into account that the values implicit in the various justifications for
free speech may not apply equally strongly to all kinds of speech in all
circumstances.
No doubt, the freedom of speech is essential to nourish a democratic society but
certain restrictions on freedom of speech may be compatible with democracy or
even necessary to protect it. For example, restriction on the freedom of speech
which supports the Nazi ideas.
A strong argument in support of the freedom of speech is given that it helps the
discovery of truth. But, the discovery of truth cannot be made visible unless
the thought gets itself accepted in the competition of the market of ideas. When
the two levels are different, one based on ideas and the other based on
emotions, there is little possibility that truth would be discovered. This is
especially true when the faith of a community is attacked, the reason is
sacrificed on the altar of ill will and bad intention. In such a case, ill will
and bad intention come into lime -light and reason is given a secondary
position. There cannot be any possibility of a good or positive out come. In
such conditions it is noted that free speech or reason has been used only as an
instrument. The real motive is the expression of ill will and bad intention. As
a result, the ideas are drowned in the turmoil and society damaged rather than
benefited. Any sort of free speech which is not intended to discover a truth or
develop understanding, comes into the category of unbridled freedom of speech
and is not to be treated as an exercise of the right of freedom of speech.
Society is a large scaled academic seminar and anything which is expressed
odiously, mischievously and proactively would invite a violent and serious
reaction. Such a freedom of speech must be condemned because it does not
contribute anything in the progress of human society. The right of freedom of
speech has been given and praised because it contributes positively to discover
truth and develop better understanding among the human beings. If it does not
fulfill this high aim, it is the misuse of the right of freedom of speech. This
implies that there is always the need for standard conduct and interaction
including some degree of mutual respect. Such an attitude will limit the kinds
of speech that are justifiably protected.
Freedom of speech is not an absolute value. It is subject to rational inquiry.
No doubt, there can be a difference of opinion on rational inquiry itself, but
the truth, after discussion, dialogue and reaction, soon comes out and it is
known to every one what was the real intention behind for which the instrument
of freedom of speech has been used. All the unpopular ideas expressed are not
un-welcomed. People embrace and respect those ideas that are positive in their
norm, which produce good and healthy effect on human society instead of creating
hatred and disgust. So the offensive and insulting speech must not be given
shelter under the umbrella of freedom of speech.
If the freedom of speech is an essential aspect of person-hood and autonomy then
a (political) protest is also a form of self-definition, self-fulfillment, or
self realization, even if the protesters believe the protest to be futile. If on
the one hand we plead so much for freedom of speech of an individual, howsoever
his speech or expression may be damaging to others, then what is the rationale
of protesting against the protesters. If, their expressions are considered
dangerous against us, or we blame their threatening language, it means we are
the judges to decide about their freedom of expression. Now this is a
paradoxical situation created by us. We defend the originator of the speech or
expression (even the mischievous one) on the basis of his right of freedom of
speech or action, and on the other hand we are not ready to give the same right
to the protesters. In the first case we act as pleaders and in the second case,
we act as judges.
The critics of the right of self expression argue that there is no inherent
reason to find speech to be fundamental right compared with countless other
activities that might be regarded as a part of autonomy or that could advance
self fulfillment.
If we ponder deeply, we find that the freedom of speech is integral to
tolerance. Many problems are occuring in human society due to lack of or absence
of tolerance. That is the reason why some people feel that tolerance should be
made the basic value in society. This is the only value which can help us
control those feelings which are evoked by a host of social encounters. Freedom
of speech remains of no value if it does not help to shape the intellectual
character of the society. This claim is to say that tolerance is a desirable, if
not essential, value, and that protecting unpopular speech is itself an act of
tolerance. Such a tolerance serves as a model that that encourages more
tolerance through society.
The protesters who have been victimized by the expression of ill will and bad
intention are blamed to use threatening words like “kill, kill” and they are
considered a danger to the peace but when it comes to a highly responsible
political leader giving an official statement that “nobody is immune from their
targeted killing” we ignore it altogether. This is a paradoxical attitude which
we frequently adopt.
To say that the West enjoys full freedom of speech is not altogether true. In
the UK, Parliament passed the “Serious Organized Crime and Police Act” in 2005
banning protest without permit within 1km of Parliament. The first convict under
the act was in December 2005, when Maya Evans was convicted for reading the
names of British soldiers and Iraqi civilian killed in Iraq, was under the
‘Conotaph” in October, without police permission. In Italy the media Tycoon
Silvio Berluscom used censorship by stopping the Satirical Raiot Series, from
Sabina Guzzanti on RAI television by arguing that they were vulgar and full of
disrespect to the government. Sabina Guzzanti went to court to proceed with the
show and won the case. However the Govt and the RAI refused to follow the court
order and the show never went on air again.
The term ‘Freedom of Speech’ or Freedom of Expression’ is being frequently
referred to in the context of the cartoons insulting the Holy prophet of the
Muslims. It is a strange situation that the originator/s of this mischief are
being defended and the protesters are being blamed for disturbing peace. Fingers
are pointed towards them that they are using threatening words, burning the
flags and so on. Such an action on the part of the protesters is no doubt
condemnable but the more serious threat to peace is the defense being provided
to the mischief players and they are being justified on the pretext of the
freedom of speech or the freedom of expression. Such a situation is comparable
to that one when some youngsters are blamed to pelt stones on that helicopter
which came to bombard them. Actually the issue is certainly not that of freedom
of expression. The cartoon crisis erupted due to double standards, recurring
pattern of Islam phobia and violation of European laws pertaining to racism and
religious discrimination. The Western values, regarding religious pluralism and
rejecting racism and negative profiling on the basis of religion and ethnic
origin are respected every where. These values, however, were willfully violated
in cartoons in the Danish newspaper and other European newspapers. If the West
expects Muslims to respect Western values, like the Freedom of Speech and
freedom of expression, Muslims too, at the very least, expected reciprocity and
respect for Islamic values. And the core of Islamic value is the sanctity of the
persona of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) on which there is complete unanimity
of opinion among all Muslims across the board.
Critique this work
Click on the book to leave a comment about this work
