Category: Freedom Of Speech

Here in Sri Lanka, the response to recent communal riots was to temporarily ban social media. An extra-ordinary move indeed. We should ask ourselves whether it was Facebook that caused the riots in 1915, the 1970s, the 1980s. Or is it a convenient excuse to stifle criticism of the Government’s handling of the crisis and to ignore the root causes of these issues? The question of hate speech legislation has been revived in Sri Lanka following recent communal tensions in the country. This represents an understandable reaction by the public to vitriolic rhetoric and violence from extremist segments of society. However, there is already an established range of speech laws in Sri Lanka. The incorporation of the ICCPR into domestic law, the speech provisions of the constitution and the penal code actually provide quite extensive legislative provisions towards speech. The issue is therefore not one of new legislation, but enforcement of existing ones. Unfortunately, the targeting of hate speech often results in nothing but a pyrrhic victory, whilst ignoring the root causes of many problems. It is open to significant abuse and serves as a useful tool for governments wishing to stifle criticism and distract from the real issues. It is for this reason that at this juncture where Sri Lanka is contemplating the direction of its policy towards speech laws, it is worthwhile to consider the fundamentals of what hate speech is and why is the freedom of speech such an important concept.

Hate Speech Definition

In considering this question, we should first consider what is ‘speech’? This is something that goes beyond mere verbal communication. It includes what you write, pictures, videos, music etc. According to US case law (Citizens United vs FEC (2010)), even the spending of money in the context of financing political campaign groups is viewed as a form of speech. Speech could therefore be described as the expression of ideas and viewpoints.

People often assume this is an obvious answer. They assume hate is just bad people saying bad things. But when you bring the weight of the law into the equation, definitions become incredibly important. Clear definitions are vital to ensure that the law can at least attempt to ensure consistency in its application.

It is arguably impossible to give the word hate a conclusive legal definition. The word is influenced by a wide spectrum of subjective, regional and societal factors. What is hate in one country, may not be in the other. What was hate a few decades ago, may not be today.

If you refer to the dictionary, hate is described as an intense or extremely strong dislike towards someone or something. It would be absurd to take this literally in a legal sense. It certainly should not be hate speech to say that you hate eating vegetables, or you hate our politicians.

This is because true political and ideological discourse cannot exist without opposing parties attacking each other’s ideas, often laced with hyperbole and extreme dislike for the other person’s viewpoint.

A quick look at the international treaties shows that the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) targets speech that justify or promote racial hatred. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement. It is clear that the word hate is used as a tool to denote a certain threshold after which certain types of speech becomes unacceptable.

The problem with this is that this threshold, at which speech becomes hate, is determined by societal conventions. There are serious risks in relying on social norms of morality when restricting speech. Social norms are determined through social arguments which are contested through society. It is the interplay between contrasting ideologies that make up culture itself. They are therefore, constantly in a state of flux, where new social norms are born and old ones fade away through public discourse. It is something ever-evolving and is very difficult to officiate.

Racist views used to be an official and accepted part of European cultural norms. In fact, one of the arguments against Jewish communities in Britain was that they could not assimilate into liberal western culture due to their Old Testament values. In the past, and even today in certain parts of the world, blasphemous speech such as denying the existence of God would certainly be considered hateful – and would get you imprisoned, or likely worse. Galileo, had to face the consequences of being convicted of heresy for his heliocentric views that it was actually the Earth that revolves around the Sun, rather than the other way around.

Social norms are disproportionately shaped by the majority opinion. By deciding through legislation what is culturally acceptable based on popular opinion – the intuitions of the hegemonic class will become entrenched in the societal system, at the expense of minority voices to the contrary. This ends up contradicting the original intention of protecting minority rights, and often could end up as a chimera for control over society.

I will add here that there should at the very least be a distinction between racist and religious speech. The right to offend is something of great value to society, and the particular nature of religion is that it is entirely ideological in nature. It represents the deeply subjective ideas that people hold and any views to the contrary are inevitably offensive to them. The views of an atheist will inevitably be highly offensive to the majority of religious people, but it would be absurd to deem that hate speech.

Hate speech legislation is something that should be approached with extreme caution. At the end of the day, it is a decision to be taken by society as to what degree of control over speech it is willing to give up in the name of security. History and culture often play a role in attitudes towards this – and Europe’s more restrictive laws on speech can be explained by its colonial and World War II past as opposed to the US’ more free speech centered, First Amendment approach.

Whilst there may be certain instances where restriction is necessary (such as direct incitement to violence) – mere offensiveness is a dangerous thing to legislate against. The chilling effect on democratic discourse that hate speech laws can have in the wrong hands provide plenty reason to be careful.

Importance of Free Speech

“I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

“Think for yourselves, and allow others the privilege to do so, too” – Voltaire.

It’s very easy in modern times to take this fundamental right for granted. People might question why they should defend the free speech of people who express views that they find so odious. Speech is the means through which an individual finds his place in society. By expressing oneself and contributing to public discourse, one is able to clarify what they think and to construct their own understanding of the world and their relationship to it.

The work of John Stuart Mill, written in the 1800’s, still remains incredibly pertinent today. Here are 3 key points summarized from his essay ‘On Liberty’:

1. Restricting speech always runs the risk of suppressing ideas which have value to society. It only strengthens the established view.
2. In an argument with opposing sides, usually each side will contain at least some degree of truth. And it is only when ideologies clash that the real truth is revealed.
3. Even if the established view is correct, if people are not repeatedly challenged by opposing views, they will only be indoctrinated and will be unable to justify their position when faced with the other side. Their ideas will be fragile and they will be unable to construct their own or effectively advocate their own viewpoints.

What Mill’s ideas show is that the restriction of free expression from public discourse always runs the risk of the stultification of societal progress.

The thing is, everyone loves free speech. Or at least – their own free speech. It’s the speech of other people that they become most concerned about. Hate speech laws have a history of being a rather ineffective way of countering a society’s problems. In the Weimar Republic of Germany, during the rise of the Nazis, there were established hate speech laws in place. Some of the most prominent Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels and Julius Streicher were prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. The effect of this was that they received the kind of public platform and attention that they would not have otherwise. It ended up reinvigorating their supporters. This isn’t to deny the terrible effect of Nazi propaganda in bolstering anti-Semitic views – but to show that hate speech laws aren’t always the magical answer to combatting dangerous ideologies.

Conclusion

Here in Sri Lanka, the response to recent communal riots was to temporarily ban social media. An extra-ordinary move indeed. We should ask ourselves whether it was Facebook that caused the riots in 1915, the 1970s, the 1980s. Or is it a convenient excuse to stifle criticism of the Government’s handling of the crisis and to ignore the root causes of these issues? It is often difficult to distinguish between speech that directly causes harmful views, and speech that is symptomatic of certain views developing within society.

Whenever faced with the question of restricting speech, consider who judges the judges of speech? If we can’t even trust the Government with the Central Bank – can we be confident in giving up our personal autonomy to allow the Government to decide what you can think and say? Would we give them the power to criminalize ideas over actions?

In the legal field, people call this the ‘slippery slope argument’ – that allowing one thing will risk opening the floodgates for all sorts of other bad things. But I would perhaps suggest, that giving up the power over speech to the Government such as this, would not only be a slippery slope – but a steep and dangerous cliff indeed.

Words are exceptionally incredible. They can be brutal. We generally hear ‘sticks and stones may break my bones, yet words will never hurt me’. But words do hurt. Numerous individuals fall subject to verbal tormenting. While we do have the right to speak freely of discourse in the United States, there ought to be an utmost on it. One key case of how words are so incredible is simply the Constitution. Words are emotional. So as to help anticipate any perplexity, we depend on constraints of implications. The manner in which that the Supreme Court rules dependent on their understanding of the Constitution is a constraint. There are consistent limitations on free discourse, regardless of whether we remember it or if we do not.

Hate speech, as referenced in the restricting contention, is very expansive. It’s difficult to state what is or isn’t contemptuous. Who gets the opportunity to choose that? I accept that as opposed to putting an expansive overall farthest point on that, we ought to have the option to self-manage. We ought to figure out how to perceive what detest discourse implies in different settings. For instance, on the off chance that we perceive that our speech is getting destructive to someone else, it ought to be disapproved of.

Free speech depends on genuineness, tranquility and utmost respect. I accept that everybody is qualified for their very own supposition. This is the feeling segment where we enable that the right to speak freedom of speech to happen. In any case, a line must be drawn some of the time. For instance, an assessment that advances the possibility of something, for example, the Holocaust or annihilation where a huge number of individuals were murdered is unsatisfactory. It compromises the wellbeing and security of a huge number of more individuals. In an outlet intended to educate, we can’t consider freedom of speech, lamentably. Similarly as there are social limits, there should be limits for speech.

In general, anybody heaving hate to a crowd of people, particularly on a rehashed basis, could be considered criminally mindful. This would incorporate journalists, politicians, bloggers and hosts of online gatherings, and radical gatherings that focus on specific classes of individuals. We likewise need to consider individuals in responsible situations to a better quality, for example, government representatives and contractors, religious leaders, CEOs, and such.

The clear supposition of free speech protectors is that hostile speech is basically harmless—that is, simply words with no obvious connect to outcomes. In any case, addressing whether speech can truly affect somebody to awful conduct appears to be unreliably coldhearted. Clearly, words have outcomes and as often as possible motivate activities. A basic role of language is to speak with others so as to impact them. In the event that that weren’t in this way, there would be no multi-billion dollar promoting industry, no crusades for political office, no motivational speakers or books, no resident drove petitions, no public service announcements, and no congregation lessons, alongside a horde of other demonstrated models where speech drives others to act.

The most prominent answer for the issue of hate speech is ‘more free speech’. This appears to bode well superficially, and in some cases functions admirably practically speaking. For instance, there are numerous straightforward atheists who work admirably of freely guarding themselves and their kindred skeptics from the bias and scorn time and again communicated by strict individuals. Be that as it may, regardless of whether the objectives of contempt can capably shield themselves from verbal savagery, for what reason would it be a good idea for them to need to? For what reason should an equitable society benefit the privilege to free discourse over the prosperity and protection of those with less benefit?

The right to speak free speech ended up being a controversial contention, whether the demonstration itself ought to be confined by the government. Restricting the opportunity of articulation should securely express that it obviously lessens hate speech, for example, racial segregation, etc. Through these decreases, the embodiment of the right to speak freely can genuinely be seen. Activities confining conduct and moderating laws additionally assume a significant job in keeping up social connections between the gatherings. The substance of the right to speak freely carries undue capacity to individuals. You can perceive how to acquaint another law with diminish these power. As opportunity of articulation keeps on being a particular in that spot might be more limitations to more readily adjust to the necessities of the all inclusive community and to decrease the mischief brought about by individuals’ speech. Along these lines, what’s to come is looking for forward as rights can be utilized in the correct manner they are planned to be utilized.

The possibility that defenseless people and gatherings ought to need to endure hate speech against them for the sake of opportunity of articulation—regularly over decades or a lifetime—is hostile. We’re discussing people groups’ lives all things considered—this isn’t only a philosophical discussion. The privilege to free discourse is an essential worth, yet it ought not be permitted to exceed the fundamental human privileges of others, particularly their entitlement to life.

In a time of marches, Twitter debates, and mainstream politics this country is as divided as it has ever been with very few issues being bipartisan. The issue that must have agreement from both sides of the political spectrum that must stay a universal truth is free speech.

Freedom of speech is one of the most essentials rights we have as Americans, it drives public discourse and helps others strengthen or change their opinion. But over recent years we have seen some come out with a term called ‘hate speech’. I use scare quotes around hate speech because no one truly knows the definition of it and it changes on a case-by-case basis. Hate speech is described by Google as “speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation”. Now we can all agree that anyone who is racist, sexist or homophobic is a bigot and that’s the lowest of the low. But after all, even horrific opinions are protected under the First Amendment as long as they are not threatening or harming another person. As someone who prides themselves as being a centrist and not a puppet for either the democrats or republicans, I find myself on different sides on multiple occasions, such as having the opinion that women should have the right to choose and that the 2nd Amendment is necessary to keep our other rights from a possible tyrannical government. The worst case of this in recent memory had to be on February 1st, where right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos made an appearance at Berkeley College in California. Protest and riots caused more than $100,000 worth of damage to the campus all for one man and the reason is that of hate speech, which we should all agree. Someone such as Milo whom himself calls provocative should not have to fear for his life just because people disagree with him.

Free speech is meant to have everyone speak their ideas and from there as a public, we decide what is acceptable but for that line to be drawn, we must first be able to hear it and not shut it down with tagging it with the word ‘hate speech’ or any other label that may come its way. Every time this subject is brought up, I urge my peers to reconsider the inflammatory rhetoric used, sadly there is only so much I can do as a person especially if I am the on the receiving end of the blowback. This is an issue where we shouldn’t try to take someone’s right away, but when the mob comes knocking no matter what political affiliation, I take a stand and am ready to die on this hill to protect others rights to speak their mind about any issue after all it was the 1st Amendment that helped with getting the civil rights movement up and running, gay marriage legalized and bring light to mental health.

First, let me introduce and explain to you the meaning of free speech. Free speech means independent thought, free thinking and delivering our opinion or thinking in front of people, parties or government without any fear. Where people have right to worshiping, writing and speaking their own ideas in all fields of life (Machan, 2010). The paper will argue that the liberal parties oppose the free speech right in the Constitution and have provided more rights of freedom for worshiping, writing and speaking or toward the gender inequality. Well, the government hasn’t shown any favoritism towards any particular religious creed.

Free speech has been used since I was born, it is the best right provided in the Constitution to express our feeling thought, ideas to the government without being under the pressure of anyone. The public media is the main source or medium by which the people’s speech or voice is reached to the government (Kenyon, 2014).

From the point of view of West, speech in America today is less free than it used to be in early establishments of liberals in U.S. Now, people have free speech in restricted areas of access. It now limits speech by certain classes in political aspects of the country (West, 2004). Government now imposes a ban on people who spend huge chunks of money to publish their own thoughts in regard to any political leader. Government can become enemy of liberty, as it is responsible for securing liberty. If the government fails to protect liberty of people, it could be the result of most scholars writing on the topic of free speech (West, 2004).

For more periods of time, the judges thought that the First Amendment was not suitable at the local and state level so on these there was many discussions and quotes that was being held but none of them in fair manner, they totally given their attention on giving the criminals the punishment rather than giving the priorities to the restrains (Seidmen, 2018, p. 2226). From the civil war timing to the World War I, there were great changes as all the member, jurisdiction they opposed the free to speech claim right, the decisions made by federal court and the state court was not followed or we can say was prohibited for that time (Seidmen, 2018, p. 2226). Same thing continued for the World War II, radicals were poorly fared or leaved but these changes were made only because the free to speech is needed to be protected from libertarian theory (Seidmen, 2018, p. 2227). The same thing happened in World War II, the court focused more on criminal conviction and shooting the peoples for their political agendas, everyone was afraid that the court has taken away their free speech law from them (Seidmen, 2018, p. 2227).

Moving further it is well written by A.J. Liebling that “freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one” (Seidmen, 2018, p. 2232). The point supported free speech by Cooley and Sutherland point is not remembered by the conservative libertarian of our previous century peoples, 19 and 20th century peoples which they used to protect the properties right and their expensive through the right of speech (Ely, 2004, p. 178), but here they support the free speech. They gave equal respect and equal protection for both the free speech and their regard toward the private properties. They think that these both factors are both equally important to run the democratic sphere or run the government in smooth and perfect manner (Ely, 2004, p. 178).

In the conclusion, the liberalism, from the past time they have been opposing the free speech right in many prospective and we have a clear-cut idea that they are using their power and gaining the peoples sympathy by only saying that that they will support the people by they do not imply it. On the other hand, in my big point 3, I showed some evidences that support the people’s free speech as they pay their equal regard toward the private properties and toward the free speech. My thesis statement raises and explains the concept how they are linked (the liberalism and free speech right in the Constitution). This also show how different people have different point to their judgement. Some are in the favor and some are against it. So free to speech is not something that everyone is born with in some places this right is written in constitution but not implied for peoples good.

So, in my opinion, I would like to say that free speech is very important for everyone for the peoples and also for the government because I think, if the people would not be given the right to express their feeling and thought, what they think, what changes they want in the society, then they might become frustrated and in some even rebellion who stands against the government for their right. It is always best to listen to others view, there might be something that could be beneficial for everyone and now a days modern liberal parties are focusing on such issues to provide gender equality, providing peoples with their proper rights and working for the welfare of the country.

Work Cited

1. Machan, T. R. (2010). THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, WORSHIP, AND PRIVATE PROPERTY. Geopolitics, History and International Relations, 2(2), 91-99. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.kpu.ca:2443/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.kpu.ca:2443/docview/851302075?accountid=35875
2. West, T. G. (2004). Free speech in the american founding and in modern liberalism. Social Philosophy & Policy, 21(2), 310-384. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.kpu.ca:2080/10.1017/S0265052504212110
3. Seidman, L. M. (2018). CAN FREE SPEECH BE PROGRESSIVE? Columbia Law Review, 118(7), 2219-2249. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.kpu.ca:2443/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.kpu.ca:2443/docview/2158142588?accountid=35875
4. Ely,James W.,,Jr. (2004). PROPERTY RIGHTS AND FREE SPEECH: ALLIES OR ENEMIES? Social Philosophy & Policy, 21(2), 177. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.kpu.ca:2080/10.1017/S0265052504212079
5. Kenyon, A. T. (2014). Free-media-speech: Free speech and public media. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 10(2), 155-162. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.kpu.ca:2080/10.1386/macp.10.2.155_1

The question of public speech and its regulation presents itself as an enduring question for philosophical thinkers. To understand the nature of speech, and the extent to which it should be limited, this essay will take numerous steps. First, examining the reasons that freedom of speech is defended by philosopher John Stuart Mill in his work ‘On Liberty’. Second, analyzing the implications of Mill basing his theory in certain assumptions about reason and developing a new theory of speech immune from such criticisms. Third, comparing Mill’s framework to our own through analyzing their application to modern controversies over free speech. Finally, discussing potential responses from Mill to the criticisms raised throughout the essay.

First, Mill’s argument regarding freedom of speech begins with him placing all speech into one of two categories – true or false (Mill, 2001, p. 19). Mill claims that it is impossible to know for certain if speech is false and, even if we did, there is redeeming value in false speech because it can increase our understanding of the truth or contain an element of truth within it (Mill, 2001, p. 19). From the outset it is clear that Mill approaches the issue of speech from a framework of rationality – hence the distinctive categories. It is from this belief in the rationality of the individual that Mill arrives at his generalized claim, known as the ‘Harm Principle’, that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community is to prevent harm to others” (Mill, 2001, p. 13). For Mill, exceptions to unfettered speech occur only when bystanders may be harmed by the freedom of others and such harm is both physical and immediate. Mill provides the example of an angry mob galvanized against an individual as a result of a pamphlet and states that such speech ought to be limited given its effects (Mill, 2001, p. 52).

However, Mill does not ground his defence of free speech in an abstract notion of individual sovereignty or a principle of non-interference. Mill is a utilitarian and considers, “utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical manners” (Mill, 2001, p. 14). His overwhelming concern is with the development of mankind which he sees best fostered through the liberation of the individual. This applies especially to speech, intimately connected to thought, with Mill arguing for freedom of speech as the first step on the road to truth. In short, Mill places faith in the speech of the individual not because it is right but because, in the long-run, it will be beneficial to humanity. This is an expression of Mill’s belief that man’s innate rationality will eventually bear positive results when it is not interfered with.

Second, Mill’s argument requires an assumption about human nature – the capacity to voluntarily exercise reason. This is because speech is only in the “permanent interest of man as a progressive being” if it contributes towards the pursuit of truth (Mill, 2001, p. 14). If speech is purely emotive, rather than rational, allowing such speech to flourish is not by necessity an inherently good idea.

There are two alternative views of speech that ought to be considered in place of Mill’s rational conception: self-interest and self-expression. First, speech as self-interest. In this view, speech always reflects the interest of the individual, consciously or not. What we say is not really ‘ours’ but rather the product of our social identity and sociological forces outside of our control. Whilst individuals may sincerely believe that their beliefs transcend interest, that they approximate values, this is not the case.

Second, speech as self-expression. From this perspective, human beings do not have the capacity to produce an idea independent of their desires. The human mind produces rationalizations for biologically pre-determined actions, it does not truly decide between options. Such a viewpoint was expressed famously by philosopher David Hume when he wrote, “Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them” (Hume, 2017, p. 188).

The existence of this philosophical tension is problematic because Mill’s argument depends on the idea that there is always a chance that we are incorrect, or that false claims will contribute in some form to the truth. Mill’s argument is grounded in a profound skepticism of certainty because if we knew the absolute truth there would be no utility to the discourse he describes. However, his own argument is predicated on an assumption he must make with certainty. The very existence of free speech assumes the capacity of individuals to exercise rational agency. Mill, preoccupied with the limits of free speech, has taken for granted both its existence and its rational nature and, in doing so, undermined his argument for its value.

Therefore, it is necessary to develop an account of speech’s worth that does not depend on a controversial understanding of reason. Speech is valuable not because of its substance but due to what it represents – speech is the outward manifestation of individual thought and cannot be separated from it. Speech has inherent value for the individual because it is necessary for the pursuit of knowledge, which itself is integral to human wellbeing. It is therefore wrong, in most cases, to limit public speech. Not because of the social impact but because it would constrain an individual’s quest for knowledge and that quest is integral to their wellbeing.

From this perspective, speech is worthy of public limitation only when it directly undermines an objective good that is equal to knowledge in its centrality to human wellbeing. An example is the good of ‘life’: speech that clearly undermines any individual’s capacity to experience life in its fullness is worthy of limitation. Discriminatory speech, that characterizes certain individuals as unequal members of the human family would be such an example. Due to the fact that such conclusions differ based on one’s description of wellbeing, this approach accommodates diverse views of human nature.

Furthermore, these claims are insulated from the earlier criticism applied to Mill because the individual quest for knowledge need not necessarily be ordered towards objective truth. Even if all speech is merely self-expression, thought remains integral to the wellbeing of the individual.

Third, in order to properly grasp the question at hand, one must understand exactly who is limiting public speech. It cannot be assumed that the identity of the agent limiting speech will not change the desirable level of limitation. We will consider contemporary questions of free speech in both the law and in the university and compare the implications of Mill’s and our own philosophical framework.

First, the law. In Australia much has been made over the controversy surrounding Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act which prohibits speech that is reasonably likely to, “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” (Parliament of Australia, 1986). Prohibiting speech in this way would be seen as wrong by both Mill and our own theory. Under this essay’s framework, offence and insult are not serious enough to truly threaten any element of wellbeing. More extreme examples, as raised earlier, could certainly justify limitations on speech. However, from Mill’s perspective, it would be necessary for any physical harm presented by the speech to be both serious and immediate for limitations to be justifiable.

Second, should universities host speakers who give deliberately provocative speeches and have a record of dismissing academic norms? Mill’s theory struggles to provide an answer because it takes for granted that the purpose of all discussion is to pursue reason, to engage in Socratic dialogue. However, as this contemporary example demonstrates, sometimes the purpose of a discussion is not knowledge but reaction. In contrast, the wellbeing-based theory as developed earlier in the essay can acknowledge that certain institutions exist to develop specific elements of wellbeing. Insofar as the pursuit of knowledge is the purpose of academic institutions, not harm minimization, they ought not to permit speakers who do not conform to any one of their stated norms.

Finally, there are two criticisms that Mill could mount against this essay and the theory that has been developed. First, Mill could assert that his account of human nature reason’s objectivity is true, and he need not account for alternative viewpoints. His argument need not be free of controversial axioms, it just has to be correct. Second, Mill could point to the individualistic definition of speech’s value as mistaken. Speech, unlike thinking, is a collective task because we cannot communicate without doing it to someone. Mill could argue that defending speech through individual wellbeing creates an individual right over a collective domain of action. This principle would, in effect, undermine the feeling of mutual obligation that is necessary for constructive dialogue to occur.

This essay has arrived at the conclusion that public limits on speech are determined by two questions. First, what is it about free speech that we value? Second, who is it placing limits on speech? As a result of this, we have developed a theory, through analyzing the work of John Stuart Mill, that locates speech’s value in its inextricable relationship to thought. The pursuit of knowledge should be limited only when it undermines something equally integral to human wellbeing. As such, different theories of wellbeing may produce diverse conclusions on the limitation of speech. Furthermore, such limitations ought to differ between institutions only insofar as their central purpose differs.

Introduction

Freedom of speech must be allowed in higher education institutions. The reason for this is that it is a core value in the democratic process, and it ensures that people can discuss exchange and debate ideas. The important thing is that it pursues knowledge and protects one’s dignity. Hyman. J (2008, p10)

Freedom of speech is a key part of higher education institutions, which allows students to expand their way of thinking about specific topics. Each student has a different view on each topic. By allowing students to express their views and discuss their views freely, other people can have different views on different topics. In addition, by allowing students the right to freedom of speech, they can be protected from the real world. Hancock.M (2008, p. 2) According to an article in ‘FIRE’, there is a university that only allows students to have freedom of speech in a certain area of u200bu200bthe campus. San Francisco State University (SFSU) is one of the universities that has been violated. Students are afraid to fight for their beliefs. Although their constitutional rights guarantee their freedom to demonstrate peacefully. This should not be allowed because it deprives them of their right to freedom of speech. As higher education students, they should be allowed to express their different opinions throughout the classroom and outside the school. Because universities do not allow students to have freedom of speech, they do not know how to respect the opinions of others in a respectful way, and it also undermines the ideals of general education. It is also important that students have the right to freedom of speech. Colleges and universities provide students with political associations and trade unions on all campuses so that they have the right to express themselves through free speech. Be told to adults. General education is important for innovation because some countries have cases of diversity and complexity that need to be reviewed. Hancock. M (2008, p. 15)

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes freedom of religion, petitions, assemblies, the press, and speech, and was passed in 1791 (the Bill of Rights of 1791). People question the extent of their freedom under the First Amendment, and free speech is the most misunderstood of the five elements because it has been discussed many times in court. Faced with the issue of freedom of public expression, it is not surprising that when public schools with large numbers of adolescents and children implement freedom of expression, this issue has become a hot topic of debate on whether students should be fully protected. First Amendment. Hudson. L (2012, page 10) Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (December 10, 1948) recognizes that freedom of speech is a human right. This right includes the freedom to express opinions without interference and the freedom to seek and receive in any way. And the freedom to disseminate information.

The Supreme Court also admitted that the government has blocked some speech that may lead to violence, and that the right to freedom of speech also includes the dissemination of information in other media. For a speech that is less protected and less protected, it is necessary to promote illegal behavior and fights. All these types of speech, commercial speech, and obscene content involve legal activities, and it is stipulated that speech must not be misleading. Hudson. L (2012, p. 25) Freedom of speech is a series of activities involved in the production of knowledge because it is one of the basic pillars of social construction. The book ‘University Ideas states that higher education institutions must commit to accepting different perspectives and free inquiry. This is a powerful argument because ‘David Isaac firmly believes that religion and knowledge are not mutually opposed, but inseparable. Some of our communities are increasingly made up of people from different communities with different perspectives and different lives. For this or the role of society as a whole, we must ensure that our foundation is based on common values u200bu200bof tolerance, understanding, and mutual respect. Isaac. (2019, p. 8) C

Conclusion

Freedom of expression is a core value in the democratic process and a key part of the educational experience because it provides insight into how to respect the norms and beliefs of others. Nishio (2017, p2) This includes the right to wear religious clothing, speak about their beliefs or participate in religious worship. This is a restriction on it. Although as far as public authorities are concerned, they cannot interfere with your right to maintain or change your beliefs, in some cases, public authorities may interfere with your expression or display of your thoughts, beliefs, and religious beliefs Rights, only when the authorities can prove the legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality of the protection of public security, order, etc. Cheerful (2017, p72)

Reference

1. Heyman.J. (2008). Freedom of expression and the tradition of natural rights, p2
2. Nishio. j. (2017). Freedom does not mean what we want to do or say.
3. (2), page 25 3. Hudson, L. (2012). First Amendment: Freedom of speech. Frequency update for legal changes, page 254
4. Isaac D. (2019). Freedom of speech in education: the foundation of an effective society. University Philosophy, p8
5. Alegre S. (2017). Freedom of thought, belief, and religion, as well as freedom of expression and opinion. The Human Rights of Immigrants in the 21st Century, p72 77

Introduction

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to express their opinions, share information, and engage in open dialogue. However, in many countries, including Iran, the exercise of this right is heavily restricted and met with significant challenges. This essay critically examines the state of freedom of speech in Iran, exploring the underlying factors, the impact of restrictions, and the potential consequences for society.

Legal Framework and Restrictive Policies

In Iran, freedom of speech is constrained by a complex legal framework that includes laws and regulations targeting dissenting voices. The Iranian government controls media outlets, monitors online activities, and enforces strict censorship. Laws such as the Press Law, Cybercrime Law, and the Islamic Penal Code are often used to suppress free expression and dissenting opinions. Journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens who voice criticism or challenge the government’s narrative are frequently subjected to harassment, imprisonment, or even violence.

Media Control and Censorship

The Iranian government exercises extensive control over media outlets, allowing only state-sanctioned sources to operate. Independent journalism is severely limited, and journalists face constant surveillance and intimidation. News coverage is heavily censored, particularly on sensitive topics such as politics, human rights abuses, and religious criticism. The lack of media diversity hampers the free flow of information and inhibits public discourse, leading to an environment of self-censorship and limited access to alternative viewpoints.

Internet Restrictions and Digital Surveillance

Internet censorship and surveillance in Iran pose significant challenges to freedom of speech. The government employs sophisticated techniques to control online content and monitor citizens’ activities. Social media platforms and messaging apps are routinely blocked or heavily monitored, preventing the free exchange of ideas and inhibiting online activism. The pervasive surveillance apparatus creates an atmosphere of fear, discouraging individuals from expressing their true opinions and participating in open discussions.

Repression of Dissent and Human Rights Activism

In Iran, individuals who engage in human rights activism and express dissenting opinions are subjected to persecution and harassment. Activists, journalists, and political opponents are arrested, detained, and often face unfair trials. The Iranian government employs a range of tactics, including arbitrary arrests, forced confessions, and harsh prison sentences, to suppress dissent and maintain control. This repression stifles critical voices, limits public discourse, and creates an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship.

Consequences for Society

The curtailment of freedom of speech in Iran has far-reaching consequences for society. The lack of open dialogue and diverse opinions hinders social progress, impedes the development of democratic institutions, and perpetuates a culture of secrecy and fear. Citizens’ inability to freely express their grievances and concerns restricts their participation in shaping the future of the nation. The suppression of freedom of speech also undermines transparency, accountability, and the protection of human rights, hindering Iran’s potential for social and political development.

Conclusion

The challenges surrounding freedom of speech in Iran are substantial and have a profound impact on the country’s society, democracy, and human rights. The restrictive legal framework, media control, internet censorship, and repression of dissent all contribute to an environment that stifles free expression and hampers the progress of the nation. It is crucial for international organizations, civil society groups, and individuals worldwide to advocate for the protection of freedom of speech in Iran and to support those who courageously strive for the right to express their opinions and engage in open dialogue. Only through the promotion of free speech can Iran move towards a more inclusive and democratic society that respects the diverse perspectives and voices of its citizens.

Introduction

Freedom of speech must be allowed in higher education institutions. The reason for this is that it is a core value in the democratic process, and it ensures that people can discuss exchange and debate ideas. The important thing is that it pursues knowledge and protects one’s dignity. Hyman. J (2008, p10)

Freedom of speech is a key part of higher education institutions, which allows students to expand their way of thinking about specific topics. Each student has a different view on each topic. By allowing students to express their views and discuss their views freely, other people can have different views on different topics. In addition, by allowing students the right to freedom of speech, they can be protected from the real world. Hancock.M (2008, p. 2) According to an article in ‘FIRE’, there is a university that only allows students to have freedom of speech in a certain area of u200bu200bthe campus. San Francisco State University (SFSU) is one of the universities that has been violated. Students are afraid to fight for their beliefs. Although their constitutional rights guarantee their freedom to demonstrate peacefully. This should not be allowed because it deprives them of their right to freedom of speech. As higher education students, they should be allowed to express their different opinions throughout the classroom and outside the school. Because universities do not allow students to have freedom of speech, they do not know how to respect the opinions of others in a respectful way, and it also undermines the ideals of general education. It is also important that students have the right to freedom of speech. Colleges and universities provide students with political associations and trade unions on all campuses so that they have the right to express themselves through free speech. Be told to adults. General education is important for innovation because some countries have cases of diversity and complexity that need to be reviewed. Hancock. M (2008, p. 15)

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes freedom of religion, petitions, assemblies, the press, and speech, and was passed in 1791 (the Bill of Rights of 1791). People question the extent of their freedom under the First Amendment, and free speech is the most misunderstood of the five elements because it has been discussed many times in court. Faced with the issue of freedom of public expression, it is not surprising that when public schools with large numbers of adolescents and children implement freedom of expression, this issue has become a hot topic of debate on whether students should be fully protected. First Amendment. Hudson. L (2012, page 10) Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (December 10, 1948) recognizes that freedom of speech is a human right. This right includes the freedom to express opinions without interference and the freedom to seek and receive in any way. And the freedom to disseminate information.

The Supreme Court also admitted that the government has blocked some speech that may lead to violence, and that the right to freedom of speech also includes the dissemination of information in other media. For a speech that is less protected and less protected, it is necessary to promote illegal behavior and fights. All these types of speech, commercial speech, and obscene content involve legal activities, and it is stipulated that speech must not be misleading. Hudson. L (2012, p. 25) Freedom of speech is a series of activities involved in the production of knowledge because it is one of the basic pillars of social construction. The book ‘University Ideas states that higher education institutions must commit to accepting different perspectives and free inquiry. This is a powerful argument because ‘David Isaac firmly believes that religion and knowledge are not mutually opposed, but inseparable. Some of our communities are increasingly made up of people from different communities with different perspectives and different lives. For this or the role of society as a whole, we must ensure that our foundation is based on common values u200bu200bof tolerance, understanding, and mutual respect. Isaac. (2019, p. 8) C

Conclusion

Freedom of expression is a core value in the democratic process and a key part of the educational experience because it provides insight into how to respect the norms and beliefs of others. Nishio (2017, p2) This includes the right to wear religious clothing, speak about their beliefs or participate in religious worship. This is a restriction on it. Although as far as public authorities are concerned, they cannot interfere with your right to maintain or change your beliefs, in some cases, public authorities may interfere with your expression or display of your thoughts, beliefs, and religious beliefs Rights, only when the authorities can prove the legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality of the protection of public security, order, etc. Cheerful (2017, p72)

Reference

1. Heyman.J. (2008). Freedom of expression and the tradition of natural rights, p2
2. Nishio. j. (2017). Freedom does not mean what we want to do or say.
3. (2), page 25 3. Hudson, L. (2012). First Amendment: Freedom of speech. Frequency update for legal changes, page 254
4. Isaac D. (2019). Freedom of speech in education: the foundation of an effective society. University Philosophy, p8
5. Alegre S. (2017). Freedom of thought, belief, and religion, as well as freedom of expression and opinion. The Human Rights of Immigrants in the 21st Century, p72 77

Introduction

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to express their opinions, share information, and engage in open dialogue. However, in many countries, including Iran, the exercise of this right is heavily restricted and met with significant challenges. This essay critically examines the state of freedom of speech in Iran, exploring the underlying factors, the impact of restrictions, and the potential consequences for society.

Legal Framework and Restrictive Policies

In Iran, freedom of speech is constrained by a complex legal framework that includes laws and regulations targeting dissenting voices. The Iranian government controls media outlets, monitors online activities, and enforces strict censorship. Laws such as the Press Law, Cybercrime Law, and the Islamic Penal Code are often used to suppress free expression and dissenting opinions. Journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens who voice criticism or challenge the government’s narrative are frequently subjected to harassment, imprisonment, or even violence.

Media Control and Censorship

The Iranian government exercises extensive control over media outlets, allowing only state-sanctioned sources to operate. Independent journalism is severely limited, and journalists face constant surveillance and intimidation. News coverage is heavily censored, particularly on sensitive topics such as politics, human rights abuses, and religious criticism. The lack of media diversity hampers the free flow of information and inhibits public discourse, leading to an environment of self-censorship and limited access to alternative viewpoints.

Internet Restrictions and Digital Surveillance

Internet censorship and surveillance in Iran pose significant challenges to freedom of speech. The government employs sophisticated techniques to control online content and monitor citizens’ activities. Social media platforms and messaging apps are routinely blocked or heavily monitored, preventing the free exchange of ideas and inhibiting online activism. The pervasive surveillance apparatus creates an atmosphere of fear, discouraging individuals from expressing their true opinions and participating in open discussions.

Repression of Dissent and Human Rights Activism

In Iran, individuals who engage in human rights activism and express dissenting opinions are subjected to persecution and harassment. Activists, journalists, and political opponents are arrested, detained, and often face unfair trials. The Iranian government employs a range of tactics, including arbitrary arrests, forced confessions, and harsh prison sentences, to suppress dissent and maintain control. This repression stifles critical voices, limits public discourse, and creates an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship.

Consequences for Society

The curtailment of freedom of speech in Iran has far-reaching consequences for society. The lack of open dialogue and diverse opinions hinders social progress, impedes the development of democratic institutions, and perpetuates a culture of secrecy and fear. Citizens’ inability to freely express their grievances and concerns restricts their participation in shaping the future of the nation. The suppression of freedom of speech also undermines transparency, accountability, and the protection of human rights, hindering Iran’s potential for social and political development.

Conclusion

The challenges surrounding freedom of speech in Iran are substantial and have a profound impact on the country’s society, democracy, and human rights. The restrictive legal framework, media control, internet censorship, and repression of dissent all contribute to an environment that stifles free expression and hampers the progress of the nation. It is crucial for international organizations, civil society groups, and individuals worldwide to advocate for the protection of freedom of speech in Iran and to support those who courageously strive for the right to express their opinions and engage in open dialogue. Only through the promotion of free speech can Iran move towards a more inclusive and democratic society that respects the diverse perspectives and voices of its citizens.

Every day 9 people are arrested for posting offensive online comments. That’s an 800% increase in the last few years based on Midlothian police statistics. Not only this, but the UK government agreed to squander 1 million pounds creating a new police force, which will arrest people for mean online comments while at the same time they have decreased the police founding. Every year the UK government more and more money into ‘guarding’ the Internet from trolls rather than guarding the streets where gang and knives violence has gone through the roof.

There are many cases of the government arresting or even banning people from the UK for publicly voicing their dissent against them. The most striking case being that of Lauren Southern a Canadian Right-Wing journalist, who was banned from entering the UK under section 7 (anti-terrorist law). She arrested after distributing flyers in Louton saying “Allah is Lesbian, Allah is gay, Allah is queer, Allah is bisexual, Allah is transsexual, Allah is all of us” after a VICE article was released with the title ‘Jesus is gay’. The whole idea behind Lauren’s distribution of flyers was to see the reaction of people when Jesus was substituted with Allah, since the article by VICE wasn’t criticized by anyone. Also, the timing outraged many people since at the same time 400 ISIS members returned to UK.

Another case which angered many people was that of Mark Meechan also known as Count Dankula. Meechan was arrest by the Scottish police arrested him after a video of him was uploaded teaching his girlfriend’s pug to do the Nazi salute while being told “Sig heil”. He did that because his girlfriend found her dog very cute and as he himself said on the video he thought that was the worst thing he could do. When asked in court why he did that he said: “As was already said in the video I don’t have any problems with Jews and I only did that to annoy my girlfriend since a Nazi was the worst thing I could think of”. At the end of the court which took 2 years to complete, Meechan was found guilty of ‘grossly offending’ comment was fined £800.

UK is no stranger to violations on Human rights since two years ago the DRIPA law (Data Retention an Investigatory Powers Act) was ruled unlawful, since it allowed security services to have access to phone and Internet record of individuals even if they weren’t a threat. During the court ruling it was found that DRIPA was used for other purposes that to fight serious crime, it was mostly used by city councils to crack down on issues such as dog fouling and littering, since it was allowed for public bodies to grant themselves access to information without proper independent oversight. Even after that the government spent £2million into a new unit the ‘thought police’. Reminiscing the thought police from George’s Orwell book 1984. The competence of the new unit is going to be investigating offensive comments from the Internet, the unit is going to be supported by an ‘army’ of volunteers reporting whatever they deem inappropriate. After the announcement of the new unit on twitter civil liberties campaigners raised fears that the new unit would stop people from expressing their opinion in fears of arrest and the risk of people that get offended by the least thing will now be able to report that to the police. The most notorious case of over-reaction was when MP Thangam Debbonaire reported Verity Phillips a 20-years old student for telling her “should not get in the sea”, with the reply of the politician being “This person told me to drown – I believe that is a threat to kill”.

UK is already the most surveilled country in the world, there is 1 camera for 11 people but not only that UK is slowly turning to a dystopian totalitarian state. The government is trying to pass bills without anyone knowing, the censorship bill is trying to regulate adult content on the Internet, essentially when you visit adult sites you will be required to verify your age with third-party organization such as mobile phone network or national health service. That’s not all though, this bill is going to be a requirement in all websites even those who are not dedicated to adult content but have some like Reddit. If those websites don’t agree they will be blocked. This means it’s quite likely for plenty of websites with mostly non-graphic content will be blocked thanks to a small amount of that material in their servers. Given that most of those websites are likely to be forums and message boards has serious implications on free speech.

Sources

1. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mark+meechan&oq=mark+mee&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0j69i59j0.2476j0j4&client=ms-android-xiaomi&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
2. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.rt.com/uk/422336-southern-racist-banned-gay/amp/
3. https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/dripa-surveillance-ruled-unlawful
4. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3739348/amp/Scotland-Yard-ploughs-2million-new-thought-police-unit-snoop-web-users-hunt-trolls.html