Category: Freedom

Fahrenheit 451 And The Count Of Monte Cristo: Freedom Inside Of A Prison

One of the most compelling aspects of a story is the rebirth of a character. Rebirth is often compared to the Phoenix, the mythical bird that would burn itself up and then experience rebirth from the ashes of that same fire. Ray Bradbury, the author of Fahrenheit 451, used the comparison of the Phoenix several times throughout the novel to describe the main character Guy Montag and the repressive society that he resided in. This novel is an example of science fiction and is one of the many novels in this genre of writing that uses some form of the Phoenix. Alexandre Dumas, author of The Count of Monte Cristo, does not definitively use the Phoenix comparison in the novel, but readers can pick up on it throughout the novel as the story tells of the main character development of Edmond Dantés. The novel is an example of historical fiction and is based on real newspaper articles that Dumas read. Both novels include the main character being inside of a prison, a literal prison in the case of Dantés, and in the eyes of Montag, his society was his prison. Both characters went through massive changes in personality, and while both were trapped, Edmond and Montag’s different prisons brought them freedom.

Neither Edmond or Montag were put in prison by choice. Edmond was told that he was going to be let go, and was then carted off to the Chateau d’if for fourteen years. Montag was born into a brainwashed society where almost no citizen disagreed with the rules of their repressive government. Edmond went through a cycle while in the prison, he first turned to God and waited and hoped for the future, ‘Dantes fell on his knees and prayed earnestly. The door closed, but this time a fresh inmate was left with Dantés. Hope’ (Dumas, 99). Montag was born into his repressive society. A society that made citizens feel perfectly happy to sit in front of screens all day and being told what to think so that they do not have to think for themselves. When Montag is finally exposed to a new world of thought, he meets up with an old friend named Faber. Both Montag and Faber start trying to come up with ways to start getting rid of the regime. “ I feel alive for the first time in years,” said Faber. “ I feel I’m doing what I should have done a lifetime ago. For a little while, I’m not afraid.” (Bradbury, 125). Both respective prisons did their best to drain lifelike qualities from their inhabitants. These are the first of the many events that set off the changes in both Edmond and Montag.

Montag and Edmond were somewhat oblivious to the world around them.

Montag was working as a fireman, a fireman whose job it was to burn books. The first line of Fahrenheit 451 is “It was a pleasure to burn.” (Bradbury, 1). This is a society that tells its people what they should think and know. One person is not smarter than the rest, one person is not superior. Because of the way of this regime, books had been banned. The radical ideas and different views on government would make it too easy to have people forming ideas and thoughts for themselves. Montag had grown up knowing that in his society, books were illegal. So for him, he was just helping rid the public of what he thought was a harmful substance. “We know all the damn silly things we’ve done for 1,000 years and as long as we know that and have it around where we can see it, someday we’ll stop making goddam funeral pyres and jumping in the middle of them.” (Bradbury, 156). Edmond did not come from a wealthy family, he was illiterate, but had a very kind and helpful personality. While he was on the Island of Elba, exiled Napoleon Bonaparte asked Edmond to deliver a letter to a friend back in Marseilles. Unknowing what the letter contained, Edmond agreed. Not long after his arrival in Marseilles, Edmond was arrested and sent to trial. At the conclusion of his trial with Chief Prosecutor Gérard de Villefort, Edmond was told that he was going to be released, he was taken without knowing why to the Chateau d’if Prison. Upon his arrival at the prison, Edmond was told that he was sentenced for treason and for having communications with Napoleon Bonaparte. After years of being in the prison, he wasn’t so naive and was determined to seek revenge on his enemies who had put him in the prison wrongfully. “And now,” said the unknown, “farewell kindness, humanity, and gratitude! Farewell to all the feeling that expand the heart! I have been Heaven’s substitute to recompense the good- now the god of vengeance yields me his power to punish the wicked!” (Dumas, 251).

After being put into their respective prisons, Montag and Edmond both had someone who changed their way of thinking.

Montag met Clarisse who showed him a new side to the world that he had come to know. She took the time to slow down to contemplate the meaning of life, and everything in it. This led to Montag stealing books from the houses that he was burning for his job. The two books that the reader hears the most about is the Book of Ecclesiastes and the Book of Revelation. The Book of Ecclesiastes teaches the reader about living your life and doing what is right for the greater good of society. The Book of Revelation is about a member of a society who was not accepted and was different. “Every time he burnt himself up he sprang from the ashes, he got himself born all over again. And it looks like we’re doing the same thing.” (Bradbury,156). Montag could relate to the Book of Revelation, as he felt out of place after he started stealing the books, and The Book of Ecclesiastes was a sort of call to action to Montag. Meanwhile, off the coast of Marseilles in the Chateau d’if, Edmond, in secret, had gotten to know a fellow prison inmate named Abbé Faria. Edmond agreed to help the Priest dig secret tunnels to escape the prison, in exchange to learn how to read, write, and other useful skills for when he got back to Marseilles. The Priest also helped Edmond make the connection between why he was sent to the prison and who sent him there. After bridging all of the gaps and missing pieces, Edmond turns to devote his free time to another subject, revenge. Revenge against everyone who was a part of the conspiracy of sending his to the prison. With both of these characters, they had to go through the stated major turning points within their prisons in order to finally get some peace of mind.

Both characters had to come to the realization that their prisons had to become a part of their personality development. Montag would have remained a fireman, and continued to burn books, and within those books, the knowledge that comes with them. Instead he became a part of a smaller group that wanted to protect the books. Montag committed the Book of Ecclesiastes to memory. It was his job to remember it, so it could be passed down through the age without books, the group was working towards a new and reformed society. As for Edmond, after he escaped the Chateau d’if, he continued on with his plot of revenge, that lasted years. He gave back to everyone who was kind to him in the years prior to his fourteen years in the prison anonymously. After using years of his life to enact his revenge, he finally got to be at peace with himself. “We must have felt what it is to die, Morrel, that we may appreciate the enjoyments of life. Live, then, and be happy, beloved children of my heart! And never forget that until the day when God will deign to reveal the future to man and all human wisdom is contained in these two words: “Wait” and “hope.” (Dumas, 1065).

Should we, in Today’s World, Accept Less Freedom in Return for More Security?

Freedom and security are essential in a country and at personal level since they influence productivity. In today’s world, we should not accept less freedom in return for more security instead allows a balance between the two. This is because people ought to reap the benefits of liberty and security such as economic and intellectual diversities, and minority protection from exploitation by the majority. Conflicts in most cases threaten freedom and security, and there ought to be strategies to resolve conflicts in today`s world. For instances in states already in wars that threaten security, withdrawal of military forces and ways to resolve conflict are critical, but strategies ought to be objective in order not to rob off liberty as a disadvantage of inability to pursue security. A balance between freedom and security is essential since there can`t be freedom without security nor true security without liberty.

Causes that Threatens Freedom in Today’s World

One reason that endangers a person’s freedom of expression is fear to speak honestly and freely on particular issues. For instance, issues that subject a specific group as evil denies people the freedom of expression in the fear that the targeted group will react for revenge. Fear denies liberty. Another cause that denies freedom is the failure to uphold modern ideologies such as multiculturalism, pacifism and moral equivalence (Hanson, 2008). Multiculturalism encompasses that all cultures and racial groups have equal opportunities and rights, pacifism holds that peaceful relations should govern human and seek ways to resolve conflicts, while moral equivalence holds that there should be a moral understanding between two conflicting societies. The modern ideologists blame the western cultures of radical egalitarianism on freedom of expression. Thus failure to uphold the modern ideologies in today’s world denies freedom. In the current world of capitalism, there is the probability of unequal distribution of resources resulting in social stratification and division (Hanson,2008). Due to these structures, most individuals feel their freedom of equality is denied and engage in divisions either by race or state. To ensure fairness and reduce exploitation and oppression, Marxism assumptions of false consciousness can help solve inequality and enhance security.

Ways that can lead to a balance of freedom and security

Maintaining a balance between liberty and security is complex. Thus individuals should take personal responsibility to abide by the freedom available in ensuring a balance in security and freedom. This is because voluntary abandon to freedom may trigger enemies to react thus threatening the security. For instance, voluntary choice to abandon freedom of expression by a journalist, moviemaker to air or publish wayward information triggers the opponents to engage in wars threatening security. Also, the US government through the constitution should monitor the advocacy to obey authority at the expense of freedom to reasonable levels to offer citizens an opportunity to enjoy their liberty assured of their security.

Conclusion

Freedom and security are inseparable. In today`s world freedom should not be traded in preference of security; instead, there should be a balance between liberty and security. This is because such balance facilitates intellectual and economic diversities due to explorations and safety in economic activity. Also, a balance in freedom and security protects the minority group from exploitation by the majority. In the case of capitalists, a balance of freedom and security ensures the workers are protected and exercise their liberty at work. Among the cause that threatens freedom is fear, modern ideologies. However, since maintaining a balance between freedom and security is complex individual ought to take personal responsibility of abiding by the liberty available to avoid reactions that may threaten security. Also, the US government ought to moderate the level of trading a person’s freedom in preference to security. A balance between liberty and security is vital in today`s world.

Freedom Vs Security: Analytical Essay

The problem of reliance on something more powerful in order to achieve individual security.

In this essay, I aim to outline Hobbes’s account of the state of nature, as well as evaluate it as a theory to see how it has affected the current climate of modern politics and the benefits it has provided by giving us societal security and freedom. This essay will also show how Hobbes believes society`s state of nature can transition into a modern political state through the collective surrendering of certain rights such as the rights that we are entitled to anything and everything that furthers our individual security. The second part of this essay will look at the Effect on our individual freedoms from ascending from the state of nature to a modern political state. The problem is that by surrendering the right to acquire your own security, the state has all the power, and no one is strong enough to stand up to them if they abuse this power. And also, the fact that this security is achieved by limiting the freedom (laws), of all those who are part of the state.

Hobbes’s concept of the state of nature that he proposed in the Leviathan was defined as a condition of war, without the creation of a civil society he suggested that there would be a war where every man is the enemy to every man, as every man would be in constant fear of another. Hobbes bases his assumption of human nature around the absence of a political society such as a government; where no laws or rules are present (except that of the natural law In which the powerful prey on the weak to survive) to prevent one an individual from acting. This condition creates a society Hobbes stated that an individual`s natural condition is seen ultimately as one, with no concerns of morality each is driven by a desire to amass greater and greater power to protect one`s own security from others who are also equally powerful. This instinctual drive cannot be restrained due to the lack of an overarching authority in society, and the fact that there are no rules preventing them from taking action. Thus, Hobbes assumes that each human is continuously seeking to destroy the other in pursuit of reputation and self-preservation, and the acquisition of more power. This ultimately leads to life being nasty, brutish, and short (Hobbes, 1982). filled with individuals living in constant fear which necessarily leads to conflict. This is conflict born out of the desire to gain power and ultimately security for the individual. In the state of nature, there is no overarching overlord who seeks to protect you, you have to gain your own security. This is achieved by amassing more and more power whilst eliminating the competition. Hobbes Outlines that there are 3 key main elements that characterize the state of nature: glory, competition, and diffidence. These are known as the causes of quarrels. We are primarily concerned with our own safety and Hill (2006 pg. 134) and these three elements lead to perpetual war.

There is an objection to Hobbe`s theory, of the state of nature put forward by Locke. It puts forward that Being in a state of nature doesn`t necessarily mean it is also a state of conflict, as we bring people into our spheres of influence and power all the time (wives, children, etc), and if it were a state of perpetual conflict between all individuals then we would be unable to this. Locke states, impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another (sec. 6). To Locke all men are born equal, with no more power than the man next to him, and that this power will not lead to a constant conflict between individuals. Hobbes reasons that because all men are created equal as well but they have a restless desire for power which means that endeavor to destroy, or subdue one another, if one possesses a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united, to dispossess, and deprive him of his life or liberty. And the invader is in the like danger of another. But is this the correct way to view the state of nature? Or should Locke`s view on the state of nature be viewed as the correct way, saying that we don`t intrinsically want to be in conflict with others? And we don`t need to be in conflict with others as the ability to share your security and freedoms with someone else shows that there can be cooperation and peace within the state of nature In conclusion Hobbes`s state of nature might not be a true account of what the state of nature would actually be like for individuals living within it. That is the idea that it is a state of war,

Hobbe`s view on the state of nature is one of freedom. Whereas his view of the modern political state shows that he believes that we lack freedom. Describing the fundamental differences between both stages should go a long way toward explaining the differing concepts of freedom that arise in both. As we have seen Hobbe`s analysis of human nature is a pessimistic one, in which we are all selfish and devoid of morality if it is not being enforced on us. He believes the man to be deeply self-interested and motivated by personal gain only. In the state of nature, this personal gain is security which can only be achieved through immoral and selfish actions with the intent to benefit the individual. In the state of nature, each individual is responsible for their own security. This means that by the very nature of man the state of nature is the individual striving to further their own individual security whilst trying to prevent others from doing the same and conflict ensues after. Hobbes also places the importance of freedom in his leviathan Freedom, for Hobbes, is mainly determined by the external shackles placed upon us by a state or Political system. Freedom in his view was then the lack of any obstacles or rules preventing one from achieving the intended action on the individual, Hobbes`s view of freedom was one in which freedom is based on the regulations imposed on one. The liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; doing anything which, in his own judgment and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means there unto (ch. 14, ¶1). An individual`s will is only free when there are no extraneous obstacles placed between the individual and his goals So, Hobbes believes that we find absolute freedom in the state of nature, but a consequence of this freedom is the risk of conflict with others who also have this freedom to do as they please. In this state of nature, we are free, that is free to act in a way that furthers us, individuals. Security of the individual is paramount in the state of nature, with this freedom everyone is entitled to further their own individual security. So unlike in the modern political state where we are reliant on another for our security, in the state of nature we are free from the fear of relinquishing our own ability to provide our individual security. In Modern times we are reliant on the state to use its power to protect us as individuals the problems that can arise from this are serious, if the state goes rouge, we as individuals have no way to combat it as we have no personal security or the freedom in which to acquire it. We are totally reliant on a state to be

Just and if it isn`t there is nothing the individuals can do. In conclusion, This is the problem that could arise as a result of surrounding the ability and freedom to acquire one`s own security.

In a modern political state, Hobbes`s view of freedom would deem that we actually have very little freedom. Hobbes believes that freedom is the ability to achieve a goal with no restriction of obstacles being designed to stop the individual from achieving their objective. In short in the modern political state, there are countless rules that prevent us from achieving our individual goals. Thus can we conclusively say that we are free in a modern state? To Hobbes`s no. Hobbes writes that in the state of nature, the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; doing anything which, in his own judgment and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means theirs unto (ch. 14, ¶1). An individual`s will is only free when there are no obstacles his will for self-preservation will be guided by his reason. Residing in the state of nature without extraneous obstacles signifies an individual`s convictions of freedom are endless.

But in the modern state, there are advantages to having limited freedoms. With the rules that are placed to restrict our freedom provide security for the whole society. By having these rules in society it is no longer a state of perpetual war as it is in the state of nature, by having these groups’ limited freedoms allows a community to be formed. Such a community can only be achieved by the individuals of the group surrendering their natural rights (the right to do whatever is necessary to provide security for an individual), it eliminates the fear of conflict. However, in the state of nature were we truly free to act? It is true that there was no government imposing rules on us but there were other factors that did. Thomas. J (2009) researched to conclude that men have always been under the influence of some degree of authority, and even when there has been no control exercised by the state it has been god that has inspired them to act in a kindly manner with generosity. Men have the natural habitual ability to live with other members of their society without becoming a social animals. He developed his ideas further and stated that even before the state emerged, fathers were seen as the dominant figure in households and ruled over their wives and children; families were seen as a unit of social organization. So even in the state of nature, we cannot say that we were truly free as there were other factors determining how we should act such as God. So Hobbe`s assumption that we are without influence or shackles in the state of nature is wrong.

Does New Media Give us More or Less Freedom?

In order to contest new media’s influence over freedom, first we must understand what is meant by the term. Freedom in general terms can be defined as the ability to do, think, and say as one pleases in the absence of unwarranted constraints and external coercion (Gammon, 2012). Freedom is also synonymous with liberty, which is a right protected under the Human Rights Act, 1998. However, as this question relates to new media, it would make sense to ground this essay in the perspective of internet freedom within the broader context of freedom itself. In this way, freedom is related to the blanket access of new media, the practice of free speech, the liberty to seek and publish information with editorial independence, and the general freedom to not be unduly restricted in access to the internet (Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, 2016). In light of this definition, this essay will argue that although new technology has afforded us the prospect of more freedom, both on and offline, it also propositions the potential of increased scrutiny and subjugation by the state and ruling classes. In this way, this question demands a more political perspective, particularly as the notion of internet freedom has become a highly contested concept in many prominent global political entities.

To address the comparison of “more” freedom, an evaluation of what new media brings compared to old media seems a logical starting point. The potential of new media lies in its socialising tools, fostering communication, activism and participation in a way that cannot be furthered through traditional media (Barnett, 1997). New media and social media have become almost synonymous terms with the meteoric rise of such platforms, which create ease and rapidity of communications between any persons in any part of the world, should they have access (Khan, 2018). New media also espouses engagement with vast audiences at effectively no expense. Firstly, in terms of communication, many social media sites have, as part of their allure, granted users the freedom to message any other persons both privately and securely, with featured security measures such as end-to-end encryption. The liberty to communicate instantaneously in this way with the promise of discretion is something unique to new media, thus inciting that people can enjoy more freedom to connect and express themselves as a result. The freedom of expression enjoyed through such digital media technologies further plays a catalytic part in the fortification of other human rights online, ensuring further freedoms (Joyce, 2015). However, Joyce (2015), further argues that at an international political level, freedom and superintendence become juxtapositions. The procurement of internet freedom through user confidentiality creates political tension with cyber-security and counterterrorism measures. Technology companies and governments have conflicted over privacy safeguards for social media users, with state security foregrounding the argument for regulating internet freedom; yet, such security procedures jeopardize free speech and freedom from interference. Regardless of where states lie on the democratic spectrum, counterterrorism and data-mining measures imposed on digital media by various governing-bodies were projected to hinder freedoms on expression and privacy (Kelly et al., 2016). There is a genuine fear that states are using the façade of cyber-security for counterterrorism to spy on and control their populations. In some authoritarian regimes, governments exploited anti-terrorism laws, litigating users for commenting on issues of democracy, human rights, and belief (Kelly at al., 2016). These constraints of freedoms were not only present in authoritarian regimes, but democratic states also, with a report from democratic think-tank, Freedom House, in 2019, exhibiting that 40 out of 65 countries examined for internet freedom, had extensive social media surveillance programmes, with a view from governments to steadily erode such freedoms (Bowles, 2019). Therefore, internet freedom is not only tacit in its augmentation of human rights, but also paradoxically becomes an expression of state authority (Carr, 2013). However, this corrosion of freedom through excessive surveillance has a history preceding the 2019 report, with the former UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon (2014), stating that “surveillance programmes are becoming too aggressive”, thus endangering freedom. Supporting the evidence of a decline in internet freedom, intrusive surveillance measures have excelled in 2020, as the Covid-19 global pandemic has been used by states to justify the implementation of new observation technologies, which out of the context of the current pandemic, would be regarded as too invasive (Shahbaz and Funk, 2020). The utopian vision of new media affords us an extension of freedom of expression, communication and privacy, but, in reality, new media has evolved into a state surveillance tool that essentially diminishes freedom overall, rather than increase it.

Further to this, new media communication technologies have progressed to bypass certain surveillance measures, reinstating freedoms prohibited by such. The option of anonymity online for users, or the use of a VPN for encryption, intends to deliver a level of freedom in cyber-activity again. Anonymity and encryption can provide cover to protesters, activists, and those being actively supressed, as well as for personal safety, or speaking out on controversial issues (Torbet, 2020). So, in this way, anonymity safeguards freedom of expression. Although this is a way to bypass external regulation on new media, these circumventions also provide cover for anti-social actors participating in criminal behaviour, or a way for users to namelessly terrorise others (Carr, 2013). Social networks, such as the Dark Web, have also developed, catalysing the ability to remain anonymous and untraceable online. Such social networks have been instrumental in facilitating freedom from state repression, but have conversely been criticised for the role they play in the promotion of illicit undertakings (Gehl, 2014). This abets arguments for tougher cyber-security and hard-hitting surveillance measures, inciting ambiguity around the future of online anonymity.

New media innovatively proliferates opportunities for far-reaching global digital activism outside of the reach of traditional media, goading prospects of more ‘real-word’ freedom through socio-political change. Although the use of the internet does not directly and automatically correspond to political freedom, or to democracy, it is a powerful tool in freedom of expression, holding the conduct of state and non-state actors to account, for accessing and distributing information, and expediting active citizen participation (Joyce, 2015). There is potential in such freedoms to build democratic societies in ways unfathomable pre-new media. This can be categorised as an ability of new media to increase freedom for its users, as democracy is symbolic of institutionalised freedom, primarily characterised by its free and fair elections. Social media platforms have been significant in the sphere of contemporary political freedom, elevating individuals from being passive receivers of news and state affairs, to active contributors and broadcasters of information. Particularly in despotic societies, the expanding penetration of the internet and social media networks has enabled civic discussions and the spread of intelligence deemed contentious by some states, contesting corruption and government exploitation, facilitating transparency and freedom of access to information and protest. This rise in digital activism and an open information environment has led to palpable outcomes in many authoritarian, and democratic, nations, demonstrating the real-world impact of internet advocacy in procuring and maintaining political freedoms (Kelly et al., 2016). However, such internet freedoms are being compromised by digital authoritarianism, election interference and the silencing of nonconformist opinions (Bowles, 2019). Worryingly, not just in oppressive regimes, governments are manipulating the lack of regulation around social media platforms, and are utilising them as vessels of political misrepresentation and societal jurisdiction (Shahbaz and Funk, 2019). This is compromising the potential of new media to advance societal freedoms, and when considering the extent to which unscrupulous state actors are influencing and monitoring social media platforms, solicits the conclusion that government exploitation of new media is subsiding our freedom. Through the participation culture of objectively unregulated new media platforms, the spread of fake news, inflammatory content, and disinformation has become a prodigious occurrence. Although not a new phenomenon, new media has permitted a mass misinformation culture unlike anything overseen by traditional media, with both regular citizens and leading officials contributing to this issue, polluting the freedom of the digital sphere. In a 2019 study assessing internet freedoms, Freedom House reported that around 93% of people living in states with upcoming elections encountered online election meddling from their own governing bodies, falsifying facts and manipulating opinions through propaganda and false information (Shahbaz and Funk, 2019). Governments have also been found to be sanctioning the use of automated bots and accounts online to spread partisan discourse, and to supress dissemination, especially in politically antagonistic times (Newton, 2018). Furthermore, the subdual of political opposition online by authorities has led to curbs on free speech, with the threat of prosecution lingering over those who do not conform to the establishments’ narrative. Such intimidation is feared to incite self-censorship on particular topics by those who face harsh penalties, depriving new media of the ability to champion freedom of expression and instigate revolutionary change (Kelly et al., 2016). The spread of fake news is a perturbing disturbance to online freedoms at any level of society, but when it is endorsed by governing bodies, it reiterates a culture of oppression and control which juxtapose the notion of freedom. The capacity of new media to proposition more freedom in this way, will seemingly always be limited to issues of internet penetration, and the autocratic inclination of a nation’s ruling elite (Tkacheva et al., 2013).

In a debate about the provision of freedom through new media, it is hard to ignore the research and evidence. Since 2010, think tank, Freedom House, conduct an annual investigation entitled ‘Freedom on the Net’, assessing internet freedom in a participating 65 countries, which overall includes 87% of the world’s internet consumers. Whilst the report details specific developments and obstructions to internet freedom, the overarching conclusion is that internet users have experienced overall depreciation in their rights and freedoms for a tenth successive year, with China being the worst for declining internet freedom for six years in a row (Shahbaz and Funk, 2020). Some arguments call for international governance in internet freedom to ensure the same standard of fair regulation is met globally (Joyce, 2015). However, it does beg the question of whether we would be truly free under an unelected governing body. Besides, the premise of a global governing entity would create whole new issues around the subjectivity and contested nature of what internet freedom is, who is entitled to it, and what constitutes a threat to such freedom (Carr, 2013). In Freedom House’s report, Shahbaz and Funk (2020) express the notable value for freedom, interaction and growth in having access to an “open, free, and global” internet and an unobstructed online platform. However, the internet is not so much “free” as it becomes controlled and regulated, and it is disputably not “global” as still internet penetration has not reached every corner of the earth, through geographical difficulties, funding gaps and exclusion of poorer nations, such as East Africa, from policy discourse due to the perpetuation of economically structured global hierarchies (Musalagani, 2013). The ranking system propagated by Freedom House on internet freedom levels, along with discernible disparities in worldwide internet penetration, indicates that some nations are ‘freer’ than others, notwithstanding empirical evidence that overall internet freedom continues on a global decline.

In conclusion, the short answer to this question would be that in sum of the arguments highlighted, new media gives us less freedom. New media cannot be said to emphatically provide more freedom, as inequality of access to new media is an impediment to freedom in and of itself. Furthermore, through surveillance, censorship, state oppression and fake news culture, it appears that the capabilities for more freedom that new media does instigate, are averted through exploitation of these same features. However, as the internet evolves, and new media with it, technologies are being developed to safeguard users’ privacy, data, and ultimately online freedom. But, although the tech-savvy dissidents push for ways to bypass curbs on freedom, bigger issues need to be addressed before we can categorically praise new media for its facility of more freedom for its users.

Freedom of Press as an Attribute of Democratic Society

Media and the press play a big role in the society, as citizens depend on it to know what goes on in the country. Freedom of expression is the major element for a democratic society to function marvelously. Thomas Jefferson the third president of the United States argue that “the only security of all is in a free press”. Author of the Declaration of Independence, the founding text of American democracy and one of the most important documents in the history of the world (Biography.com Editors 2014) , and one of the most important figures in the history of free press which publishes the opinions of citizens without government restriction by printing them. Freedom of press is the right given to everyone to speak about something that they feel was not justified. However we can see countries where the political regime says ‘Democratic’ when they do not give the chance to their citizens to express themselves. Many people want to be heard as they live in a democratic society where freedom of expression is accepted by society but there are barriers which unfortunately prevent them

The press is the bridge between the government and the citizen. They inform the population of the latest news and media is considered to be the fourth pillar of democracy. It is important that people get real information from the press, from real sources, because the media has a huge impact on public opinion thus in order to ensure that they have the right information, they even meet people who are concern to get true information. However, the press is not allowed to blackmail people, character assassination, or to indulge in any cheap sensationalize (Editorial Team 2020). The press has always helped people to stay in touch with the news regardless of the field. It has helped people to attend sports, business, governmental, academic and cultural activities even a thousand miles away, for example the 2018 football world cup hosted in France brought the whole world together in front of their TV and on social networks. Another recent example is Corona Virus who is affected the world people, through the press individual can know the number of people affected by the virus as journalist frequently publish update information and statistic. Howeever journalists can publish information that does not always please the government, like the Benalla case unveiled by Médiapart and which still annoys Emmanuel Macron a lot. This is freedom of the press (Axelbuisson)

Freedom of press have three essential role to play the freedom of circulation, publication and accessibility to all kind of information (Poulomi.S). But there are some country where freedom of expression is still an offense to the law. In China, North Korea or Iraq, one can be arrested, imprisoned or even executed for daring to say what one, if it is at odds with the ideas of the power. In the UK, journalists are subject to a large number of legal restrictions which make it difficult for them to express their point of view in their article, this mainly concerns anti-terrorist legislation, the law on contempt of court and other legal restrictions on judicial reports, the law on trust and the development of actions in the field of protection of privacy and data, intellectual property laws, legislation governing public order, intrusion, harassment, anti-discrimination and obscenity (Press Freedom). Victor krymzalov was found guilty and fined in Uzbekistan after slandering an article from Centrasia.ru and the publication was not signed (Arch.P 2013). According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, in Eritrea 28 journalists were imprisoned in late 2012 (Arch.P 2013). Often no charges are made public, although in some cases the crime plans to join other independent journalists who have fled the country (Arch.P 2013).

UNESCO made May 3 the international day of press freedom in order to remember the society that it is a human rights. Freedom of expression supports many other rights. It covers freedom of speech, of the press and gives people the opportunity to express themselves without the slightest fear of being punished by the authorities thus the media helps to exchange information for free in order for citizen to enrich their knowledge of what is going on around the world. The investigations carried out by the journalists carries very powerful interests because the public pay more attention to all the small details and that encourages less corruption and the violation of human rights (MLDI). In 2008 UNESCO concluded that ‘all the results confirm the importance of press freedom for development’, (Menelaos.A 2012). Freedom of expression is one of the most important values in the development of a democratic society this can be done through discussion forums, debates or only by expressing themselves on the information which they consider important and willing share it without any inconvenience and retaliation.

The press Censorship are rules which is establish by the government for the restriction and the prohibitions concerning all type of expression which can harm the image of the different sectors of the government. In our modern society, new technology is also a subject of censorship and control, and modern totalitarian regimes have engaged in the massive suppression of freedom of expression in these media (Jurgen.W 2013). In a country like the United States, people have the right to speak openly without fear because this is not the case in other countries. People have the right to know what is happening in government sectors with the help of the press which acts as a watchdog. As soon as something happens in the country they are immediately informed by the press and with new technology all information is communicated to the public in a fraction of a second. However, today’s journalists face many difficulties in society, for example their coverage is a risk, censorship or wrongdoing. The sources are not always the right one and the press is coming more and more important, but they are protected by several organizations such as the freedom of the press foundation or The American Civil Liberties which cited on their website ‘When press freedom is achieved, it is much more difficult to hold our government accountable when it makes mistakes or crosses boundaries, ‘ (Kacey.F 2017).

The press is important for democracy because it pays attention to all the actions of the authority and requests reports. By informing the institution and society of what is going on in government activities through facts and statistic the press act as a watchdog. They alert the public when there are problems at the level of the government for example corruption, illegal activities or news that will cause a sensation for the public, for example the safes of former Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam whose residence in Riverland had been investigated after the discovery of two safes filled with many rs2000 bank notes. The audience was able to count on the press for information, in particular for the counting of the banknotes which was done on several days. Without their announcement, we would have known nothing. Journalists are watchdogs whenever they file a request under the Freedom of Information Act, whenever they verify the facts of a speech, whenever they ask a difficult question to be asked (Jackson.B 2017).

The press is seen as the guardian of citizens’ rights. In democratic countries they have the right to express themselves freely whether it be written or verbal. this right is important for keeping the population informed and educating (K.K Ghai). By promoting press freedom, states and international organizations are acquiring a powerful tool for development (Yassine.I 2012)The free press is a tool for development at the same level as education or investment,the connection between the free press and different sector of the government is a powerful tool for the development of a country. the press not only gives the opportunity to speak to the public but there are many other factors which protect the population. Those factor are as follows;

• through open discussion the truth is discovered – if people are prevented from speaking, it means that society also prevents from finding and publishing accurate details and reliable opinions (Tanu.P 2014).
• Freedom of expression as an aspect of personal development and development – it is an essential element of human right for personal development and personal fulfillment. Not being allowed to speak, write and read hinders our personality and our growth. It helps an individual to flourish (Tanu.P 2014).
• To express political beliefs and attitudes – freedom of expression helps to express one’s beliefs and shows the political attitude that results in the benefit of society and government. It provides a mechanism by as2014).
• For active participation in democracy- Freedom of expression strengthens an individual’s ability to participate in decision-making and it is there to protect the right of all citizens to understand political issues so that they can participate in the proper functioning of democracy (Tanu.P 2014).

Free Press role, is to publish articles without restriction but behind this great work for a democratic society they must keep up with all the information, that is where the source comes from, the people involved, it must give appropriate accounts, relevant information need to e recorded. All press offices must keep a folder with all the activities they carried out, facts and liability. They must present and declare all activities carried out for the public interest. Several international organizations such as the internship freedom of expression or freedom house watch over the protection of the press because the press often accused of false information only to boost sales figures for the company. Many people think that the media go against professional standards and some of their actions require explanations from the press, obtain several information from several sources before protecting the news at the hearing and despite their precaution, and they are often accused of violating the professional code of ethics and it is for that he must always provide real facts and give and account to the reader.

To sum up, we can conclude that the freedom of the press is the most important characteristic in the democracy of today world. Thomas Jefferson stated that “When the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.” (Yassine.I 2012). Freedom of expression is a fundamental right, The Bill of Rights, the first amendment to take effect on December 15, 1791, help for the protection of the freedom of the press. Being a journalist seem so simple but beside this there is huge work which is done and every journalism has accepted to put there life in danger to provide good information to the citizen. The government has no right to try to prevent the public from speaking out 0because according to the first amendment, this is clearly against the law.

Edward Snowden: Curtailment of Freedom of Media by the Government

For a democracy, that too being the largest in the world, India’s media is in a horrendous state. With constant censorship and threats from the State and non-state actors, journalists in this country are enduring terrible times only to practice their profession. Freedom of speech and expression which is protected by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution has lost all of its significance. Our country has become a breeding ground for producing a restrained and a biased media which are owned by giant corporates and close aids of political leaders. Reporters without Borders which is an international NGO has rightly placed India at 140th position in its World Press Freedom Index. It is humiliating to note that it has dropped down 7 points from 2016 and countries like Afghanistan, Nepal and Palestine have a better index than us. Industrialists like Mukesh Ambani who is an ally with BJP own and control large sections of media houses and have full control over the news which reaches and has the power to influence millions of people. With 11 journalists murdered, 46 attacked and 27 booked in police cases last year, India is now marked as fifth on the list of countries that are unsafe for journalists.

Media is conceptualized as the ‘fourth estate’ of a true democratic and secular country. It must be allowed to function independently of the government to keep a check on the power of the State and objectively analyze and critique its actions to report to the people at large. From what I’ve been able to perceive, Indian media has increasingly gained recognition as an extension of the government. No one can trust the news which is reported to us. For a State to have such a high degree of control over media, democracy is bound to fail. The government gains so much power that it can escape media scrutiny and makes it easier for them to silence and punish any resistance or opposition by fabricating the truth.

People belonging to this profession revealed that they’re under extreme pressure from the government to serve its agenda. Any outsider would think ill of them for complying with the government’s wishes rather than collectively fighting back. But no one can understand the depth of the problem unless they’ve faced the same scenario. Receiving death and rape threats daily and living in a state of panic worrying for your life, one loses their sense of righteousness and does whatever they can to survive.

Some people continue to practice this profession with sincerity thereby risking their lives and those who succumb to the pressure and give in. Bobby Ghosh, an editor of The Hindustan Times, resigned from the post as the government was purportedly unhappy with a hate crime tracker in India which was launched under his leadership. Since his exit, the tracker has been pulled down. Arnab Goswami, an eminent TV news anchor who is known for his combative style and one of Modi’s ardent supporter was given immediate permission to launch Republic TV whereas at the same time Bloomberg Quint which is known to critical of Modi has been waiting for over two years to go on air. Gauri Lankesh who was a fearless advocate for marginalized and leftists’ causes was brutally murdered in her driveway in September 2017. Her death had sent shockwaves through the media. Her colleague Sudipto Mondal talked about her in an article and said, “I had known her for 10 years. All I ever did was argue with her. Our arguments had acquired an increasing intensity in the three years since Narendra Modi came to power and India turned toward majoritarianism and intolerance. An outspoken critic of Prime Minister Modi’s Hindu nationalist government, she said in her last editorial that spreading fake news had contributed to the success of Mr. Modi and his party.”

While most mainstream platforms in the US are so profoundly against President Donald Trump’s tenure that he routinely accuses them of being culprits of ‘fake news’ and character assassinations, journalists in India do not enjoy this kind of freedom of calling out our country’s leader. It is dangerous for a nation to have such a high degree of state control over media. Not only does it contribute to the advancement of an all-powerful government that can escape criticism, but it also makes it easier to silence and punish any opposition faced. Modi in his entire tenure has shockingly had only one press conference regarding the Pulwama attacks and yet didn’t take any questions from the journalists. He tweeted in April 2018 saying “I want this Government to be criticized. Criticism makes democracy strong.” But he should’ve mentioned that if you say anything against him or his ardent followers, you’ll end up facing harsh consequences. He has effectively cut off all communication with the media after coming to power in 2014, using social media platforms like Twitter and radio programs like Mann Ki Baat and fluffy staged interviews with pliant journalists to deliver his one way series of monologue. The long-simmering crisis of credibility in the Indian news media reached a boiling point when Article 370 which described Kashmir’s relationship with India for 70 years was revoked without taking Kashmiris’ point of view into consideration. There has been a complete communication blackout leaving people desperately trying to contact their loved ones stuck there with no clue if they are even alive or not. It has pushed Kashmir to a point of no return. There has been a devastating impact on the lives and welfare of the locals. But the media has painted a completely different picture. It is being reported that order has been established and everything has gone back to normal when the reality is the exact opposite.

Edward Snowden, a renowned public figure said, “When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are ruled by criminals.” Republic, ABP, Aaj Tak, etc. are not news channels, they are the pellet guns that are being used by the Indian government to blind its citizens. These are dark times we’re living in. News is being manipulated by the government for its selfish political gains and so much that millions of people are living under the illusion of everything being under control and in order. Some action needs to be taken before freedom of the press is completely compromised in this country. It’s time for the press of the largest democracy of the world to work hand-in-hand with the judiciary for the welfare of its people and to keep our nation’s democracy alive.

Handmaid’s Tale: Freedom or Safety?

Freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint, but what makes it delightful is the happiness that comes to one’s life. On the other hand, safety can make the one to feel safe at all times, but it cannot bring any joy to a person’s life when it has no freedom next to it. Freedom is important because it makes people to come up with new ideas that lead to a better place, such as the world we are living on. History has seen many bloody battles between nations over liberty which emphasizes its importance. While it is a very important factor in people’s lives, safety without freedom can be meaningless and exhausting.

In these days, many people around the world risk their own lives to immigrate from one country to another country; some may do it to have more security, and some may do it to have more freedom. When a corrupt person take over a nation, people from that country know there will be some restrictions in their lives; in order to escape from those restrictions, these people risk their lives by travelling many miles away from their homes to another country. After the establishment of communism in Cuba, many Cubans left their homes and travelled over water to United States, land of freedom. This shows how people are seeking for freedom that they are even ready to put their safety in danger because they know their life would have been miserable without being free. Lastly, citizens of some countries risk their lives by travelling to a new country just to be free.

In ‘Handmaid’s Tale’, women are living in a place where they do not have any right, and they have to obey everything that is being said to them. As government has taken their rights, women are just dreaming of a better living conditions even though the new government has provided safety for them. One of the handmaid, Offred, had been thinking about her former life with her family and how free she was: “I wanted to cry too because she reminded me. If only she wouldn’t eat half of them first, I said to Luke”(Atwood 55-56). This proves how the memory of the main character can be emotional for her when she sees she can never go back to that life again. In conclusion, women prefer to have freedom rather than having safety.

History has seen many battles between nations and people, and the main reason for those battles was liberty. The most important war in United States history is the American Revolution, a war that everyone knows about it from kids in elementary schools to seniors in care houses. While they knew Great Britain would protect them and provide safety for them against outside harms, such as France and Native Americans, Americans decided to be independent from Great Britain because they had no rights. The most well known quote from that time is, “taxation without representation” which means Americans at that time paid their taxes, but they did not have any right in the British government. Leading to the revolutionary war after the declare of independence, Americans fought over their liberties because they valued their freedom more than their safety. As a result, it can be said that people prefer to have freedom instead of safety.

Many governments try to provide safety to their citizens but in cost of taking their freedom; therefore, there have been many revolutions against these governments, and people have thrown their kings out. Freedom is the God given right when humans are born while safety is not. As a result, it can be said that people deserve to be free rather than safe.

The Importance of Freedom of Media

Every individual is making new innovative technologies with their brilliant ideas and imaginations from time to time. We, people, use one of these various inventions as our mediums in expressing one’s thoughts and in communicating with others—media. It is a more accessible channel in communication to deliver information and knowledge. In different types of media, there is a fundamental right to work openly in society without government interference, limitation, or censorship, including print, radio, television, and online media–freedom of media. This right had various cons and pros that would affect society and essential to the right of humans to speak freely amidst the democratic society.

According to a study, the Philippines is in a democratic state. The right to information may be a public right that will be worked out by any citizen, the supreme court ruled. The right to information that incorporates the opportunity to seek, receive, and deliver ideas and concepts of all sorts in any case of frontiers, either orally in a written or print form, within the frame of craftsmanship, or through any other media of choice. With this right, every individual can understand the government what their trying to give to society and the citizens they ruled. This right can build relationships between the government and the citizens of the community.

The right to freedom of opinion would prevent dictatorships where individuals can voice out their rights as citizens and part of society. The right to hold opinions without restrictions, and cannot be subjected to any particular case. It amplifies to any medium, including written and verbal communications and open dissent, broadcasting, artistic works, and commercial promoting–media. The proper is not outright. It carries with it extraordinary duties and may limit on a few grounds. For example, restrictions might relate to sifting access to definite web destinations, the urging of viciousness, or the classification of imaginative materials.

An Anti-terrorism bill becomes a law. It points out to ensure ‘Filipino citizens from terrible attacks and halt the nation from being a haven for extremists.” (House Committee on open order and safety panel Narcisco Bravo, 2020). It restricts the freedom of expression and opinions of individuals. Most of the citizens are against or opposing this law since cabinet officials can tag anyone who provokes or intimidates the government as terrorists and ordered to arrest them. This statement defines that whoever contradicts the government could be condemned as a terrorist, and many innocent individuals will get implicated and arrests as suspected terrorists. This concept can lead to a controlled society where citizens can not voice out their opinion and must careful and watch out with their words, statements, and opinion against the government because of the fear that is growing or build-up.

Therefore, It is essential to stay vigilant at all times. Freedom is not something that is guaranteed and is often fleeting. Hence, the media should also be attentive to one’s security. Moreover, the privilege of an individual must be observed by them. They must also have an eye on those in control to guarantee that they will not abuse it. To attain this, the individual’s power or right to act, speak, or think as one without hindrance or restraint is required.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent: The Dynamics Of Freedom In India Media

ABSTRACT

“No man can be grateful at cost of his honour, no women can be grateful at cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of his liberty”. – Daniel O Connell

Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right that goes to the very heart of individual liberty and freedom. While on the other hand, freedom of Media has been a topic of debating issue when it comes to involve the case of fair trial or the media trial. Thus the conflict between freedom of speech and expression and media trial raises questions marks that are painstakingly unanswerable. This article highlights the dynamics of freedom of press Vis-a Vis India Media.

INTRODUCTION

“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech”- Benjamin Franklin

To preserve the democratic way of life it is essential that people should have freedom to express their views and feelings known to the people at large. India being the democratic country follows the principle of rule of law which is ineradicable principle of the civilised society. “Freedom of speech and expression is the essential ingredient of democracy. The essence of freedom of speech and expression is the ability to think, evaluate, speak freely, right to express one’s own conviction and opinions freely by either words spoken orally or in writing.”

Lord Macaulay, the member of the British Parliament had referred Media as the fourth pillar of democracy. Media is one of the foundations of democratic society. The role of media is to keep the people updated with all such happening and scenario. But the media today is not what it was then. The role of the media has not only changed but in fact it has adamantly expanded and become a source which shapes people’s opinion. Many factors have been responsible which have made the media organisations comprising the journalistic ethics. “Media within the blink of an eye has the ability to turn villain into hero through the lens which viewers perceive the event and the sound of mic is enough to destroy or create person’s position in the society. There have been many prominent examples where Media has roused the public out of their usual apathy and forced the sluggish authorities to act. But on the other hand media has always been criticised on the occasions of conducting what is called a media trial, where media has portrays the accused guilty long before the court reaches a decision. The media being a public service is supposed to act as a watchdog of the society while judiciary on the other hand has to safeguard the rights of the citizens. Both judiciary and media are important for the progress of civil society and role of media and judiciary should be independent of each other.” But however, since past few years’ media has started interfering in the court proceeding and it started the concept of investigative journalism in order to mould the opinion of public.

IS THE FREEDOM OF MEDIA SUPPRESSING THE RULE OF LAW?

“Despite the significance of the print and electronic media in the present day it is not only desirable but the least that is expected of the persons at the helm of affairs in the field, to ensure that the trial by the media does not hamper fair investigation by the investigating agency and more importantly does not prejudice the right of defence of the accused in any manner whatsoever. It will amount to travesty of injustice if either of this causes impediments in the accepted judicious and fair investigation and trial. Presumption of innocence of an accused is a legal presumption and should not be destroyed at the very threshold through the process of media trial and that too when the investigation is pending. In that event it will be opposed to the basic rule of law and would impinge upon the protection granted to an accused under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It is essential for the dignity of the courts and is one of the cardinal principle of the rule of law in democratic society that the criticism or even the reporting particularly in sub judice matters must be subjected to check and balances so as not to interfere with the administration of justice.[footnoteRef:2]” [2: Manu Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi) (2010)6 S.C.C. 1 (India)]

The sudden death of the Bollywood Actor Sushant Singh Rajput sent shock waves through the country. This sudden death has brought negative result of the trial by media to light. Some of the media houses have dishonourably and openly declared Bollywood actors and actresses guilty, profusely ignoring the principle of criminal law, which is the principle of presumption of innocence. Thus it can be rightly said that media has reincarnated itself into a public court and it does not make any suggestive innuendos but direct allegations. Investigative journalism which is the new trend happens to create new problem when reporting on sensitive cases is done from a particular prism and to support a particular opinion or point of view.

Media is expected to provide impartial and unbiased facts rather than coming to any conclusion about any matter. With the increasing competitive marketing, media more often distorts the facts and sensationalize news stories to grab the attention of the general public. In R.K Anand v Delhi High Court[footnoteRef:3] the Supreme Court observed that, “The impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law. During high publicity cases, the media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to lynch a mob which not only makes only fair trial impossible but means that regardless of the trial, in public perception the accused is already held guilty and would not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny.” [3: R.K Anand v Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 (India)]

The primary objective of media is to serve people by dissenting correct information regarding matters concerning public interest. A free media acts as a watchdog over the government and is the sole channel to connect people with the government. The media has apparent influence on the minds of the people and can mould their decisions. It may lay down an agenda for the nation and pursue it. The media has an influential impact on society that it can on no ground lose sight of its duties and obligations towards people. So they are mandated to follow ethical guidelines ensuring the authenticity of the news an impartial but decent reporting. They are also required to take into account the cascading effect of their reporting on the society and concerned individual or institutions as the case may be.

WHAT SHALL BE THE DYNAMICS OF FREEDOM OF PRESS VIS-A- VIS INDIA MEDIA

“In the country like India we consider the rights of the press to be at such level of eminence that we do not want to curtail them; no statute can curtail them, but that does not mean there is complete lawlessness; there should be self regulations”- Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

The Indian Press Commission said that, “Democracy can thrive not only under the vigilant eye of its legislature, but also under the care and guidance of public opinion and the press is par excellence, the vehicle through which the opinion can become articulate”.

Freedom of press is fundamental to a democratic society. It seeks out and circulates news, information, opinions, and ideas and holds those in authority to account. The press provides the platform for a multiplicity of voices to be heard. At national, regional and local level it is the public watchdog, activist and guardian as well as educator, entertainer and contemporary chronicler. This freedom of press is not expressly mentioned anywhere in the constitution but it is impliedly referred in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution i.e. Freedom of speech and Expression. The freedom of press is regarded as a “Species of which freedom of expression is a genius.” Thus being only a right flowing from the freedom of speech the freedom of press in India stands on no higher footing than the freedom of speech of a citizen.

In Romesh Thapar v State of Madras[footnoteRef:4] it was observed that “the freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussions no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of the popular government is possible.” [4: Romesh Thapar v State of Madras A.I.R 1950 S.C.124 (India)]

Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v Assistant Commercial Tax Officer[footnoteRef:5] the Supreme Court observed that, “the democratic form of government itself demands its citizen’s active and intelligent participation in the affairs of the company. The public discussion with people participation is the basic feature and the rational process of democracy.” [5: Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (1994) 2 S.C.C. 434 (India)]

In LIC of India v Manubhai D Shah[footnoteRef:6], it was held that, “Every Citizen has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public. Freedom to air one’s view is the lifeline of any democratic institutions and any attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound death knell to democracy and would help usher in autocracy or dictatorship.” [6: LIC of India v Manubhai D Shah A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 171 (India)]

In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India[footnoteRef:7] Justice Bhagwati has highlighted on the importance of the Freedom of speech and expression as under; [7: Maneka Gandhi v Union of India A.I R 1978 S.C. 597]

“Democracy is based essentially on free debate and open discussions, for that are the only corrective of government action in a democratic setup. If democracy means government of the people, by the people it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to participate in the democratic process and in order to enable him to intelligently exercise his right of making choice, free and general discussion of pubic matters is absolutely essential.”

The Supreme Court of India has made emphasis with regard to the significance of maintaining freedom of press in a democratic society. “The media tends to serve the public interest by making them aware of the facts and happening by way of publications without which the general public cannot make responsible judgements. It is therefore the primary duties of the courts to uphold the said freedom and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with the freedom of the press contrary to the constitutional mandate.”[footnoteRef:8] [8: Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India A.I.R 1986 S.C.515]

CONCLUSION

Media must show conscious efforts towards responsibilities to the public which they should elevate by building public trust and confidence about their trustworthiness and should follow the ethics to assert its reliability beyond any speculation.

The importance of a free press and a strong media in a true democracy is undeniable. No democracy can work without an effective media in place. The media has lot of power and if this power is misused it can severely harm a nation. No external body can be set up to check the media professionals and ensure that they are not doing harm than good. Freedom should not be absolute and the rule of law ensures that nobody has arbitrary power applies to the media as well. There should be some reasonable restrictions on Media so that it does not infringe other’s right and court should be the one laying down the Lakshman Rekha on the Media that should not be crossed.

Essay on Freedom Vs Safety

Freedom of Speech Definition and Its Function

Freedom of speech is a set of laws and as for the definition “The freedom of expression is vital to our ability to convey opinions, convictions, and beliefs, and to meaningfully participate in democracy. The state may, however, ‘limit’ the freedom of expression on certain grounds, such as national security, public order, public health, and public morals” (Gunatilleke 2020). Clearly, freedom of speech seems very ethical when it comes to the value of human rights and it allows the voices of people to be heard. Nevertheless, when the given right of freedom is unbalanced, it can lead to misuse and abuse. The people having freedom of speech does not mean that they are free and protected from the consequences of their actions and words. Hernandez (2020) argued that “When being called out due to hateful rhetoric, people are not trying to promote censorship. Individuals are also entitled to not tolerate hateful rhetoric and say things against it. Individuals must remember that the First Amendment was created in order to encourage the flow of ideas and communication between people without government interference. The First Amendment does not protect individuals from being called out by others”. Authors who wrote articles for or against any statements have quite impressive points, but sometimes, they miss some important point and just straight move on to the conclusion. In the article “What trumps what? Free speech or public safety?” by Jacqueline Smetak, clarified that freedom of speech is a big threat and insulation to society by giving an example from US missionaries insulting Islam’s belief and prophet and how these people are freed from the court by their freedom of speech right. Here, her point was strong, especially when she gave an example of how people abuse their rights and start to babble and offend many others. However, concerning her title for the article, she did not mention anything good about freedom of speech and then she concluded her article. Not all people use freedom of speech to insult any religion, country, or culture. Some use it as a voice to express their dissatisfaction and abuse from authorities. For instance, in 2020, when a black guy was accidentally murdered by the local authorities in the US, the citizens started to protest and make a speech in public to prevent these kinds of horrible things and also, to get the murder punished as well. On the other hand, authors like Michael Gonchar do mention both ideas but do not really have a side to argue for. His approach was on the Law and he stated the First Amendment and how the government should not be interfering with the freedom right by limiting it. He has a strong statement that “The Supreme Court has determined that certain types of speech, such as fighting words, violent threats and misleading advertising, are of only “low” First Amendment value because they don’t contribute to a public discussion of ideas, and are therefore not protected” (Gonchar 2018)

CommunityPublic safety

“When public safety is discussed in the public sphere, it typically has been assumed to mean freedom from injury to one’s person, and to one’s property, in particular from violent crime or events. It is true that people do not feel safe and secure if they are threatened by violent injury. Indeed, protests against the police are grounded in the notion that the police themselves are causing just this sort of harm. Surely, though, being safe means far more than freedom from sudden, violent, physical harm. People also do not feel safe if they are forced to sleep on the streets, forage in trash cans for food, or face starvation. If they are lacking an education and cannot earn a living or find a job. They do not feel safe if they are confronting grievous illness, or if they face health care costs they cannot afford” (Friedman 2021). Community safety is about the prevention of dangers, insecurity, and verbal abuse. The protections come from the people forming a community to provide protection to the people within or even more.

Community safety vs. Freedom of speech

Besides freedom of speech expressing one’s voice, it can be as violent as hate speech and insulation. Community safety fights such actions and words for the victims. A community is a powerful group and it can regulate one’s life reluctant until at appoint when one’s life is under total control without any freedom. Both Community safety and freedom of speech do not have a conclusion on which one is right and which one is wrong.

In a nutshell, in writing, especially argumentative, always mention both pros and cons of our point and the opposing point to make our writing more logical, formal, and rich. Plus, not mentioning partaking in side and just writing some crucial facts can be an enhancement to any writing.